TheRPGSite

Why SJW Entryists won't be able to really destroy D&D like they have certain other pop culture hobbies.


[video=youtube_share;oaUwY1stOFU]https://youtu.be/oaUwY1stOFU[/youtube]

Quote from: RPGPundit;1079139Why SJW Entryists won't be able to really destroy D&D like they have certain other pop culture hobbies.


[video=youtube_share;oaUwY1stOFU]https://youtu.be/oaUwY1stOFU[/youtube]

Smart play, adding the 5E PHB to the screenshot; especially since you actually contributed to it.  I own both books; and they each have RPGPundit either on, or inside of them.

Can anyone even imagine a post D&D tabletop rpg hobby?

I am sad to see Pundit fall down the Comicsgate hole. For I can not see any failure of comics when it produces things like Saga, Monstress, Locke & Key on a regular basis. Rather Comicsgate is a sad movement of failed characters.

And the same for DnD. I have a hard time to see any of the tendencies that Pundit is talking about in the video.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079233Can anyone even imagine a post D&D tabletop rpg hobby?

Even if WOTC didn't step in, someone would have eventually bought the TSR IP after they had declared bankruptcy.

A 3e would have come out and the hobby would have rolled on even if it didn't. (Some form of D&D clone would have taken its place.)

Now, post OGL, it just gets easier to do the clone...

If "D&D" as a brand name gets shelved for some reason, then it will be merely a contest on who can make the most popular clone.

Everyone will try to be the new 'pathfinder' which will become the new 'D&D' by default.

But there are really only a few companies that are in a position to do such a thing. So we would see this 3-4 way fight for a few years until one company eventually came out on top.

A lot would depend on who would be the first to react fast enough, with a good enough game, and with enough content to fill the void of a D&D withdrawal.

And I don't think it would necessarily be who would seem to be the obvious pick for that position now.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079233Can anyone even imagine a post D&D tabletop rpg hobby?

Once more, I am German, so: yes. It's very easy actually. D&D is just one game of many in my circles. Sure, it holds some esteem for being the origin of the hobby but that's it. There's just too many more interesting settings and systems out there.

Which is why I would want the RPG industry have more than one household name. Preferably a game that plays very differently and that isn't fantasy.

Quote from: Jaeger;1079240If "D&D" as a brand name gets shelved for some reason, then it will be merely a contest on who can make the most popular clone.

Everyone will try to be the new 'pathfinder' which will become the new 'D&D' by default.

This sounds both entirely realistic and depressingly limited at the same time. The mindset of the American RPG community, looked at as a whole, not gonna lie, is baffling.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079233Can anyone even imagine a post D&D tabletop rpg hobby?

It's easy to imagine a post-D&D RPG hobby. It was the 1990s.

Quote from: Jaeger;1079240If "D&D" as a brand name gets shelved for some reason, then it will be merely a contest on who can make the most popular clone.

Everyone will try to be the new 'pathfinder' which will become the new 'D&D' by default.

Without D&D, the hobby will be so small that no one will even try to make an RPG. It's happening how where the biggest game store in Dallas, Madness, went from 8 shelves of RPG products, down to 4, and is now at just 2. All in about 10 years. Most of their RPG section is miniatures.  The same thing happened to comics which is how half the size that it used to be.

Meanwhile, the boardgame section has grown to fill all that space.

The future of RPGs is some split between boardgames and video games.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1079261Without D&D, the hobby will be so small that no one will even try to make an RPG. It's happening how where the biggest game store in Dallas, Madness, went from 8 shelves of RPG products, down to 4, and is now at just 2. All in about 10 years. Most of their RPG section is miniatures.  The same thing happened to comics which is how half the size that it used to be.

Meanwhile, the boardgame section has grown to fill all that space.

The future of RPGs is some split between boardgames and video games.

I remember in the 80's when people were saying the future of RPGs was video games. :)
Board games are big right now, my local game pub is usually packed, but there's also regular minis (Mostly X-Wing and Armada), chit and map wargamers, Pokemon, MTG and some regular RPG groups. I don't think boardgames are going to supplant RPGs any more than collectible card games did(nt).

Caveat - I haven't watched the video yet. I'm just responding to what is said on the thread here.

Quote from: JaegerIf "D&D" as a brand name gets shelved for some reason, then it will be merely a contest on who can make the most popular clone.

Everyone will try to be the new 'pathfinder' which will become the new 'D&D' by default.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079252This sounds both entirely realistic and depressingly limited at the same time. The mindset of the American RPG community, looked at as a whole, not gonna lie, is baffling.

Still - it's not entirely off-base, though, right?  I mean, Das Schwarze Auge is still the most popular RPG in Germany, isn't it?  While there are many differences, I think it's pretty fair to describe DSA as a D&D replacement. It's Tolkienesque fantasy with character classes, at least.

At the same time, I think you're preferring more variety of RPGs - and I'm with you there. I'd love to see more successful alternatives.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1079261Without D&D, the hobby will be so small that no one will even try to make an RPG. It's happening how where the biggest game store in Dallas, Madness, went from 8 shelves of RPG products, down to 4, and is now at just 2. All in about 10 years. Most of their RPG section is miniatures.  The same thing happened to comics which is how half the size that it used to be.

Meanwhile, the boardgame section has grown to fill all that space.

The future of RPGs is some split between boardgames and video games.

Tons of people produce RPGs for free - some even with pretty amazing production values. RPGs would unquestionably continue to be produced, though the number and variety would be reduced. The great thing about tabletop RPGs - compared to video games - is that it's easily do-it-yourself (DIY).

On the other hand, even though it isn't necessary, it's still fine to have D&D as the main entry for the hobby. I didn't play D&D for many years, but I still think it was fine to have D&D out there. I think most of the second-tier RPGs like GURPS have players who tried D&D and wanted to find something similar but more to their tastes.

Short synopsis of the video:

• D&D will never die, because the OGL ensures it will survive forever. Even if WOTC collapses, or SJWs destroy the hobby, people will always be able to create OSR games.
• WOTC is trying to move the hobby from gaming to a "lifestyle brand" where people buy books to read rather than to actually game with.
• In the near future, consumers will buy D&D products to feel like they "belong to a community" rather than to actually game.
• The next edition of D&D will probably be a Woke Storygame, which will be a financial disaster.
• The SJW movement will ultimately fail, but the situation for gaming will get worse before it gets better.

I found the third bullet particularly insightful.

The OGL wasn't needed for the hobby to survive. It just gave permission to people who needed permission. Guys like Kevin Siembieda and Ken St. Andre didn't need permission to ripoff D&D and publish their own crazy thing. Kevin Crawford (Sine Nomine) doesn't use the OGL either.

"Lifestyle" branding isn't new. TSR wanted us to buy D&D coloring books, D&D puzzles, D&D novels, Dungeon boardgame, and watch that horrid D&D cartoon...and buy all the D&D licensed video games.  AKA, they wanted D&D players to surround their life with D&D stuff, aka TSR profits. I don't see the difference in WotC's approach and I'm well known for being anti-WotC.

And I don't have a problem with lifestyle branding. I've bought into the 40k lifestyle. I own minis, video games, board games, books, t-shirts and mugs from Games Workshop. I am sure plenty of WotC or Paizo fans do the same. I know "40k fans" who never played 40k and I find that weird, but hey, that's their thing. Are they part of the "40k community"? Depends on which segment because once a brand goes lifestyle, there are multiple segments of fandom.  

But Pundy's right about SJWs. They will continue shitting on the hobby, but they have already fragmented the fanbase, creating an anti-SJW arm who won't tolerate their bullshit. None of these fucks can stop small press RPGs nor control what you play in your home.

Also, SJWs are on a path to mass suicide in the next decade. A month doesn't pass without some new survey talking about how depressed these clowns are, regardless of how many anti-depressants they chow down, especially as they love victimhood and social media cliques. It's Jonestown 2: Electric Boogaloo just waiting to happen. That alone will protect the future of the hobby.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079233Can anyone even imagine a post D&D tabletop rpg hobby?

Easily and happily.

Quote from: Aglondir;1079287people buy books to read rather than to actually game with.

Funny enough, the 5e design team stated that the goal of 5e was the exact opposite of this - to make a game for playing, not for 'lonely fun'. I'm not convinced this has really changed, though they would certainly like to make lots of money. The skimpy release schedule is designed to maintain accessibility, and contrasts with Paizo's very Lonely Fun based approach - lots & lots (& lots) of lavish books designed to read not use, and a system based around Lonely Fun character building.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079297None of these fucks can stop small press RPGs

Not entirely sure about that. They seem to be able to control distribution outlets, payment processors, and other such choke points.

Quote from: RoyR;1079236I am sad to see Pundit fall down the Comicsgate hole. For I can not see any failure of comics when it produces things like Saga, Monstress, Locke & Key on a regular basis.

But works such as these are fairly unique and not produced on a regular basis, and certainly not promoted above the 'mainstream' titles which exploit political bias for profit.

Quote from: RoyR;1079236Rather Comicsgate is a sad movement of failed characters.

Yeah, I was especially pissed when they went after Alterna Comics and Antarctic Press.

Oh wait...

Aaanyway, like all reactionary movements they're far from perfect, and there was a ridiculous falling out after Vox Day tried to appropriate the brand and the person who 'owned' it claimed it wasn't political, but at least they don't resort to threats and doxxing to get their way.

Quote from: S'mon;1079301Not entirely sure about that. They seem to be able to control distribution outlets, payment processors, and other such choke points.

Good. Force RPGing underground and make it dark and dangerous.

No faster way to make it popular with teens.

My buddy's kid is a meme junkie. Just freaking loves all aspects of meme culture, but pre-2016 no other kid at his school shared his "weird" interest. The day his liberal teachers declared Trump memes like Pepe to be racist was the day he had a dozen kids demanding to know how they could get into memes and he became super-popular across his school overnight.

Last month, he led 200 kids T-posing at lunch. It crazily freaked out the school admins into a tizzy worthy of the Satanic Panic. Hysterical.

So fuck yeah. Let the SJWs make wrongthink RPGing into a social taboo.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079427Last month, he led 200 kids T-posing at lunch. It crazily freaked out the school admins into a tizzy worthy of the Satanic Panic. Hysterical.

What is T-posing?

Quote from: Aglondir;1079430What is T-posing?

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/t-pose

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079233Can anyone even imagine a post D&D tabletop rpg hobby?

You mean, like in the countries where a game like CoC is the dominant market leader right now (France and Japan)?
Yeah, I've got no difficulties imagining it;).

That said, I actually agree with Pundit's points.

Some how I imagine CoC is a lot more weirder in Japan.

Pundit.

The comic book industry isn't dead. It will survive quite well without Marvel and DC. Should they go under.

Marvel and DC going down will force a swift change in procedure for the comic book industry. The shedding of bad business practices will become a basic necessity for individual company survival. And the books in the marketplace will actually have to sell on their own basic merits.

The world of comics will survive quite well without its two biggest bad actors.

And as for the RPG hobby? It will out-live the hipster SJW crowd. It will keep living, so long as you have dedicated independant people creating new content.

Like any destructive movement. The hipster SJWs will finally be exposed for the abject frauds they are. Frauds who do nothing but damage to the progressive causes they lie about representing.

If DC and Marvel vanished, comics would be fine.

If you don't believe me, visit a comic book shop and check out what the 2nd tier / small press are doing. Bet you find something you enjoy.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079453If DC and Marvel vanished, comics would be fine.

If you don't believe me, visit a comic book shop and check out what the 2nd tier / small press are doing. Bet you find something you enjoy.

Indie comics have been chugging away for a long time too. And for like forever the 2nd tier publishers were pretty popular. Warren comics, Gold Key, Charleston. And later upstarts like Impact for example.

Quote from: Aglondir;1079287Short synopsis of the video:

• D&D will never die, because the OGL ensures it will survive forever. Even if WOTC collapses, or SJWs destroy the hobby, people will always be able to create OSR games.
• WOTC is trying to move the hobby from gaming to a "lifestyle brand" where people buy books to read rather than to actually game with.
• In the near future, consumers will buy D&D products to feel like they "belong to a community" rather than to actually game.
• The next edition of D&D will probably be a Woke Storygame, which will be a financial disaster.
• The SJW movement will ultimately fail, but the situation for gaming will get worse before it gets better.

I found the third bullet particularly insightful.

Except that it is bullshit.

According to Pundit, you aren't rolling dice on a table, you aren't part of this hobby. It's fucking dumb.

Pundit is just pissed that people are walking past his paleo-cave and having fun in a whole spectrum that none of us envisioned a few years ago.

Vampire: The Masquerade "gamebooks" were chock-full of blurb that the vast majority of players would never, ever, see. VTM LARP exploded, and reached far beyond the TTRPG hobbyist. D&D also had a huge community outside the tabletop, remember all those Dragonlance novels?

The rest of his whining is how this community of non-gamers will undermine the hobby, when it is clear that the hobby is more vibrant and innovative than ever before, including tabletop gaming. Oh and here's seven million more reasons why he is full of shit. (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s)

Quote from: Motorskills;1079496D&D also had a huge community outside the tabletop, remember all those Dragonlance novels?

"People who read Dragonlance novels" were part of the community? What community?

I think community is a stupid word to start with - there may be an RPGSite Community, even an RPG Message Board community, but there is no community of tabletop RPGers per se.

Quote from: S'mon;1079512"People who read Dragonlance novels" were part of the community? What community?

I think community is a stupid word to start with - there may be an RPGSite Community, even an RPG Message Board community, but there is no community of tabletop RPGers per se.

>Shared interest in the hobby, supporting the industry directly or indirectly. <

That work?

"Community" is the wrong word. It's just a misappropriated marketing term tapping into emotionalism.  Fandom is probably a better term. We members of theRPGsite are fans of the forum experience, aka wanking about RPG related topics. Our "community" begins and ends there.

There is a Tabletop RPG fandom and its made up of people who play tabletop RPGs.

If you would like to join the Tabletop RPG fandom, go play a Tabletop RPG.

The LARP fandom are people who play LARPs. Unlike fucktards trying to make believe "video watchers = RPGers", the LARP "community" is really clear that LARPers LARP and by LARPing you are a LARPer. Not fucking rocket science.

Now, if we are talking about "D&D fandom", then we are talking about fans of the D&D brand. I guess you can be a CR watcher and declare that an aspect of D&D fandom, although its not directly part of the D&D brand (as it neither
 is part of WotC or TSR).

But the "fans of the D&D brand" =/= Tabletop RPGer as many Tabletop RPGers have no attachment to WotC or TSR.

Quote from: Omega;1079486Indie comics have been chugging away for a long time too. And for like forever the 2nd tier publishers were pretty popular. Warren comics, Gold Key, Charleston. And later upstarts like Impact for example.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, TV-movies-videogames have been dominated by Marvel and DC which gives people the impression those two are the only game in town. In the Hellboy YT trailer, I've even seen comments by people asking if Hellboy is in the DCU or MCU.

Quote from: S'mon;1079300Funny enough, the 5e design team stated that the goal of 5e was the exact opposite of this - to make a game for playing, not for 'lonely fun'. I'm not convinced this has really changed, though they would certainly like to make lots of money. The skimpy release schedule is designed to maintain accessibility, and contrasts with Paizo's very Lonely Fun based approach - lots & lots (& lots) of lavish books designed to read not use, and a system based around Lonely Fun character building.

I think the 5E team genuinely set out to design a game that put at-the-table play at the forefront. They were smart enough to recognize that hardcore char-op is its own sub-hobby that's far more prevalent on forums than in real life.

However, they know who buys their material, and they know that a shit-load of their customers do not actually play D&D. Likely more than half. They cannot afford to alienate those customers. Like Paizo before them, WotC feel they need to write books as reading material, not game aids, because the reading material customers will flat out refuse to buy a game aid, while people who actively game are accustomed to doing a lot of work to turn D&D reading material into a game aid, so they don't raise much of a fuss. Furthermore, I think the backlash against 4E led WotC to over-correct, and steer the book format away from clear rules presentation. The 4E Rules Cyclopedia is probably the most useful book at the table every published for D&D.

D&D is thriving in spite of how the rules and adventures are presented, not because of it. They only way we're going to see the formatting improved for people who actually use the books at the table is if we stop buying the books altogether. And that's not going to happen for most people, though I'm personally close to giving up on WotC. I might even switch to Pathfinder if the new, user-friendly approach to presenting content seen in the 2E playtest rules makes it way into the rest of their books. I'm through spending dozens of hours turning printed adventures - books that I paid more than $50 for - into something that's usable at the table.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079233Can anyone even imagine a post D&D tabletop rpg hobby?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "D&D". I feel like we're already living in a post D&D world. I like D&D 5e for what it is, but after reading through the OD&D booklets I don't see how it's the same game. It's a tangentially related ttrpg with the same brand name. If you mean a post D&D brand ttrpg hobby, then I can't really imagine it. I don't think everybody is going to drop D&D and start playing GURPS or something entirely different. You would need a product to really grab a whole generation of gamers while they were young and with so many video games and other attention sucking things to play around with these days I just don't see it happening.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079297Also, SJWs are on a path to mass suicide in the next decade. A month doesn't pass without some new survey talking about how depressed these clowns are, regardless of how many anti-depressants they chow down, especially as they love victimhood and social media cliques. It's Jonestown 2: Electric Boogaloo just waiting to happen. That alone will protect the future of the hobby.

You are sadly right about the increase in mass suicide that's coming in the next decade. I don't think most people realise how truly awful it's going to be. It's not just going to be the SJW crowd though. It's going to be their children and all their children's friends as they hit their teens. The ones that survive into adulthood will be plagued with suicidal thoughts on a scale we can't even contemplate right now. The disability system in most modern countries isn't going to be able to cope with the dramatic increase in dysfunctional adults. This has me fearing for my own future.

Welcome to the site, Stegosaurus!

Quote from: Motorskills;1079524>Shared interest in the hobby, supporting the industry directly or indirectly. <

That work?

"Community" = "People who buy stuff"?

Quote from: Motorskills;1079496D&D also had a huge community outside the tabletop, remember all those Dragonlance novels?

I loved reading the Dragonlance novels back in the day.  Do I have to do anything to stay in the Community?  Any news letters or meetings that I should be aware of?

Quote from: Haffrung;1079529while people who actively game are accustomed to doing a lot of work to turn D&D reading material into a game aid, so they don't raise much of a fuss.

*sigh* Yeah. :(

Quote from: Stegosaurus;1079544It's not just going to be the SJW crowd though. It's going to be their children

What's the SJW Total Fertility Rate? Around 0.1?

Quote from: S'mon;1079512"People who read Dragonlance novels" were part of the community? What community?

I think community is a stupid word to start with - there may be an RPGSite Community, even an RPG Message Board community, but there is no community of tabletop RPGers per se.

That and "Lifestyle" as Pundit tends to misapply it here.
Probably more apt to term it "Players & Participants" Participants arent interested in the game, yet, and instead like the entertainment peripherals like Books, Comics, PC games, and Movies. And may or may not like accessories that can be gaming related or may just be accessories.

Players may like all these peripherals and accessories too. But the participant is not a player. Least not yet. They might be eventually though. So it is never good to try and drive them off or demean them unless they start getting nasty.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079528Absolutely. Unfortunately, TV-movies-videogames have been dominated by Marvel and DC which gives people the impression those two are the only game in town. In the Hellboy YT trailer, I've even seen comments by people asking if Hellboy is in the DCU or MCU.

Bemusingly quite a few of the indie and 2md tier comics have gotten cartoons and even movies. For a while they were more present than Marvel or DC.

Corto Maltise has had at least one animated movie(Though sadly obscure in the US). Lucky Luke has had cartoons, TV shows and a movie(also sadly obscure in the US). The Mask, Mystery Men, Bucky Ohare, TMNT, Caddilacs & Dinosaurs(Xenozoic Tales), Tales from the Crypt, Den(Warren and Heavy Metal) Asterix has had cartoons and a live movie, Prince Valiant has had a movie and a cartoon, Ultra Force from Valiant got a short lived show. Image had a few as well before they effectively folded. The Maxx, Wild Cats, Spawn, and others out there. Quite a list.

And of course The Rocketeer.

Quote from: Shasarak;1079550I loved reading the Dragonlance novels back in the day.  Do I have to do anything to stay in the Community?  Any news letters or meetings that I should be aware of?

Yes! I think the meeting places are called Libraries or somesuch. You will be issued a card. :cool:

Quote from: Shasarak;1079550I loved reading the Dragonlance novels back in the day.  Do I have to do anything to stay in the Community?  Any news letters or meetings that I should be aware of?

Pundit is jumping up and down that someone that buys a game book just to read it is somehow undermining the hobby.

It's idiotic, because the history is right there for all to see. Obviously TSR (repeatedly!) made some insanely bad business decisions over the decades, but producing non-game literature wasn't one of them.

Look, Spinach doesn't like the word "community", fine, I get the objection to the word. But it's a question of terminology, not of effect.

You bought the books, you chatted with others about them, you lent them out, all that jazz. Whatever's Spinach wants to call that, that's what happened. And has always happened, and continues to happen.

(Maybe you even purchased some DL gamebooks  - most folks didn't!. And of the ones that did, a decent proportion probably bought them to read them, not to actually play them).

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1079450The comic book industry isn't dead. It will survive quite well without Marvel and DC. Should they go under.

Of the top 100 best selling comics in January, only 6 were not from Marvel and DC. the bestselling non-Marvel/DC comic was The Walking Dead which was #30. I don't see how a market can survive when 94% of the best selling products go away.

Of course, I don't see Marvel going away, just getting absorbed by Disney's regular publishing house. Just like how WotC should be shut down and absorbed by Hasbro.

Quote from: Motorskills;1079496The rest of his whining is how this community of non-gamers will undermine the hobby, when it is clear that the hobby is more vibrant and innovative than ever before, including tabletop gaming. Oh and here's seven million more reasons why he is full of shit. (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s)

The only industry that this $7 million Critical Role Kickstarter helps in the animation industry.

Also, I wouldn't include RPGs into the more general "tabletop gaming" discussion as board gaming is healthy and growing. It's also not completely infested with SJWs (primarily due to Tom Vassel)

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1079577Also, I wouldn't include RPGs into the more general "tabletop gaming" discussion as board gaming is healthy and growing. It's also not completely infested with SJWs (primarily due to Tom Vassel)

Sadly, the same loons who took over RPGnet are brigading Boardgamegeek. It's harder for them to take the place over completely, because the boardgaming hobby and BGG are so much bigger than the RPG scene. But in any thread that touches on socially controversial issues, the mods on BGG are no different from the mods on RPGnet. They've drank the kool-aid. You will be sanctioned for questioning radical identarian dogma.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1079577The only industry that this $7 million Critical Role Kickstarter helps in the animation industry.

Something that has raised 7 million dollars is going to raise eyebrows outside the hobby, and will (eventually) have a direct impact on the hobby itself.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1079576Of the top 100 best selling comics in January, only 6 were not from Marvel and DC. the bestselling non-Marvel/DC comic was The Walking Dead which was #30. I don't see how a market can survive when 94% of the best selling products go away.

Of course, I don't see Marvel going away, just getting absorbed by Disney's regular publishing house. Just like how WotC should be shut down and absorbed by Hasbro.

Having the big two out of the way would create more opportunity for smaller publishers. The industry would be a very different place without Marvel and DC's anti-competative tactics getting in the way of the success of smaller publishers.

Marvel specifically has been flooding the store shelves for decades to deliberately leave no space for smaller publishers to occupy. They have been over-publishing to the point that comic book stores are going out of business if they try keep all Marvel titles on their shelves. Because you know what? Those books Marvel is flooding stores with aren't selling!

And yes. Those anti-competative tactics are illegal. But Marvel and DC grease enough palms in Washington DC to keep the government's gaze away.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1079576Of course, I don't see Marvel going away, just getting absorbed by Disney's regular publishing house. Just like how WotC should be shut down and absorbed by Hasbro.

Easy. Power vacuum.

This is in part why indie comics got a foothold way back. They were picking up the pieces the big publishers were losing.

Also keep in mind that best seller does not mean much anymore. Marvel in particular has been doing so badly that they have been flat out forcing stores to take product and ripping them off. DC may follow. Abd as they decline the small publishers will again pick up the pieces. This also happens as for example trends turn in directions fans dont like and they look elsewhere. Such as the whole Dark age of comics in the 90s. That allowed other publishers to attract fans of less grim and pointless fare.

And so it goes.

And lastly there are alot of indie publishers and second tier ones. A few of which who have been around quite a while.

Quote from: Stegosaurus;1079537I guess that depends on what you mean by "D&D". I feel like we're already living in a post D&D world. I like D&D 5e for what it is, but after reading through the OD&D booklets I don't see how it's the same game. It's a tangentially related ttrpg with the same brand name.

Welcome aboard Stegosaurus!

As I see it, 0e-2e was D&D, then WotC made 3 highly different RPGs with the name D&D. [I am NOT debating quality of the games, just that they were notably different from each other] The entire hate around 4e was not its design, but the fact it was named D&D when so many gamers associated the name D&D with either TSR D&D or 3e. I greatly enjoyed 4e, but it should have been been called Dragonstrike! or Dungeon Storm! and released as its own game line while WotC did 3.75 instead of letting Paizo eat its lunch.

Quote from: Omega;1079565Bemusingly quite a few of the indie and 2md tier comics have gotten cartoons and even movies. For a while they were more present than Marvel or DC.

Omega, I stand corrected. I totally forgot about most of those movies which is shameful because I absolutely love the Rocketeer.

Quote from: Motorskills;1079582Something that has raised 7 million dollars is going to raise eyebrows outside the hobby, and will (eventually) have a direct impact on the hobby itself.

I agree.

As a teen, I found the D&D cartoon extremely cringeworthy, but over the years, I've met numerous gamers who saw the cartoon and then found the hobby. Much like the old D&D video games brought in players. I've been a 40k player since the early days and over the decades, I've met plenty of 40kers who first learned about the universe via video games, not even knowing a tabletop game existed.

If the CR Animated Series is halfway decent fantasy entertainment, it will probably draw some level of new players. If its a quality Netflix show? Maybe even translated into other languages? Then its reach could be monumental.

Quote from: S'mon;1079552What's the SJW Total Fertility Rate? Around 0.1?

They don't have children themselves, they indoctrinate other people's children in the schools. It worked really well on the millennials, but luckily Gen Z seems to have wised up to the fact  that the SJWs are actually The Man trying to put a boot on their throats.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1079261Without D&D, the hobby will be so small that no one will even try to make an RPG. It's happening how where the biggest game store in Dallas, Madness, went from 8 shelves of RPG products, down to 4, and is now at just 2. All in about 10 years. Most of their RPG section is miniatures.  The same thing happened to comics which is how half the size that it used to be.

Meanwhile, the boardgame section has grown to fill all that space.

The future of RPGs is some split between boardgames and video games.

Is that really an indication of a declining popularity in RPGs, or just a reflection of the fact that:

• The vast majority of RPGs are now produced through Kickstarters that leave little, if any, stock for stores
• The era of the supplement bloat promoted by the the original OGL are over, the trend is now for fewer (but more expensive) books in a game line
• Many more people are playing D&D than they were, and so the 'vital lines' for a store have been compressed down to a smaller number

My own FLGS has similarly switched a lot of shelf space over to board games, but that's because board games have become popular enough that they can attract custom off the street. Meanwhile RPG books are ordered directly for the people that want them (they still have 5-6 shelves of RPG books).

To me it feels like we are in a gaming renaissance, not a downturn. Four new gaming stores have opened in my city in the past decade. I can't keep up with the number of interesting kickstarters, and when I look at Actual Play forums I don't even recognise half the systems being used.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1079608They don't have children themselves, they indoctrinate other people's children in the schools. It worked really well on the millennials, but luckily Gen Z seems to have wised up to the fact  that the SJWs are actually The Man trying to put a boot on their throats.

Agreed. Although my son says only he and one other boy in his class are 'conservative' (ie more right wing than me). :D
Still, Youtube and Meme culture are having a big impact.

Thank you.

To be fair, I kind of get Pundit's point. The thing is, it's definitely not mutually exclusive and it changes with time. There have been times in my life where I would say my enjoyment of the brand has been entirely reading novels. Other times, I spent hundreds of hours learning the rules, creating characters, creating worlds and adventures, and then playing the game with friends. I won't deny that my enjoyment of these products is primarily reading rule books at this point. I'm not a college age kid with friends interested in the hobby. I'm a middle aged man with problems and few friends. That said, I would like to believe that my opinions on the actual game have merit since I have actually played various editions of the game and read rule books for fun. Other fans of the brand like my wife have zero interest in the actual game anymore. Or rather, they would only play it if they had friends that wanted to play it. They don't want to read rules. They don't have any interest in the systems. They just want to do something social with friends. They would be better served by a simple system like Swords & Wizardry Continual Light.

However, it is an unfortunate fact that many of these low interest gamers are incredibly vocal online and more than happy to fill out surveys that will influence the direction the hobby takes. They've latched on to the D&D brand and they won't let go even if there's twenty game systems that will suit their needs better. It's why I myself have wished for an even simpler D&D 5e in hardcover! It's why I've argued with people that the free basic rules are a better game for most people than the fully fleshed out features in the core books! There needs to be an official Basic Dungeons & Dragons for fans of the hobby that have a very different interest in the game than hardcore gamers. The sickly starter set isn't a solution.

The irony of this all is that I could point to dozens to other systems that are perfect for them.

They don't care because...

It's not D&D.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079593Welcome aboard Stegosaurus!

As I see it, 0e-2e was D&D, then WotC made 3 highly different RPGs with the name D&D. [I am NOT debating quality of the games, just that they were notably different from each other] The entire hate around 4e was not its design, but the fact it was named D&D when so many gamers associated the name D&D with either TSR D&D or 3e. I greatly enjoyed 4e, but it should have been been called Dragonstrike! or Dungeon Storm! and released as its own game line while WotC did 3.75 instead of letting Paizo eat its lunch.

Thanks. I want to be clear that I don't particularly dislike any edition of the game. I kind of like them all for what they are. I just feel like they aren't the same game. I see why they keep calling it "Dungeons & Dragons". It makes them money. One thing I will argue about endlessly though is how most editions were actually mismatched games for the vast majority of people that buy the books. It's not that the games aren't great with the right people. It's that they're not the right game for Bob, Joe, and Jane that want to drink and hangout with friends without doing homework. The worst experience was when I was a mature student in college. D&D 3.5 was out and we played it. The time wasted on preparing the game, character creation, and learning the rules was absurd.

The next time I get enough interested people in a room together I'm not wasting their time with bulky systems.

I'm going to pull out Holmes or S&W Light.

Quote from: Stegosaurus;1079650Thanks. I want to be clear that I don't particularly dislike any edition of the game. I kind of like them all for what they are. I just feel like they aren't the same game. I see why they keep calling it "Dungeons & Dragons". It makes them money. One thing I will argue about endlessly though is how most editions were actually mismatched games for the vast majority of people that buy the books. It's not that the games aren't great with the right people. It's that they're not the right game for Bob, Joe, and Jane that want to drink and hangout with friends without doing homework. The worst experience was when I was a mature student in college. D&D 3.5 was out and we played it. The time wasted on preparing the game, character creation, and learning the rules was absurd.

   WotC intended to position D&D as the "experts' roleplaying game," back in the 3.0/3.5 era, but their plans for a bunch of leadup games for younger players fell through.

  But D&D has a long history of being mismatched not only to its audience, but its own support material. 2E and 4E were probably the worst eras for this.

Given the huge influx of new players, most of them casual gamers or non-gamers, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a streamlined, more accessible iteration of D&D published in the next 2-3 years. I'd expect it would be more character and story based, with much simpler combat rules.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1079656WotC intended to position D&D as the "experts' roleplaying game," back in the 3.0/3.5 era, but their plans for a bunch of leadup games for younger players fell through.

  But D&D has a long history of being mismatched not only to its audience, but its own support material. 2E and 4E were probably the worst eras for this.

Interesting. I didn't know this about 3.0. I do know when I started with AD&D 2e I went straight to the hardcover books. It was way over my head at the time. I had zero introduction to the hobby. I had never played it before those books. I envy people that started with something like Holmes or B/X. I recently acquired a copy of Holmes and I really love it as an introduction. It's a shame TSR messed with the original draft so much. They made it much more confusing than it had to be.

Quote from: Stegosaurus;1079667Interesting. I didn't know this about 3.0. I do know when I started with AD&D 2e I went straight to the hardcover books. It was way over my head at the time. I had zero introduction to the hobby. I had never played it before those books. I envy people that started with something like Holmes or B/X. I recently acquired a copy of Holmes and I really love it as an introduction. It's a shame TSR messed with the original draft so much. They made it much more confusing than it had to be.

   My friends and I started with a 1E PHB, 2E DMG and Monstrous Compendium, and some bits of tradition from some older relatives of theirs. It was a mess, but we muddled through. Getting a hold of the 2E PHB eventually was a big help, and I remember having positive impressions of the Big Black Box when they acquired a copy.

Quote from: Haffrung;1079657Given the huge influx of new players, most of them casual gamers or non-gamers, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a streamlined, more accessible iteration of D&D published in the next 2-3 years. I'd expect it would be more character and story based, with much simpler combat rules.

I suspect they'll try and mess it up in some quite bizarre way.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079453If DC and Marvel vanished, comics would be fine.

If you don't believe me, visit a comic book shop and check out what the 2nd tier / small press are doing. Bet you find something you enjoy.

Given that 10% of these stores are closing a year, soon they won't be existing for the Indies to sell their books.

Off topic:  The Direct Market for comics is dead.  If Marvel and DC vanish, so will comic stores that don't dip into something else, like Board Games.  Will the comic industry also be dead?  The major titles may survive, especially the Marvel ones, as Disney is not afraid to shovel out it's IP to other companies for they sweet, sweet licensing money.  Which is effectively free money for the owners, it's why gaming companies like EA are allowed to retain them for at least a decade, despite their products being lackluster.  Marvel has already started an experiment by giving a Child friendly version of Spider-Man run to IDW, testing the waters to see if Marvel needs to be it's own company, rather than an IP farm like most of their other properties.

As for Entriest destroying D&D, that depends on what they can get to change.  The last two WoTC adventure books had a genderfluid nature druid (NO!  Nature Gods are about nature, and promoting a mental illness kills breeding potential, stop!  Get some help), a homosexual couple of Genasi smiths.  And I believe a couple of homosexual behind the screen moments in Mad Mage.  All of which to be honest are completely necessary, as most players won't even care about these NPCs to even bother with them beyond the surface interactions.  It's like that convenience store clerk you go regularly for your incidentals.  You might see him/her every time, but for the most part you know, or care about, nothing of their lives or interests beyond some small talk.

Quote from: Stegosaurus;1079667Interesting. I didn't know this about 3.0. I do know when I started with AD&D 2e I went straight to the hardcover books. It was way over my head at the time. I had zero introduction to the hobby. I had never played it before those books. I envy people that started with something like Holmes or B/X. I recently acquired a copy of Holmes and I really love it as an introduction. It's a shame TSR messed with the original draft so much. They made it much more confusing than it had to be.

The term 'System Mastery' was thrown about during that era, which implies knowing the system well enough to mangle it into something functional within the rules.  Which requires memorization and higher function deduction.

Greetings!

I often wonder why it seems to be *so* important for these SJW's to have characters that are homosexual, or trans. And also they have this screeching, sobbing need to have all of these adventures and supplements show *representation* of homosexual, and trans characters.

When you are supposedly playing some heroic character that crawls through dungeons fighting monsters and taking their loot--how is it in any way relevant who or what the sobbing SJW character likes to sleep with? Who really gives a fuck how "feminine" or "masculine" that you choose to "present" today? What relevance to the rest of the group, or the campaign world, is it whether such a "gender-fluid" character happens to feel feminine or masculine today?

How is that relevant to, "Hey, fuckstick, pick your warhammer up and attack those orcs waiting for us down the hallway!"

I think it is all way too much lip-biting and narcissistic navel-gazing that so many of these SJW's essentially want, they essentially demand--that the game is not being about adventure, plunder, and fighting monsters--but instead must be focused on their sexual identity, their sexual activities, and their constant, drama-filled social relationships with the nebulous community--which, in D&D, is at least theoretically medievalesque, and primarily focused on survival in a harsh and brutal world. But these SJW's all seem to want to make the entire D&D campaign culture somehow focused on themselves, prancing around and insisting that everyone be profoundly interested in such a character's social life and their own deep-seated psychological and family drama.

Really seems very strange to me for people allegedly, supposed to be playing a game.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The Hobby has Participants, and Supporters.  Some people are both.

Bards are an interesting break from the Core 4 classes, but they actually blend them. 5E allows them to steal a handful of spells via Magical Secrets.  They are handy, if you don't have a Rogue.  They can engage in Melee.  D8 hit die.

Damn, wrong thread..........

Quote from: Razor 007;1079721Damn, wrong thread..........

Damn those viking skalds are raiding this thread.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079679The last two WoTC adventure books had a genderfluid nature druid (NO!  Nature Gods are about nature, and promoting a mental illness kills breeding potential, stop!  Get some help)

For me it's not the existence of homosexual and 'gender fluid' NPCs that bugs me, it's the Seattle 2019 attitudes of the surrounding societies.

I'd be fine with a 'gender fluid' Cleric of Loki, regarded as aberrant by all 'right thinking' folk. Likewise homosexual characters who have to keep it secret, deal with societal disapproval etc - or you can have a society like ancient Greece where certain forms of male homosexuality are approved of, but the adult male still need to have a wife, breed, be manly - not be a catamite, etc.

I'm currently running 'Watchers of Meng' for Primeval Thule. Oola, Mistress of the Whip is a 'Magnificent Bastard' NPC, a slaver in debt to some bad guys, who are holding & torturing Rien, her female lover. There is no indication that their society approves of the Oola-Rien liaison, in fact it feels like part of Oola's general alienation. I find that works well - the players themselves are free to decide what they think of Oola.

Quote from: S'mon;1079740I'd be fine with a 'gender fluid' Cleric of Loki, regarded as aberrant by all 'right thinking' folk. Likewise homosexual characters who have to keep it secret, deal with societal disapproval etc - or you can have a society like ancient Greece where certain forms of male homosexuality are approved of, but the adult male still need to have a wife, breed, be manly - not be a catamite, etc.

But why, if you are setting a game in an a-historical place like the Forgotten Realms, is the beliefs of our own history relevant? D&D-land is not Medieval Europe, for all that it borrows a few tenuous trappings (and they are pretty tenuous). Our own past is full of racial, sexual, and gender-based injustice and history, and I have no problem mining that for themes in my own games, especially as characterisations of evil societies, but if they aren't the point of your setting, why have them?

Different argument entirely when your game is historical, but when I am playing in fantasy-land I tend to discard as much of the essential awfulness of human nature as I can, unless it is relevant to the game I want to play.

So I ran a game where the PCs were members of a society built on ubiquitous slavery, because I wanted that to be part of the sensibility of the game, but I made it gender-equal because gender wasn't relevant to the sorts of stories I was interested in telling (and the characters are lizard-gerbils on a planet with no night, its confusing enough already without throwing gender in). In my current 5E game I am much more interested in people's relations with the Gods, religion, and alignment, than I am in racism, sexism, or that sort of thing, so I've focussed on the dubious nature of alignments and the self-interests of the gods, and given slavery a pass for a campaign.

Different foci for different games.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079593Omega, I stand corrected. I totally forgot about most of those movies which is shameful because I absolutely love the Rocketeer.

Unfortunately I believe IDW got ahold of the license and plan to totally fuck it up.
(https://cdn.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Rocketeer-Reborn-600x911.jpg)

Quotemaking sure we stay true to the spirit of the character for both old and new fans alike.

In Rocketeer Reborn, eighty years have passed since Cliff Secord first found an experimental jetpack and soared through the skies as a high-flying hero. Now, decades later, The Rocketeer is all but forgotten to most people, a legend of a bygone era.

Theres allready talk that a proposed new movie will also gender swap the Rocketeer and she will also be black because INCLUSION! (Tokenism)

Hopefully neither of these will see light and the folk working on these things are given real projects to work on and act in that dont need to co-opt someone elses works to make a "statement".
But dont count on it.

Quote from: hituro;1079765But why, if you are setting a game in an a-historical place like the Forgotten Realms, is the beliefs of our own history relevant? D&D-land is not Medieval Europe, for all that it borrows a few tenuous trappings (and they are pretty tenuous). Our own past is full of racial, sexual, and gender-based injustice and history, and I have no problem mining that for themes in my own games, especially as characterisations of evil societies, but if they aren't the point of your setting, why have them?

Different argument entirely when your game is historical, but when I am playing in fantasy-land I tend to discard as much of the essential awfulness of human nature as I can, unless it is relevant to the game I want to play.

Whereas I like to include human awfulness, because it makes for dramatic settings full of colour and conflict. A D&D campaign set in a world I would want to live in feels incredibly dull to me. I also don't like to read fiction set in happy-clappy worlds. Judging by the popularity of the Song of Ice and Fire and the Game of Thrones, I'd say I'm not alone.

And having your game material so strongly reflect the mores and fixations of educated white upper middle-class Seattle progressives in 2019 will rapidly make that material dated. Because at the level these books are now being tailored - to suit a very particular mindset and a very particular set of politics of today - they'll come across as embarrassingly dated in no time. The issues that the most politically active people on the internet wring their hands about change year to year. I doubt anyone will be making a big deal about transgenderism, something that affects a fraction of one per cent of people, in 10 years, let alone 30. The locus of social justice and outrage culture will have moved on.

Quote from: hituro;1079765Different argument entirely when your game is historical, but when I am playing in fantasy-land I tend to discard as much of the essential awfulness of human nature as I can, unless it is relevant to the game I want to play.

Yes.  I could run a fantasy game where the players overthrow the fascist SJW overlords, but it would be too depressing.  For the same reason, I don't run WWII era supes fighting Hitler, inner city gang violence games, or games about fighting hopeless pandemics.  We like our fantasy games a little more cheerful, rather than including some of the nastiest things of real life.  :cool:

Quote from: SHARK;1079682Greetings!

I often wonder why it seems to be *so* important for these SJW's to have characters that are homosexual, or trans. And also they have this screeching, sobbing need to have all of these adventures and supplements show *representation* of homosexual, and trans characters.

When you are supposedly playing some heroic character that crawls through dungeons fighting monsters and taking their loot--how is it in any way relevant who or what the sobbing SJW character likes to sleep with? Who really gives a fuck how "feminine" or "masculine" that you choose to "present" today? What relevance to the rest of the group, or the campaign world, is it whether such a "gender-fluid" character happens to feel feminine or masculine today?

How is that relevant to, "Hey, fuckstick, pick your warhammer up and attack those orcs waiting for us down the hallway!"

I think it is all way too much lip-biting and narcissistic navel-gazing that so many of these SJW's essentially want, they essentially demand--that the game is not being about adventure, plunder, and fighting monsters--but instead must be focused on their sexual identity, their sexual activities, and their constant, drama-filled social relationships with the nebulous community--which, in D&D, is at least theoretically medievalesque, and primarily focused on survival in a harsh and brutal world. But these SJW's all seem to want to make the entire D&D campaign culture somehow focused on themselves, prancing around and insisting that everyone be profoundly interested in such a character's social life and their own deep-seated psychological and family drama.

Really seems very strange to me for people allegedly, supposed to be playing a game.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

They're NPCs. They don't have an identity outside of their sexuality or newly made up gender. They can't play games. They have no real imagination. You're supposed to write their shitty erotic fan fiction for them and pretend they're not jerking off under the table.

Regarding the OP, I agree that many different branches of D&D can survive via the OGL, and this is a good thing. There should be games for people of different tastes and politics.

Quote from: Christopher BradyThe last two WoTC adventure books had a genderfluid nature druid (NO! Nature Gods are about nature, and promoting a mental illness kills breeding potential, stop! Get some help)

Quote from: S'mon;1079740For me it's not the existence of homosexual and 'gender fluid' NPCs that bugs me, it's the Seattle 2019 attitudes of the surrounding societies.

I'd be fine with a 'gender fluid' Cleric of Loki, regarded as aberrant by all 'right thinking' folk. Likewise homosexual characters who have to keep it secret, deal with societal disapproval etc - or you can have a society like ancient Greece where certain forms of male homosexuality are approved of, but the adult male still need to have a wife, breed, be manly - not be a catamite, etc.

I also find Seattle 2019 off-putting - but OTOH I also find the 1970s Wisconsin attitudes of early D&D equally off-putting. D&D has had a modernist trend for a long time.

It is hard to get around when playing D&D, in my experience, so mostly I just put up with it. In other systems, I prefer historical / alternate-historical settings.

For example, in my Vinland game, it was expected that adult males and females should marry and have a spouse - and generally their family arranged marriages. In D&D, though, I don't bother with adventurers getting treated as odd for not being married (or even looking to marry). I accept it's just part of the fantasy subgenre.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1079252...
Which is why I would want the RPG industry have more than one household name. Preferably a game that plays very differently and that isn't fantasy.

This sounds both entirely realistic and depressingly limited at the same time. The mindset of the American RPG community, looked at as a whole, not gonna lie, is baffling.

The D&D type of fantasy rules the roost in the US for some very good reasons. Being the first RPG chief among them - but the others area also important factors as to why no one has been able to unseat D&D despite its IP holders blunders.

Out of curiosity - would you happen to know the top RPG's in germany and how they compare to the top 5 in the US?

Just curious, no biggie if you don't know.

Quote from: Stegosaurus;1079645..
However, it is an unfortunate fact that many of these low interest gamers are incredibly vocal online and more than happy to fill out surveys that will influence the direction the hobby takes.....

Replace "low interest gamer' with: "Member of the D&D 'community'." And you have exactly the kind of situation that they are trying to create. And we really want to avoid!

i.e. People who don't actually play the game defining and policing its content.

And most of whom are of a different worldview than most who actually play the game.

Quote from: SHARK;1079682Greetings!

I often wonder why it seems to be *so* important for these SJW's to have characters that are homosexual, or trans. And also they have this screeching, sobbing need to have all of these adventures and supplements show *representation* of homosexual, and trans characters.
...
Really seems very strange to me for people allegedly, supposed to be playing a game.

SHARK

Simple.

Because it drives away the normies.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079449Some how I imagine CoC is a lot more weirder in Japan.

I first read this and thought "Why would that be?", and then I remembered that Cthulhu has tentacles...

Quote from: jhkim;1079819I also find Seattle 2019 off-putting - but OTOH I also find the 1970s Wisconsin attitudes of early D&D equally off-putting. D&D has had a modernist trend for a long time.

I guess Lake Geneva attitudes can occasionally grate, but in the early stuff they didn't take themselves too seriously. When it comes to the 1990s, the one thing that always bugged me was the art, use of real people in stuff like this

(https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/dfc3e235-c64c-4a98-a939-ab63d197df6c_1.bd612b8d806d71311fc0426467bb08f8.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF)

It's both titillating, hilarious, and weirdly offputting - especially that sporran!

What is between her legs?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079679Given that 10% of these stores are closing a year, soon they won't be existing for the Indies to sell their books.

That's Amazon and online competitors. Just like game stores or book stores, comic stores will have to offer more than comics on shelves. Fortunately, the better stores have been doing that, diversifying products on shelves (mugs, shirts, games, etc) so they can compete by becoming an "entertainment venue" for comic book fans.

Of course, there is also the severe decline in reading among (at least) Americans. That can't be good for comic sales either.

Quote from: Razor 007;1079719The Hobby has Participants, and Supporters.  Some people are both.

Good observation.

Quote from: Omega;1079767Theres allready talk that a proposed new movie will also gender swap the Rocketeer and she will also be black because INCLUSION! (Tokenism)

As of last June, it may be an animated show for Disney Junior.
https://sciencefiction.com/2018/06/15/weve-got-first-look-animated-rocketeer-reboot/

Eh, it is like any time you deal with self-righteous zealots, always go for their past and their 'precious', and soon they'll come back to the table contrite and ready to talk reasonably. :) Just like my recommendation to "go after Exalted" when there was another TheBigPurple dust-up about cheesecake art? Same same.

For this, just go after Josh Whedon stuff, tumblr/twitter, slash/ship fiction, etc. Wanna do a ship fiction between West Wing show and drow of the Underdark, followed by heroic dungeon raids clearing them out? Go ahead. Buffy & Angel & Supernatural speaking twee as they slay She-Ra, My Little Pony, & Rainbow Brite 'zombie hordes' from conquering Earth? Rock on. Bring the dungeon back to Gilmore Girls? Go right ahead.

I have no dog in this fight beyond getting people to stop scheming & fronting and being real, seeing the humanity of the other across the table. And if one side is in scorched earth policy, there is only one solution to get them back to the table to talk: scorch earth their homeland at the same time. MAD (mutual assured destruction) assures peace; like Dr. Strangelove, how I learned to love the bomb. ;)

Go forth and speak twee in the dungeon! And bring the dungeon back to Grey's Anatomy. :p

Quote from: S'mon;1079872I guess Lake Geneva attitudes can occasionally grate, but in the early stuff they didn't take themselves too seriously. When it comes to the 1990s, the one thing that always bugged me was the art, use of real people in stuff like this

If real people in TSR art bugs you then do not look at the Spellfire card game.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079874What is between her legs?

Something probably very, VERY happy.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079874What is between her legs?

That's a sporran.

Quote from: S'mon;1079872I guess Lake Geneva attitudes can occasionally grate, but in the early stuff they didn't take themselves too seriously. When it comes to the 1990s, the one thing that always bugged me was the art, use of real people in stuff like this

Umm... news flash. That is not a photo. That is a painting. The artist used live models. You are aware some artists use live models right? And some are really good at capturing that on canvas. Right?

Addendum: Could also be a photo collage used as a base. There was one artist way back for 2e who pulled images for the bases from movies. John and Laura Lakey if I recall right. Though I am pretty sure they also used live models.

Quote from: S'mon;1079921That's a sporran.

Is that what it's doin' into her?

Quote from: Omega;1079931Umm... news flash. That is not a photo. That is a painting. The artist used live models. You are aware some artists use live models right? And some are really good at capturing that on canvas. Right?

Umm... news flash. That is exactly what I was complaining about. "Two of the artist's friends and a stripper from the agency" does not a good look make IMO.

It is allways hilarious when someone complains that an artist is too good. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;1079938It is allways hilarious when someone complains that an artist is too good. :rolleyes:

Please stop being a twat.

Quote from: Omega;1079938It is allways hilarious when someone complains that an artist is too good. :rolleyes:

It's pretty obvious that the complaint was that the two dudes look like local nerds from the Wisconsin game store, and that this is anachronistic and anti-heroic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080058It's pretty obvious that the complaint was that the two dudes look like local nerds from the Wisconsin game store, and that this is anachronistic and anti-heroic.

Yes. Another one that particularly bugs me (but without the sex appeal), from 1994:

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/f/f7/Volo%27s_Guide_to_the_Sword_Coast.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20180306131041)

This 'Milwaukee Ren Faire' stuff seems specific to Forgotten Realms in the 1990s, TSR used very different art direction for their other settings. I'm not keen on some of the other art too, eg not a big fan of the Planescape art, but it doesn't have the creepy 'uncanny valley'-esque vibe of this stuff.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080058It's pretty obvious that the complaint was that the two dudes look like local nerds from the Wisconsin game store, and that this is anachronistic and anti-heroic.

What do you think most adventurers start out as, and probably are well into their careers.

And at a glance and at a guess that was the intent of the piece. A little poke at player characters or NPCs.

Quote from: S'mon;1080061Yes. Another one that particularly bugs me (but without the sex appeal), from 1994:.

Gah! MY EYES!

The creepy part is that they evidently got Sheryl from accounts payable to unbutton her blouse for the photo shoot.

Quote from: Haffrung;1080115Gah! MY EYES!

The creepy part is that they evidently got Sheryl from accounts payable to unbutton her blouse for the photo shoot.

:D :D :D

Actually the listed artist duo is half female, so it's probably not as creepy as you think. But it's clearly a bunch of sedentary 1990s Midwesterners playing Ren Faire.

Most of the gamers I see at cons appear to have stubbornly held onto that exact aesthetic/style since the 90s.

Quote from: S'mon;1079872I guess Lake Geneva attitudes can occasionally grate, but in the early stuff they didn't take themselves too seriously. When it comes to the 1990s, the one thing that always bugged me was the art, use of real people in stuff like this

(https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/dfc3e235-c64c-4a98-a939-ab63d197df6c_1.bd612b8d806d71311fc0426467bb08f8.jpeg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF)

It's both titillating, hilarious, and weirdly offputting - especially that sporran!

Yeah. I love 2nd ed, but I'm not going to defend the weird cosplay art stuff. Does anyone know the name of the artist who did that stuff?

Quote from: Omega;1079931Addendum: Could also be a photo collage used as a base. There was one artist way back for 2e who pulled images for the bases from movies. John and Laura Lakey if I recall right. Though I am pretty sure they also used live models.

There it is. And holy shit. I mean, there's a piece in the 2nd ed PHB that's a dead ringer for the wizard/monster from Conan the Destroyer. It's hardly even worth mentioning, but now that we've got a tangent for it...

*edit* Found the piece.

https://www.lakeystudios.com/fantasy?lightbox=i4mg8

Some of it's pretty good, but a lot of it is eeehhhh….

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1080149Yeah. I love 2nd ed, but I'm not going to defend the weird cosplay art stuff. Does anyone know the name of the artist who did that stuff?

About the Cover. The three characters on the cover were based on TSR staffer David Wise, a model that might have been named Kim, and TSR staffer Steve Beck. From https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17380/DLR3-Unsung-Heroes-2e?it=1

The preview reveals Cover Art: Robh Ruppel


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robh_Ruppel has more info and calls him a "horror genius".

Quote from: Snowman0147;1079233Can anyone even imagine a post D&D tabletop rpg hobby?

That's my life right now. I have a 4e D&D campaign on the horizon, that's it as far as D&D goes. My groups play other games.

Quote from: hituro;1079611

• The vast majority of RPGs are now produced through Kickstarters that leave little, if any, stock for stores
• The era of the supplement bloat promoted by the the original OGL are over, the trend is now for fewer (but more expensive) books in a game line
• Many more people are playing D&D than they were, and so the 'vital lines' for a store have been compressed down to a smaller number

That reminds me of a time I was getting my oil changed so I walked into the next door game-store. I asked, "do you have any Savage Worlds book?" (the answer was probably going to be no since it's so niche, but if they manage to have even 1 of the hundreds of products, I would have just bought it). They of course did not have any and the proprietor said, "Anything you are interested in, I can order online." to which my thought is, "Well so can I."

You can buy any niche RPG product you want online and RPGs are one of the few mediums where convenience of a physical store is almost irrelevant. Games take awhile to plan so you rarely need an RPG "right now!"

That being said, I do not think the era of supplement bloat is over. My favorite RPG system has dozens of successful kickstarters every year. My purchase rate isn't as high as the content creation, which is great for me as a consumer who tends to play with people that do not want to branch out from more than one game.

Quote from: S'mon;1080061Yes. Another one that particularly bugs me (but without the sex appeal), from 1994:

(image omitted)

This 'Milwaukee Ren Faire' stuff seems specific to Forgotten Realms in the 1990s, TSR used very different art direction for their other settings. I'm not keen on some of the other art too, eg not a big fan of the Planescape art, but it doesn't have the creepy 'uncanny valley'-esque vibe of this stuff.

I agree about that art - but I also think that the influences go further than just these examples. D&D has never been very medieval, but rather reflects more modern assumptions and values.

This is noticeable for me most in how they portray economics - usually with an array of stores in town, and goods and services bought off the shelf from a price list. D&D town modules tend to remind me more of midwestern strip malls than medieval communities.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1080149Yeah. I love 2nd ed, but I'm not going to defend the weird cosplay art stuff. Does anyone know the name of the artist who did that stuff?

Robh Ruppel. A really good artist who eventually seems to have transitioned away from using live models which is a shame as hes top notch. Someone else thought so too as hes moved on to illustrating stuff for movies apparently. Seems to do backgrounds and cityscape art more often.

He also did the cover art for one of the Ravenloft books.

Quote from: Omega;1080265Robh Ruppel. A really good artist who eventually seems to have transitioned away from using live models which is a shame as hes top notch. Someone else thought so too as hes moved on to illustrating stuff for movies apparently. Seems to do backgrounds and cityscape art more often.

He also did the cover art for one of the Ravenloft books.

  Several--Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts, Van Richten's Guide to the Created, the revised Campaign Setting (or "Red Box"), and others, IIRC.

Quote from: jhkim;1079267Tons of people produce RPGs for free - some even with pretty amazing production values. RPGs would unquestionably continue to be produced, though the number and variety would be reduced. The great thing about tabletop RPGs - compared to video games - is that it's easily do-it-yourself (DIY).

That's actually the reason it would die. And it's the reason computer games became a multi-bllion dollar industry. Buy-in level. To make computer games, you actually need to be talented, have a hard skill called "programming".

Tabletop RPGs are LCD (Lowest Common Denominator, you degenerate addict). Even cooking requires more skill past the absolute basics to be able to do anything worthwhile, tasty and impressive. So this whole line of thinking: it's come from people with a unrealistic view of what this hobby is and who don't really care if the hobby dies so long as they get theirs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079297It's Jonestown 2: Electric Boogaloo just waiting to happen.

Jesus, that's dark. Please tell me you actually, truly understand what you are saying there.

Quote from: Motorskills;1079496According to Pundit, you aren't rolling dice on a table, you aren't part of this hobby. It's fucking dumb.

It's called code. Pundit's just being mostly what you stated below with a kernal of realness behind it.

Quote from: Motorskills;1079496Pundit is just pissed that people are walking past his paleo-cave and having fun in a whole spectrum that none of us envisioned a few years ago.

Ahahahaha...

Quote from: Motorskills;1079496Oh and here's seven million more reasons why he is full of shit. (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/criticalrole/critical-role-the-legend-of-vox-machina-animated-s)

I wish them the best of success. Mercer has earned it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1079528The LARP fandom are people who play LARPs. Unlike fucktards trying to make believe "video watchers = RPGers", the LARP "community" is really clear that LARPers LARP and by LARPing you are a LARPer. Not fucking rocket science.

This is called "staying on-code". TTRPGers don't do this. Most every other hobby does this. You're either onit or you're not onit. People will cry and rant about this and call it "gatekeeping" -- it's not, it's code. Try raving at the bouncer at a club about how you deserve to get in even when you don't meet the dress code -- see how far that gets you. That's all it is.

Quote from: Stegosaurus;1079544You are sadly right about the increase in mass suicide that's coming in the next decade. [...] This has me fearing for my own future.

What in the actual fuck is wrong with people on here?

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1080291Jesus, that's dark. Please tell me you actually, truly understand what you are saying there.

I actually, truly understand what I am saying there.

US Millennials (especially SJWs) + 10 years = mass suicide epidemic. The culture of perpetual victimhood with its steady diet of social media and anti-depressants will reach its obvious conclusion as the mass of the generation hits "mid-life"(aka, divorce, insolent teenagers, stagnant careers, and world that didn't live up to its hype).

As a purely secular generation, there is no "god" or "afterlife" to deter them, and MSM's worship of Only Youth isn't going to change. When Millennials aren't the MSM's 24/7 darling anymore, you'll see real despondent darkness spread across their social media.  

Millennials conform like lemmings and when one lemming pops off the cliff, its sky dive lessons for the conga line. And let's not forget AOC has promised the world ends in 12 years...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1080384I actually, truly understand what I am saying there.

US Millennials (especially SJWs) + 10 years = mass suicide epidemic. The culture of perpetual victimhood with its steady diet of social media and anti-depressants will reach its obvious conclusion as the mass of the generation hits "mid-life"(aka, divorce, insolent teenagers, stagnant careers, and world that didn't live up to its hype).

As a purely secular generation, there is no "god" or "afterlife" to deter them, and MSM's worship of Only Youth isn't going to change. When Millennials aren't the MSM's 24/7 darling anymore, you'll see real despondent darkness spread across their social media.  

Millennials conform like lemmings and when one lemming pops off the cliff, its sky dive lessons for the conga line. And let's not forget AOC has promised the world ends in 12 years...

Greetings!

I don't know why I have this disturbing thought that AOC must be crazy hot in bed. Those evil, buggy eyes, the horse teeth, the maniacal laughter. The strumpet giggling and head-toss. Yeah, I'd bet good money she's gotta be mind-blowing for certain!:) LOL!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Spinachcat;1080384I actually, truly understand what I am saying there.

US Millennials (especially SJWs) + 10 years = mass suicide epidemic. The culture of perpetual victimhood with its steady diet of social media and anti-depressants will reach its obvious conclusion as the mass of the generation hits "mid-life"(aka, divorce, insolent teenagers, stagnant careers, and world that didn't live up to its hype).

As a purely secular generation, there is no "god" or "afterlife" to deter them, and MSM's worship of Only Youth isn't going to change. When Millennials aren't the MSM's 24/7 darling anymore, you'll see real despondent darkness spread across their social media.  

Millennials conform like lemmings and when one lemming pops off the cliff, its sky dive lessons for the conga line. And let's not forget AOC has promised the world ends in 12 years...

Millennials are already in their stagnant careers.

Spinachcat:

No. Apparently you don't understand what Jonestown was.

It was one of the biggest mass murders in modern history. As most of its population were either force fed poison. Or just plain shot. The suicide part of the equasion was a minority of that population. The rest were just straight up killed outright.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1080394Spinachcat:

No. Apparently you don't understand what Jonestown was.

It was one of the biggest mass murders in modern history. As most of its population were either force fed poison. Or just plain shot. The suicide part of the equasion was a minority of that population. The rest were just straight up killed outright.

Marxism always leads to death.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1080394Spinachcat:

No. Apparently you don't understand what Jonestown was.

It was one of the biggest mass murders in modern history. As most of its population were either force fed poison. Or just plain shot. The suicide part of the equasion was a minority of that population. The rest were just straight up killed outright.

Given that his original post was pretty snarky, I imagine he was using the reference more in the 'trope/pop culture' sense rather than worrying about the approx 50/50 murder/suicide accuracy.  Kind of like someone using the Kool-Aid trope that comes from the same incident.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1080291What in the actual fuck is wrong with people on here?

I'm not cheering it on. The looming mass suicide epidemic is scary. So scary, you don't even have to wait a decade. Take a look at the suicide statistics right now. You can also add in the overdoses.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1080403Given that his original post was pretty snarky, I imagine he was using the reference more in the 'trope/pop culture' sense rather than worrying about the approx 50/50 murder/suicide accuracy.  Kind of like someone using the Kool-Aid trope that comes from the same incident.

Those Tropes are unacceptable and offensive in civilized society. It's active belittlement of the one of most significant religious based mass murders of the age.

There are people around who survived it. People around whose lives were directly impacted by it. And those "tropes" come from the same twisted mentality of people who would joke about Jews getting thrown in the gas chambers. Absolutely unacceptable.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1080434Those Tropes are unacceptable and offensive in civilized society. It's active belittlement of the one of most significant religious based mass murders of the age.

There are people around who survived it. People around whose lives were directly impacted by it. And those "tropes" come from the same twisted mentality of people who would joke about Jews getting thrown in the gas chambers. Absolutely unacceptable.

Do you apply this reasoning to Heaven's Gate and other murder-suicide cults? How about the Branch Davidians at Waco?

Edit: I don't see anything derogatory about "Don't drink the koolade" - it' not belittling the cultists. Onviously though the cultists were very foolish, I'm not seeing much parrallel to the Nazi Holocaust.

Quote from: S'mon;1080437Do you apply this reasoning to Heaven's Gate and other murder-suicide cults? How about the Branch Davidians at Waco?

Edit: I don't see anything derogatory about "Don't drink the koolade" - it' not belittling the cultists. Onviously though the cultists were very foolish, I'm not seeing much parrallel to the Nazi Holocaust.

More than half of those cultists in Jonestown had no idea what was coming. They were out and out murdered by the so-called heads of the cult. It certainly wasn't their choices to die. They were straight up murdered.

Yes. Those tropes are offensive. Because they blame innocent people for the fate that ultimately befell them. A fate that clearly had been established that wasn't their choice.

No. i don't apply this to the Branch Davidians. They all ultimately chose their fate. The same is true of Heaven's Gate.

And the Holocaust connection? I'll clarify that right now. It was about innocent people who were murdered. That's about as basic a comparison as it gets,

And I'll tell you why this matters so much to me! I was almost there! My psycho grandmother moved the family into the area that cult left just a month prior. She worked at what was their compound. She was actively plotting for my family to join them! And if it wasn't for the miracle of my mom having a flash of clarity and opposed her, I would have been one of those kids force fed the poison!

The fact was: Jonestown had a bigger impact than on those who were immediately involved. It splashed over on those with even a peripheral relation to the people who were there and those who were left behind.

So fuck you and all the people who belittle that tragedy! Fuck you with the spiked end of a morningstar!

All this angst calls for [video=youtube_share;EmKYrxzOTC4]https://youtu.be/EmKYrxzOTC4[/youtube]

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1080440No. i don't apply this to the Branch Davidians. They all ultimately chose their fate.

LOL.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1080394Spinachcat:

No. Apparently you don't understand what Jonestown was.

I absolutely do. Jonestown was the largest pre-9/11 mass murder of Americans. That's why it holds a special cultural place in our minds. But by global standards? A thousand dead is a small mass murder, even by modern tabulations.

If you want huge mass murder, check out the Rwandan genocide from 1994. Maybe a million dead. And the Armenians claim 1.5M dead in their 1915 genocide. And the Khmer Rouge may have killed 2.5M in the 1970s.

Humans are really good at mass murder. But the word "Jonestown" is shorthand for mass suicide, and you knew that.

Quote from: Lurtch;1080395Marxism always leads to death.

Always.

One death is a tragedy.  A thousand is a statistic.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1080440REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

And a good day to you, too, sir!

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1080440More than half of those cultists in Jonestown had no idea what was coming. They were out and out murdered by the so-called heads of the cult. It certainly wasn't their choices to die. They were straight up murdered.

Yes. Those tropes are offensive. Because they blame innocent people for the fate that ultimately befell them. A fate that clearly had been established that wasn't their choice.

No. i don't apply this to the Branch Davidians. They all ultimately chose their fate. The same is true of Heaven's Gate.

You mean the kids decided to sacrifice themselves to Janet Reno? I never knew that.

Come on folks, does any of this really have a direct connection to RPGs? If not, it doesn't really belong here.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1080384I actually, truly understand what I am saying there.

US Millennials (especially SJWs) + 10 years = mass suicide epidemic. The culture of perpetual victimhood with its steady diet of social media and anti-depressants will reach its obvious conclusion as the mass of the generation hits "mid-life"(aka, divorce, insolent teenagers, stagnant careers, and world that didn't live up to its hype).

As a purely secular generation, there is no "god" or "afterlife" to deter them, and MSM's worship of Only Youth isn't going to change. When Millennials aren't the MSM's 24/7 darling anymore, you'll see real despondent darkness spread across their social media.  

Millennials conform like lemmings and when one lemming pops off the cliff, its sky dive lessons for the conga line. And let's not forget AOC has promised the world ends in 12 years...

It probably will not be long before the Social Media algorithms can start to detect suicidal thoughts.  It will be interesting to see what they do with that information, sell more advertisements?  Damn Zucked again.

I predict the cratering of Facebook before that happens. Personally, I am ready to migrate entirely to Mewe. Let Suckerberg sit on his obsolete, decaying personal info.

Politics and social movements are cyclical with a trend towards progressiveness since the dawn of time:

The Greatest Generation thought that all Baby Boomers were lazy, narcissistic, attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled, whiny, overly-progressive piss-babies with their free-love, rock music, psychedelics, and pesky civil rights movements.

Then, the Baby Boomers came along and thought all Gen Xers were lazy, narcissistic, attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled, whiny, overly-progressive piss-babies with their punk rock, heavy-metal, cocaine, and pesky civil rights.

Then, the Gen Xers came along and thought that all Millenials were lazy, narcissistic, attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled, whiny, overly-progressive piss-babies with their grunge, rap, video games, party pills, opioids, and pesky civil rights.

Next, Millenials will come along and think that all iGen/Gen Yers are lazy, narcissistic, attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled, whiny, overly-progressive piss-babies with their electronic music, iDevices, screen time, social media, psych meds, and yet even more pesky civil rights.

And so on, and so on, and so on ...

And when it comes to mass-murder and suicide, religious conservatives have both of those categories all but locked up and monopolized.

All violence, including suicides, across the world has been in steady decline, especially once lead was taken out the water supply in most major metropolitan areas.

Quote from: Kael;1080617Politics and and social movements are cyclical with a trend towards progressiveness since the dawn of time:

The Greatest Generation thought that all Baby Boomers were lazy, narcissistic, attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled, whiny, overly-progressive piss-babies with their free-love, psychedelics, and pesky civil rights movements.

Then, the Baby Boomers came along and thought all Gen Xers were lazy, narcissistic, attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled, whiny, overly-progressive piss-babies with their punk rock, heavy-metal, cocaine, and pesky civil rights.

Then, the Gen Xers came along and thought that all Millenials were lazy, narcissistic, attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled, whiny, overly-progressive piss-babies with their grunge, rap, video games, party pills, opioids, and pesky civil rights.

Next, Millenials will come along and think that all iGen/Gen Yers are lazy, narcissistic, attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled, whiny, overly-progressive piss-babies with their electronic music, iDevices, screen time, social media, psych meds, and yet even more pesky civil rights.

And so on, and so on, and so on ...

And when it comes to mass-murder and suicide, religious conservatives have both of those categories all but locked up and monopolized.

All violence, including suicides, across the world has been in steady decline, especially once lead was taken out the water supply in most major metropolitan areas.

Why does this site not have some kind of XP or like button so that I dont have to type up my approval of the above post like some kind of attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled caveman.

Quote from: Shasarak;1080624Why does this site not have some kind of XP or like button so that I dont have to type up my approval of the above post like some kind of attention-seeking, over-medicated, drug-addled caveman.

Because approval should neither be expected nor sought on this site.

Quote from: Motorskills;1079582Something that has raised 7 million dollars is going to raise eyebrows outside the hobby, and will (eventually) have a direct impact on the hobby itself.

It will have a direct impact on the people involved in Critical Role, an indirect impact on WotC, and almost no impact on the surrounding industry, which will continue to bitch about not being as successful and blaming it on bigotry.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1079608They don't have children themselves, they indoctrinate other people's children in the schools.

That first part isn't true.

Quote from: Shasarak;1080593It probably will not be long before the Social Media algorithms can start to detect suicidal thoughts.  It will be interesting to see what they do with that information, sell more advertisements?  Damn Zucked again.

#Facebook already has algorithms which do that (https://www.npr.org/2018/11/17/668408122/facebook-increasingly-reliant-on-a-i-to-predict-suicide-risk).

Quote from: Kael;1080617All violence, including suicides, across the world has been in steady decline,

On the contrary, suicide rates are on the increase (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db330.htm), especially among white males.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1080662On the contrary, suicide rates are on the increase (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db330.htm), especially among white males.

Individual suicide rates, only from 1999-2017, and only in the U.S., and mostly in rural populations are indeed increasing slightly, and that's certainly an issue with complicated reasons, but that's not what I wrote.

I said all violence, even when including suicides (so all types of violence combined) has been decreasing worldwide for centuries and possibly even millenia. The suicide rate you cite is not high enough to affect overall violence as a whole across the globe or even in the U.S. during that cited time period. So again, even when you include suicide, violence has been steadily decreasing.

I never said that individual suicides rates in the U.S. from 1999-2017 was decreasing, so nothing contrary at all, and hopefully that's more clear.

And even more interesting is that the U.S ranks a paltry 27th or 34th (depending on the source) globally in suicides per capita.

Quote from: Kael;1080667Individual suicide rates, only from 1999-2017, and only in the U.S., and mostly in rural populations are indeed increasing slightly, and that's certainly an issue with complicated reasons, but that's not what I wrote.

I said all violence, even when including suicides (so all types of violence combined) has been decreasing worldwide for centuries and possibly even millenia. The suicide rate you cite is not high enough to affect overall violence as a whole across the globe or even in the U.S. during that cited time period. So again, even when you include suicide, violence has been steadily decreasing.

I never said that individual suicides rates in the U.S. from 1999-2017 was decreasing, so nothing contrary at all, and hopefully that's more clear.

And even more interesting is that the U.S ranks a paltry 27th or 34th (depending on the source) globally in suicides per capita.

You could have just said you were wrong instead of trying to dance and smearing your response with even more useless lying bullshit then you started with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1080674You could have just said you were wrong instead of trying to dance and smearing your response with even more useless lying bullshit then you started with.

Except I wasn't wrong, lying, or bullshitting so ...

It's usefulness is not for me to judge but it does help to shut up all the chicken littles out there screaming that the world is coming to an end due to rampant, unchecked violence which is obviously false. Today is the safest the world has ever been.

Anyway, I simply clarified for the reading-comprehension impaired, such as yourself. I made the distinction because many studies don't include individual suicide as a "violent crime" while others do include it as part of an overall "societal violence" metric.

"All violence, including suicides, across the world has been in steady decline" is a true statement whether you like it or not. Feel free to cite sources to the contrary as I'm always willing to learn something new and admit that I'm wrong.

If the world has indeed becoming a more violent place over the course of history, that's news to me and I'd like to read up on that.

And citing an 18-year trend in one country doesn't change the historical trend of declining violence (yes, even when including suicide) across the world. That said, I do understand that AA could read it that way, so hopefully I've cleared that part up for those with better reading skills.

Quote from: Kael;1080684It's usefulness is not for me to judge but it does help to shut up all the chicken littles out there screaming that the world is coming to an end due to rampant, unchecked violence which is obviously false. Today is the safest the world has ever been.

One of the many traits the far left and far right share is a belief that we're trending towards catastrophe. Not surprising when you consider that extreme ideologies attract the anxious and unhappy.

Quote from: Haffrung;1080706One of the many traits the far left and far right share is a belief that we're trending towards catastrophe. Not surprising when you consider that extreme ideologies attract the anxious and unhappy.

I couldn't agree more. Both extremes of the "Culture War" drive me insane. And fwiw, I basically agree with everything Anon Adderlan wrote, as well, just in case it was unclear.

Came in to read the RPG discussion. Read first page. Skipped to last page.

...found the topic shifted from post-D&D hobby market to suicide rates and culture war.

That was certainly an... interesting juxtaposition.

People, this is a WARNING: this thread is not to discuss anything outside of the RPG hobby. No thread on this forum is for discussing anything outside of the RPG Hobby.

So unless you're talking about suicide in the RPG hobby, you had better stop or I'll have to start bannings.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1080889People, this is a WARNING: this thread is not to discuss anything outside of the RPG hobby. No thread on this forum is for discussing anything outside of the RPG Hobby.

So unless you're talking about suicide in the RPG hobby, you had better stop or I'll have to start bannings.

Bringing that back on topic of RPG then. At least way back various moral guardian groups tried to pin suicides on D&D and RPGs. But turned out that playing actually seemed to reduce the chances.

And back on the topic topic.

Never underestimate a self interest groups ability to at least try their damndest to co-opt something, which invariably ends in that something either declining or actually ending.

You cannot be complacent that D&D will survive and do nothing. You have to push back, resist the takeover. Otherwise you get... taken over.

Quote from: Omega;1080906You cannot be complacent that D&D will survive and do nothing. You have to push back, resist the takeover. Otherwise you get... taken over.

And since it is unlikely any of us here can gain a controlling interest in Hasbro to resist said takeover, the only viable path is to produce non-SJW alternatives so that when the inevitable D&D SJW edition is released there are plenty of alternatives for people to turn to.

In other words, we need to be looking to create "The Orville" of D&D.

Quote from: Chris24601;1080947And since it is unlikely any of us here can gain a controlling interest in Hasbro to resist said takeover, the only viable path is to produce non-SJW alternatives so that when the inevitable D&D SJW edition is released there are plenty of alternatives for people to turn to.

In other words, we need to be looking to create "The Orville" of D&D.

I am in favor of this idea.

Quote from: Omega;1080906Never underestimate a self interest groups ability to at least try their damndest to co-opt something, which invariably ends in that something either declining or actually ending.

You cannot be complacent that D&D will survive and do nothing. You have to push back, resist the takeover. Otherwise you get... taken over.

Well, I'm running D&D games and discussing them and developing material - but I pretty sure I'm seen as the side that is supposedly taking things over.

I have no issues with Pundit's rant from the OP - I think people should create their own D&D material, so that even if the mainstream of the current D&D edition passes you by, there should still be the OSR, Pathfinder, and create new movements as people see fit.

I think there should be SJW D&D for SJW-leaning folks, conservative D&D for conservative folks, and heck, Alathon is welcome to make his own ethno-nationalist D&D branch. It's not like there has to be only one.

Year 2022

"D&D is dead, long live D&D!"

pd: RPGPundit's point is kinda brilliant.

Quote from: jhkim;1080978conservative D&D for conservative folks.

  We like to call that "2nd Edition." :D

Quote from: jhkim;1080978I think there should be SJW D&D for SJW-leaning folks, conservative D&D for conservative folks, and heck, Alathon is welcome to make his own ethno-nationalist D&D branch. It's not like there has to be only one.

I'm sure the folks over there at Hasbro are rejoicing at the thought of a Neo-Nazi D&D. (Sarcasm, just to cover my bases here.)
Well, the fact is: it's their brand. They get to decide what kind of content gets attached to it - and they have to live with their choices, either way. Just as I have to live with mine.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081016I'm sure the folks over there at Hasbro are rejoicing at the thought of a Neo-Nazi D&D. (Sarcasm, just to cover my bases here.)
Well, the fact is: it's their brand. They get to decide what kind of content gets attached to it - and they have to live with their choices, either way. Just as I have to live with mine.

By D&D branches, I mean like Pathfinder, Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry, and so forth - which are not controlled by Hasbro.

Quote from: jhkim;1080978Well, I'm running D&D games and discussing them and developing material - but I pretty sure I'm seen as the side that is supposedly taking things over.

I have no issues with Pundit's rant from the OP - I think people should create their own D&D material, so that even if the mainstream of the current D&D edition passes you by, there should still be the OSR, Pathfinder, and create new movements as people see fit.

I think there should be SJW D&D for SJW-leaning folks, conservative D&D for conservative folks, and heck, Alathon is welcome to make his own ethno-nationalist D&D branch. It's not like there has to be only one.

Uhoh, John, you just went on record as welcoming Ethno-Nationalist RPGs.  You even made it sound like Alathon should be allowed to exist within the hobby.  Wonder how long before that comes back to bite you in the behind.

Quote from: jhkim;1080978Well, I'm running D&D games and discussing them and developing material - but I pretty sure I'm seen as the side that is supposedly taking things over.

I have no issues with Pundit's rant from the OP - I think people should create their own D&D material, so that even if the mainstream of the current D&D edition passes you by, there should still be the OSR, Pathfinder, and create new movements as people see fit.

I think there should be SJW D&D for SJW-leaning folks, conservative D&D for conservative folks, and heck, Alathon is welcome to make his own ethno-nationalist D&D branch. It's not like there has to be only one.

I know that most people I talk to aren't worried about fringe groups doing their own thing. They're worried that these groups are the new norm. It's not a pleasant thing being squeezed out of your own hobby. The products you used to love are suddenly spouting weird political messages filled with made up Newspeak. It's hard for people to give up a thing that to some extent defined who they are by virtue of being a strong part of their childhood. It's like going back to your home town and discovering you're no longer welcome.

RPGpundit is completely correct on this issue, even if the "community" gets taken over you can exercise your free will and do your own thing. I think WOTC/Hasbro secretly know this and it is why they still have the old editions available as pdf. Believe me it's a good thing, they could have taken the route of a company like Games Workshop that doesn't even acknowledge past products like Warhammer or Dwarves in 40k, you get kicked out of the store if you want to play old editions.

As for creating your own materiel and settings take it from Shia:

[video=youtube_share;ZXsQAXx_ao0]https://youtu.be/ZXsQAXx_ao0[/youtube]

Quote from: jhkimI think there should be SJW D&D for SJW-leaning folks, conservative D&D for conservative folks, and heck, Alathon is welcome to make his own ethno-nationalist D&D branch. It's not like there has to be only one.

Quote from: Stegosaurus;1081076I know that most people I talk to aren't worried about fringe groups doing their own thing. They're worried that these groups are the new norm. It's not a pleasant thing being squeezed out of your own hobby. The products you used to love are suddenly spouting weird political messages filled with made up Newspeak. It's hard for people to give up a thing that to some extent defined who they are by virtue of being a strong part of their childhood. It's like going back to your home town and discovering you're no longer welcome.

The norm is defined by what the majority of people do. If there are enough gamers who like, say, LGBT characters in their D&D modules - then that is the new norm. If you don't like that, then you would then be on the fringe.

But fringes are perfectly capable of sustaining themselves. Second-tier systems like the OSR, GURPS, Hero System, Amber Diceless, and others have lots of devoted players and plenty of material. I've been more-or-less on the fringe in terms of my gaming taste for ages. It's not the end of the world.

From my view, old-school gamers should recruit for their old-school games - and old-school designers should create more old-school material. Players and designers of other styles should recruit and design for their own styles. The two can exist side-by-side, and it isn't necessary to gnash one's teeth over how other people play their games. In the past, I was always a thorny annoyance to some others on the fringe because I didn't condemn D&D or other mainstream games.

Quote from: jhkim;1081112The norm is defined by what the majority of people do. If there are enough gamers who like, say, LGBT characters in their D&D modules - then that is the new norm. If you don't like that, then you would then be on the fringe.

Most people are indifferent and apathetic, which is why the fringes can often dictate policy. It's not as though a game like D&D has enough market feedback to know how many customers really want explicit references to transgendered characters in D&D adventures. The people in charge of the game do know how much shit they'll take on social media from an extremely passionate element of the market if they don't include it, so they make performative gestures to placate that element.

We live in an era when 1,000 people who are active on Twitter can have far more influence than 50,000 people who rarely engage with social media.

But that's the basic problem of politics. Activists of whatever stripes that determine the direction of things, while the passivist general public trots along.

Quote from: Haffrung;1081114Most people are indifferent and apathetic, which is why the fringes can often dictate policy. It's not as though a game like D&D has enough market feedback to know how many customers really want explicit references to transgendered characters in D&D adventures.

I think WotC is one of the few companies actually able to conduct real market research to find out what players really want rather than just browsing on Twitter. I have seen market research that they've done in the past, and it seems pretty solid. They have done actual randomized surveys of the public to find their audience. This lets them characterize how the real audience differs from the different channels they have to them - including conventions, organized play, and feedback from game stores as well as social media.

They might make bad decisions based on that data - but at least they have access to the data, which is more than the vast majority of game companies have.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081129But that's the basic problem of politics. Activists of whatever stripes that determine the direction of things, while the passivist general public trots along.

However the free market can trump all that, my guess is that if a company were to swing one way the free market would kick in and bad craziness would go away. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play a new edition or buy it. The only thing that has to happen is for companies and individuals to swoop in and make up the slack and fill the voids left by the big companies. OSR is proof of that, small guys pumping out the edgy shit that SJW's and normies won't even touch.

Quote from: Blink_Dog;1081134However the free market can trump all that, my guess is that if a company were to swing one way the free market would kick in and bad craziness would go away. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play a new edition or buy it. The only thing that has to happen is for companies and individuals to swoop in and make up the slack and fill the voids left by the big companies. OSR is proof of that, small guys pumping out the edgy shit that SJW's and normies won't even touch.

Yes.  I'll continue to play D&D (and buy some products) as long as they don't push me too far. If they think catering to another crowd is worth losing my business over, nothing much I can do about it.  

I won't be passive, though.  I'll be out.  I don't write my own version of "D&D" because I can buy something close enough to what I want.  If I can't, then I'll make my own.  And if that is too much trouble, I'll find some other way to occupy my time.  It's why I don't watch the NFL anymore.  I haven't seen more than 1 new movie a year in the last decade--and even more rarely in the theater.  I'm very picky about which new books I buy.  Nothing special about games that they can't get the same treatment.

I'm just one person.  The bit pitfall for WotC (or any company trying to push the envelope) is that a customer rebellion tends to be like a revolution.  It's a "preference cascade".  Nothing happens until it really happens.  Then it is too late.  It's why Netscape, to pick just one example, is no longer a product.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be "sjw D&D games" for people with that sort of politics. I'm saying there's a problem when the SJWs want to take over D&D because they are very clear about feeling there shouldn't be ANY non-sjw games.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081194I'm not saying there shouldn't be "sjw D&D games" for people with that sort of politics. I'm saying there's a problem when the SJWs want to take over D&D because they are very clear about feeling there shouldn't be ANY non-sjw games.

And they want to kick out anyone who isn't as 'Pure' as they are.  I'm right there with you.

It's fine if a game is a SJW gender fluid diversity love fest.  It's when they claim we're wrong for not wanting the same.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1081137Yes.  I'll continue to play D&D (and buy some products) as long as they don't push me too far. If they think catering to another crowd is worth losing my business over, nothing much I can do about it.  

I won't be passive, though.  I'll be out.  I don't write my own version of "D&D" because I can buy something close enough to what I want.  If I can't, then I'll make my own.  And if that is too much trouble, I'll find some other way to occupy my time.  It's why I don't watch the NFL anymore.  I haven't seen more than 1 new movie a year in the last decade--and even more rarely in the theater.  I'm very picky about which new books I buy.  Nothing special about games that they can't get the same treatment.

I'm just one person.  The bit pitfall for WotC (or any company trying to push the envelope) is that a customer rebellion tends to be like a revolution.  It's a "preference cascade".  Nothing happens until it really happens.  Then it is too late.  It's why Netscape, to pick just one example, is no longer a product.

Greetings!

Isn't that the truth, my friend? I've done nearly the same thing. I used to be a lifelong fan of the NFL--and the whole "Anthem Controversy" of the last two years, and the owners waffling and squirming about it--just entirely turned me off of being a fan. I haven't watched a NFL game since. I'm of the opinion that every football player, when he's in uniform, had better stand for our national Anthem. Failure to do so, "taking a knee" and all that nonsense is just so disrespectful, they should be fired. It's that simple. They can protest anything they want to *on their own time*--but come football time, I don't expect them to disrespect my flag and my country for any bullshit reason. I don't care what they're into--whatever it is, it has no place on the football field. There are professional standards of courtesy, respect, and good manners that simply must be observed, no exceptions. I've had public-behavior standards in my work, governing how I dress, how I behave, how I speak--it's no different for them. The fact that so many of them seem to think it *is different* for them, well, they can go fuck themselves. I'll never watch a football game again, or give them a nickel. Evidently, there's quite a number of fellow football fans that entirely agree. That's the way that goes, you know?

I'm also not hot on most of what Hollywood puts into the movie theaters, so I haven't gone to the theater to see a stupid movie and get raked in the ticket and food prices in two years now.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081194I'm not saying there shouldn't be "sjw D&D games" for people with that sort of politics. I'm saying there's a problem when the SJWs want to take over D&D because they are very clear about feeling there shouldn't be ANY non-sjw games.

Actually no there shouldnt be any SJW games because it is a poisonous mindset. And their ideas of what is a non-SJW product can and will change on a dime till eventually EVERYTHING is bad and must be put an end to. Eventually they will determine that RPGs promote thinking, and thinking is BAD! These RPG things have to be ended. And those storygames too. Oh and even just telling a story. Horrible practice. Time to end it so no one ever thinks again.

Quote from: SHARK;1081203I'm of the opinion that every football player, when he's in uniform, had better stand for our national Anthem. Failure to do so, "taking a knee" and all that nonsense is just so disrespectful, they should be fired. It's that simple.

Big fan of corporate-mandated nationalism? Kim Jong-un and other Stalinist, cultural-Marxist fascists everywhere salute you, comrade!

Also, doesn't this NFL/Hollywood discussion (rant?) fall completely outside the "RPG hobby"? Isn't that now a ban-able offense or did I misread Pundit's warning?

Quote from: Omega;1081257Actually no there shouldnt be any SJW games because it is a poisonous mindset. And their ideas of what is a non-SJW product can and will change on a dime till eventually EVERYTHING is bad and must be put an end to. Eventually they will determine that RPGs promote thinking, and thinking is BAD! These RPG things have to be ended. And those storygames too. Oh and even just telling a story. Horrible practice. Time to end it so no one ever thinks again.

This was sarcasm, right?

Because if not... that's the most "SJW-thinking" thing I've read on this board for at least a few weeks. You're advocating suppression of thought and speech, just like, supposedly, the people you're decrying.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081293This was sarcasm, right?

Because if not... that's the most "SJW-thinking" thing I've read on this board for at least a few weeks. You're advocating suppression of thought and speech, just like, supposedly, the people you're decrying.

You don't have a choice. Either you hold the gates and slam them shut on these meme-diseased death cultists or they will take the gates and shut them on you. They've already shown that this is what they want to do, and they've already shown willingness to do so, making claims of "But Muh Hypocrisy!" moot. They want you gone; keep them out is nothing more than self-defense.

Quote from: Kael;1081291Big fan of corporate-mandated nationalism? Kim Jong-un and other Stalinist, cultural-Marxist fascists everywhere salute you, comrade!

Also, doesn't this NFL/Hollywood discussion (rant?) fall completely outside the "RPG hobby"? Isn't that now a ban-able offense or did I misread Pundit's warning?

That's Pundit's decision.  

My point, on the off-chance that it wasn't obvious, is that RPGs as a form of entertainment are not immune to the fact that entertainment is optional.  When entertainers annoy their audience enough, they can lose it.  Of course, RPGs, being a mix of industry, hobbyist, and "creative" types, have a few areas of leeway not necessarily available to some of the more pertinent examples.  I wouldn't count on that to stop a preference cascade, though.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1081356That's Pundit's decision.

Yes of course. I asked because I'm new here and I don't want to be disrespectful of Pundit's earlier warning.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1081356When entertainers annoy their audience enough, they can lose it.

I certainly agree. The market will always dictate what's tolerated and what isn't.

I'm under the impression that 5E is currently doing gangbusters and that there is a huge resurgence in D&D interest. So, I imagine they will keep doing whatever it is that seems to be working. When or if that ceases, they will have to adapt or die on the vine like any other business.

Quote from: Kael;1081291Big fan of corporate-mandated nationalism? Kim Jong-un and other Stalinist, cultural-Marxist fascists everywhere salute you, comrade!

Also, doesn't this NFL/Hollywood discussion (rant?) fall completely outside the "RPG hobby"? Isn't that now a ban-able offense or did I misread Pundit's warning?

Greetings!

Well, no, it isn't a bannable offense. It's a tangentilly-related side comment that goes along with the discussion of how SJW Entryists seek to destroy the RPG hobby, and D&D in particular. It is the same topic, merely using some different reference points for illustration of how SJW's jello-thinking and ideology corrupts everything--from RPG's, to movies, even to fucking football. Everywhere you go, THEY try and corrupt and taint and ruin everything that is good.

And no, I'm no fan at all of Fascism or Communism. As a *paying* customer and fan of the game of football, and the NFL, I don't believe it is professional or appropriate behavior to "take a knee" during a football game when our National Anthem is performed. SJW's believe that their political ideology should trump everything, at all times. That just isn't true. It is spoiled, juvenile, narcissistic, as well as in this case, rude, insulting and disrespectful. SJW's don't care a damned thing about traditions, manners, *appropriateness* and something called *Decorum*. I can easily think of a thousand ways that if you indulged in such behavior or expression at work--you would be fired.

Football players can on their own time, speak what they want, go to rallies, marches, whatever. During a game, however, I don't give a fuck about their political ideology they want to trumpet. I want them to stand for the National Anthem, and conduct themselves in a professional and dignified manner, and not insult half the country, our flag, and our military. And play the football game. Their failure to comprehend such an expectation of conduct is precisely why they should all be fired. Every last fucking player that "took a knee" should have found their final paycheck waiting for them in the locker room after the game, and fired immediately. End of story.

SJW's want to drag their fucking political ideology into everything in society, everywhere. That's the same kind of nnsense with the "X Cards". It's all ideological gibberish designed to take the game away from being focused on gaming, and shifting it to focus on ideological topics of drama and feelings.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kael;1081291Big fan of corporate-mandated nationalism?

It was the fans who wanted the players to stand for the anthem. The corporates only care about money.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081293This was sarcasm, right?

Because if not... that's the most "SJW-thinking" thing I've read on this board for at least a few weeks. You're advocating suppression of thought and speech, just like, supposedly, the people you're decrying.

No. Im advocating the suppression, or better yet, eradication of the suppression of free speech and truth.

Quote from: Omega;1081257Actually no there shouldnt be any SJW games because it is a poisonous mindset. And their ideas of what is a non-SJW product can and will change on a dime till eventually EVERYTHING is bad and must be put an end to. Eventually they will determine that RPGs promote thinking, and thinking is BAD! These RPG things have to be ended. And those storygames too. Oh and even just telling a story. Horrible practice. Time to end it so no one ever thinks again.

Quote from: Omega;1081385Im advocating the suppression, or better yet, eradication of the suppression of free speech and truth.

So how does your free speech square with saying that there shouldn't be any SJW games because of the poisonous mindset? To my mind, free speech means that even those with poisonous mindsets get to have their say.

Quote from: S'mon;1081376It was the fans who wanted the players to stand for the anthem. The corporates only care about money.

Sigh, this is off-topic but it was the league, at the behest of the Department of Defense, that had the players out on the field for the anthem. Previously, it had played while they were in the locker room.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;1081353They want you gone; keep them out is nothing more than self-defense.

...said every genocidal dictator ever.

Quote from: Omega;1081385No. Im advocating the suppression, or better yet, eradication of the suppression of free speech and truth.

OK, giving you the benefit of the doubt... how? (Specifically in the context of RPGs here, not in the more general sense.) Eradication how?

Quote from: jhkim;1081408So how does your free speech square with saying that there shouldn't be any SJW games because of the poisonous mindset? To my mind, free speech means that even those with poisonous mindsets get to have their say.

The concept of "free speech" is a fiction. There are always limits to speech.

Even here where Pundit goes out of his way to let people say what they want, there are still hard limits.

When 'people with poisonous mindsets get to have their say' and openly state that they want people who think like you gone. And begin to act on it by regulating your speech...

What then? What has your 'free speech' accomplished? SJW's don't care about your reasonable middle ground stance on the issue.

Mr. Walker is right: keeping them out is nothing more than self-defense.

Any hobby or community can save themselves a lot of trouble in the long run, by identifying and driving out SJW entryists early and often.

D&D will 'survive' the SJW's for all the reasons Pundit stated.

But the hobby really shouldn't have to put up with them at all...

Quote from: SHARK;1081362SJW's want to drag their fucking political ideology into everything in society, everywhere. It's all ideological gibberish designed to take the game away from being focused on gaming, and shifting it to focus on ideological topics of drama and feelings.

Hmm...off-topic NFL rant #2. And what about those that chose to stand which was the vast majority, even in the face of harsh criticism? You don't feel the need to support them in their cause with your money?

Gee, Shark, we sure do thank you for (as you put it): "[dragging your] fucking political ideology into everything in society, everywhere. [Your] ideological gibberish [is] designed to take the game away from being focused on gaming, and shifting it to focus on [your] ideological topics of drama and feelings."

You are no different than those you baby cry about it seems.

We got it loud and clear, Shark, you are anti-freedom and triggered by protesters. You certainly have the right to be both and to watch or not watch whatever you please. You also have the freedom to bless this forum with your own "drama and feelings" and political ideologies despite you disliking it when others do the same.

So, I guess until Pundit says this conversation is off-topic too, I may as well ask: You really think private employees should be fired for their dissenting political views and ideologies? I thought pro-freedom conservatives despised that kind of thing? Isn't being fired, "unpersoned," or "deplatformed" for an unpopular or even just a right-wing political view like a major conservative talking point these days? Any reason why that wouldn't apply here or to the RPG industry?

Again, these posts of yours are inserting your own political ideologies into our everyday lives much like these players you bemoan so much do. So come to think of it, you actually have a lot in common with them!

No surprise there since it's truly sad how soft, whiny, and emotionally fragile we've become as a society that the mere sight of a protester would trigger folks and cause such consternation and emotional distress.

Only an overly sensitive, commie special snowflake would demand respect for an ideology or else face tangible consequences from our corporate overlords. I mean, isn't this exactly what conservatives hate about the liberal media/tech/entertainment companies? Why the hypocrisy and double-standard?

Also, how many private jobs force you to stand for the National Anthem out of "respect"? Go ahead and make a list for me as I'm genuinely curious since I'm not aware of any. That would be a nice little proto-communist precedent to set and one I'm sure you'd applaud as you seem to be in favor of a citizenry and fan-base that espouses corporate-mandated patriotism. Sounds just like cultural-Marxism to me.

The best thing about this country is that we don't have such Orwellian policies. Soldiers have fought and died for these freedoms that you would so casually like to have removed and citizens publicly shamed for exercising.

Maybe you should be the one showing some respect to flag and country...

Quote from: S'mon;1081376It was the fans who wanted the players to stand for the anthem. The corporates only care about money.

Very true. But it wasn't just the fans. It was also the owners, teammates, corporate sponsors, right-wing media, and the POTUS. I believe "sonsabitches" is the term he used.

So basically:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3279[/ATTACH]

Personally, I always stand for the Anthem. But for those that choose not to, I'm glad they have the freedom to do so. Likewise, I'm happy that people can boycott anything they choose. It's the American Way and something to be proud of.

(Edited because I got ninja'd.)

Quote from: Jaeger;1081439The concept of "free speech" is a fiction. There are always limits to speech.

I seriously doubt a SJW-themed game is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. (Schenck v. United States)

Quote from: Justice HolmesThe question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081443(Edited because I got ninja'd.)

I seriously doubt a SJW-themed game is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater. (Schenck v. United States)

SJW's don't care about supreme court decisions.

'Problematic' issues like the wanton killing of dark skinned Orcs in D&D is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater to them.

They want people who think different than them gone.

And they will act on it by regulating your speech.

By trying to run out all non-SJW RPG's and gamers out of the hobby.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081433...said every genocidal dictator ever.

If people are not IN your country then in order to genocide them you have to go over to THEIR country. Which is the opposite of what Bradford wants. Keep the SJWs in their lovely country and everyone can live in peace. :D

Would you let a known robber in your house?  No.

Would you want a very corrupt person be police chief?  No.

Would you want a armed serial killer next to your love ones?  No.

So why would you want sjws into your hobby?  They will steal the thing you love.  They will corrupt it till there is nothing left to save.  If you try to fight back they will want to kill you.

Quote from: Kael;1081441Hmm...off-topic NFL rant #2. And what about those that chose to stand which was the vast majority, even in the face of harsh criticism? You don't feel the need to support them in their cause?

Gee, Shark, we sure do thank you for (as you put it): "[dragging your] fucking political ideology into everything in society, everywhere. [Your] ideological gibberish [is] designed to take the game away from being focused on gaming, and shifting it to focus on [your] ideological topics of drama and feelings."

You are no different than those you baby cry about it seems.

We got it loud and clear, Shark, you are anti-freedom and triggered by protesters. You certainly have the right to be both and to watch or not watch whatever you please. You also have the freedom to bless this forum with your own "drama and feelings" and political ideologies despite you disliking it when others do the same.

So, I guess until Pundit says this conversation is off-topic too, I may as well ask: You really think private employees should be fired for their dissenting political views and ideologies? I thought pro-freedom conservatives despised that kind of thing? Isn't being fired, "unpersoned," or "deplatformed" for an unpopular or even just a right-wing political view like a major conservative talking point these days? Any reason why that wouldn't apply here or to the RPG industry?

Again, these posts of yours are inserting your own political ideologies into our everyday lives much like these players you bemoan so much do. So come to think of it, you actually have a lot in common with them!

No surprise there since it's truly sad how soft, whiny, and emotionally fragile we've become as a society that the mere sight of a protester would trigger folks and cause such consternation and emotional distress.

Only an overly sensitive, commie special snowflake would demand respect for an ideology or else face tangible consequences from our corporate overlords. I mean, isn't this exactly what conservatives hate about the liberal media/tech/entertainment companies? Why the hypocrisy and double-standard?

Also, how many private jobs force you to stand for the National Anthem out of "respect"? Go ahead and make a list for me as I'm genuinely curious since I'm not aware of any. That would be a nice little proto-communist precedent to set and one I'm sure you'd applaud as you seem to be in favor of a citizenry and fan-base that espouses corporate-mandated patriotism. Sounds just like cultural-Marxism to me.

The best thing about this country is that we don't have such Orwellian policies. Soldiers have fought and died for these freedoms that you would so casually like to have removed and citizens publicly shamed for exercising.

Maybe you should be the one showing some respect to flag and country...

Greetings!

Kael, did you read my post???? I said that I am very much a supporter of our freedom of speech rights. I also said that I am definitely not a fan of Fascism or Communism. I am a military veteran, having served in the United States Marine Corps. You do know what that entails, right? By long-standing policy, those recruits that have ever been members of the Communist party or supporters thereof, are summarily dismissed from the Marine Corps. Past training in Boot Camp, such members embracing such political ideology are subject to formal punishment and sanction, including reduction in rank, fines, imrisonment, and a dishonourable discharge from the United States Marine Corps. I assume very similar regulations are embraced by the other branches of the military, and pursue such through the UCMJ.

Regarding football, did you read what I posted? Playing professional football is a job. With an employer, and  work-place. With professional requirements, and required standards of behavior, dress, conduct and speech. In my job, and most professional places of employment, violation of such standards typically result in getting eventually or immediately fired. The football players are employees, of a company, like most other people. I expect such insulting, rude, and inappropriate behavior to be swiftly and strictly punished, rather than coddled and tolerated. If employees at many companies I know of had acted in such ways causing customers and clients to feel insulted and disrespected, such employees would be strictly disciplined, and fired promptly on subsequent episodes and defiant refusal to adhere to corporate standards of work performance and client relations. The football players that "took a knee" is rude, insuting, and disrespectful to the military, to our country, and to the fans and *customers* of the game. That isn't good for professional football.

Football players that stand for the National Anthem? Of course, I don't have any problem with them at all. They are right in showing respect for our military, our flag, and our national Anthem. And they are not behaving in a manner that is rude, insulting, and disrspectful to the fans and customers. I have always supported such dignified and professional players. I never said that I didnt support them in my post.

In our game hobby, the SJW's like to shift the focus of the hobby from being focused on the game, on adventure, on heroism, to being focused on transphobia, homosexual relationships, racist oppression, misogyny, and all manner of psychological dysfunction and Identity politics. Such attitudes and ideology is not good for our hobby.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: S'mon;1081452If people are not IN your country then in order to genocide them you have to go over to THEIR country. Which is the opposite of what Bradford wants. Keep the SJWs in their lovely country and everyone can live in peace. :D

But we're in the same country, it seems to me. Or at least, I don't see how it is going to be divided.

Even given varying definitions of who is an SJW, I'm pretty sure that the majority of players in my D&D5 campaign and my FATE campaign would probably be considered SJWs. It seems clear to me that there are SJWs who enjoy D&D, Call of Cthulhu, and many other traditional RPGs. If we play the same games and go to the same conventions and so forth, how are we not in the same country? theRPGsite can portion off story games into the Other Games forum - but that only weakly correlates to SJWism, and it doesn't apply to the wider world.

Are there any specific steps you can think of to keep SJWs in their own country?

Quote from: jhkim;1081459Are there any specific steps you can think of to keep SJWs in their own country?

I guess refusing to pander to them? Eg 'no politics' rules deter them from Internet forums. Not giving them the game content they want. Not engaging with their demands - not debating them. A major characteristic of SJWs is that they won't just sit down and play - "Everything is Political".

If someone of left wing views is happy to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with me then by definition they are not an SJW. The Warrior bit refers to how they can never let up.

I think it's hard to keep SJWs out of conventions. They love wrecking conventions. I guess one can ban individual SJWs for specific behaviour such as targeted harrassment of the convention organisers and other attendees, but either they attack conventions they're not attending (eg Chris Helton's attack on NTRPG Con last year) or they sneak in then cause trouble at the con itself.

Mm, perhaps some kind of behaviour code. Call it an "Anti-Harassment Code"....  

We can create "Safe Spaces" where SJW hate and violence is not tolerated. Where it happens, as with that comics guy (Hambly?) attacked by an SJW, the SJW should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and their victim supported.

Really, the more I think about it, the more I think an active policy of SJW-exclusion has great merit. It's the "Paradox of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)" problem - tolerate the intolerant (SJWs) and your tolerant society will be destroyed.

Quote from: Kael;1081442Very true. But it wasn't just the fans. It was also the owners, teammates, corporate sponsors, right-wing media, and the POTUS. I believe "sonsabitches" is the term he used.

So basically:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3279[/ATTACH]

Basically, no.

"You're changing history. You're changing culture, and you had people--and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, OK? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/read-the-transcript-of-donald-trumps-jaw-dropping-press-conference.html

Quote from: Snowman0147;1081457Would you let a known robber in your house?  No.

Quote from: Frederick DouglassIt is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.

Perhaps I should look at the robber and say, "No constable. I gave him the silverware. But in his haste to leave, he forgot the cups and glasses too." Or perhaps Bishop Myriel was a fool.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081449SJW's don't care about supreme court decisions.

And?

Quote'Problematic' issues like the wanton killing of dark skinned Orcs in D&D is the equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded theater to them.

And?

QuoteThey want people who think different than them gone.

And?

QuoteAnd they will act on it by regulating your speech.

And?

QuoteBy trying to run out all non-SJW RPG's and gamers out of the hobby.

So your response is to try and run everyone who disagrees with you out of the hobby by regulating their speech because they think differently than you about issues which you find problematic in your willingness to find a reason to disregard supreme court wisdom?

Personally, I welcome SJWs. I would never have realized how terrible their arguments and tactics are if they hadn't tried to shoehorn them into the "community". It gave me an opportunity to recognize the flaws and pitfalls of identity politics, and refine my arguments against it.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081464And?
...And? x4...

 So your response is to try and run everyone who disagrees with you out of the hobby by regulating their speech because they think differently than you about issues which you find problematic in your willingness to find a reason to disregard supreme court wisdom?

I don't want to ..."run everyone who disagrees with me out of the hobby."

People disagree with me about all kinds of things, and I with them, all the time. That's normal.

I do want to:

Run anyone out of the hobby that wants to run me out of the hobby, just because I do not share their ideology.

I have my own rules about who can and cannot be at my table when I GM. And I have my own rules about who I game with. Nobody is going to force me to change those rules based on their politics.

With the game group I play with on saturdays: Politics are left at the door. Althrough we do occasionally have a political discussion outside of the game itself. It is left to the side when we are gaming. And that's exactly how I like it.

My personal preference is to play with adult gamers. So I don't have to deal with any potential problems with parents. It's stress i don't need.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081465Personally, I welcome SJWs. I would never have realized how terrible their arguments and tactics are if they hadn't tried to shoehorn them into the "community". It gave me an opportunity to recognize the flaws and pitfalls of identity politics, and refine my arguments against it.

Thank you. That's exactly what I'm getting at.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081461Basically, no.

Basically, yes. From your link:

"Trump: [Inaudible.] You have some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides."

It's just a meme joke, but the quotes are accurate.

I don't take anything any politician says seriously and we all know the media can spin almost any statement one way or another. I don't think Trump is as a bad as many people make him out to be. I just wish his messaging was a little more consistent. Regardless, his legacy will ultimately be his wall (TBD), much as Obama's legacy will be Obamacare (a dud.)

Quote from: Jaeger;1081467I don't want to ..."run everyone who disagrees with me out of the hobby."

People disagree with me about all kinds of things, and I with them, all the time. That's normal.

I do want to:

Run anyone out of the hobby that wants to run me out of the hobby, just because I do not share their ideology.

So you only want to run some people out of the hobby for speech. I suppose that's better in the same analogous sense of murder isn't as bad as genocide.

Quote from: Kael;1081475Basically, yes. From your link:

"Trump: [Inaudible.] You have some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides."

It's just a meme joke, but the quotes are accurate.

I don't take anything any politician says seriously and we all know the media can spin almost any statement one way or another. I don't think Trump is as a bad as many people make him out to be. I just wish his messaging was a little more consistent. Regardless, his legacy will ultimately be his wall (TBD), much as Obama's legacy will be Obamacare (a dud.)

In the same speech, Trump said what was in my quote, which directly and explicity contradicts the meme image you posted.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081476So you only want to run some people out of the hobby for speech. I suppose that's better in the same analogous sense of murder isn't as bad as genocide.

Analogies of murder vs. genocide have nothing to do with with self-defense.

Quote from: jhkimAre there any specific steps you can think of to keep SJWs in their own country?

Quote from: S'mon;1081460Mm, perhaps some kind of behaviour code. Call it an "Anti-Harassment Code"....

We can create "Safe Spaces" where SJW hate and violence is not tolerated. Where it happens, as with that comics guy (Hambly?) attacked by an SJW, the SJW should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and their victim supported.

Really, the more I think about it, the more I think an active policy of SJW-exclusion has great merit. It's the "Paradox of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)" problem - tolerate the intolerant (SJWs) and your tolerant society will be destroyed.

Interesting. This is nearly exactly parallel to what I hear from liberal advocates to be safe from conservative harassment and intolerance. Do you think you would actually have common ground and could come up with common rules for gaming safe spaces with liberal advocates?

I would predict that you'll have a problem with how to define the hate that you want to ban. The very extreme of violence like fistfights are trivial to ban - and in fact, are already banned at all game conventions that I've seen. However, you'll find that most of what you consider SJWs operate much more subtly - like socially shunning conservative players, and/or running games where conservatives feel unwelcome. Then you'll either have to tolerate that hate, or you'll have to start trying to define and ban micro-aggressions against conservatives.

Quote from: S'mon;1081460I guess refusing to pander to them? Eg 'no politics' rules deter them from Internet forums. Not giving them the game content they want. Not engaging with their demands - not debating them. A major characteristic of SJWs is that they won't just sit down and play - "Everything is Political".

If someone of left wing views is happy to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with me then by definition they are not an SJW. The Warrior bit refers to how they can never let up.

I'm left doubting what exactly it means to be an SJW for you. I play pretty regularly with people that I believe most posters here would consider SJWs (and heck, there are posters who consider me an SJW). They're enthusiastic about the X card, introductions with what pronouns to use, punching nazis, and so forth.

On the other hand, most of them are happy to sit down and play a game of D&D with me. (Some just don't like D&D but will play other games, which I assume is still OK.)

Quote from: jhkim;1081481I'm left doubting what exactly it means to be an SJW for you.

Jessica Price. Stacey D. Chris Helton. Anita Sarkeesian.

Beliefs don't make an SJW. Behaviour does.

(While I do kinda like the idea of witch hunting for 'micro aggressions against conservatives', I suspect I'd soon fall foul of that policy myself. I once got a temporary ban from RPGnet for 'disrespecting the troops'.)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081479In the same speech, Trump said what was in my quote, which directly and explicity contradicts the meme image you posted.

Yes I know. He said both things. Which is true and my point. And again, it's just a joke to point out inconsistencies in messaging when it comes to his views on protests. Don't let a picture of a swastika trigger you.

He said that folks who were protesting the removal of Confederate statues are "very fine people." He also said that football players who were protesting police killings are "sons of bitches" and should be fired. No direct or explicit contradiction at all, despite what you say.

The point of the meme of is that, to Trump, some protesters are "good" while others are "bad" as long as it fits his narrative and his own brand of identity politics. He's entitled to his opinion but his wanting to fire protestors he doesn't agree with smacks of "wrongthink" and plain ol' fascism. I mean, this is from the POTUS, no less, the leader of the "free" world!
 
Don't let TRD infect your brain by thinking everything is about race, neo-nazis, and white nationalists. I never said anywhere that Trump thinks that neo-nazis and white nationalists are "very fine people" and I'm not arguing with you on that point.

There's a legitimate debate to be had over Confederate statues and BLM. I'm not even picking a side here as I think there are merits to both ends of the argument and I actually agree with Trump's point about the statues and the Founding Fathers, etc.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081467I don't want to ..."run everyone who disagrees with me out of the hobby."

People disagree with me about all kinds of things, and I with them, all the time. That's normal.

I do want to:

Run anyone out of the hobby that wants to run me out of the hobby, just because I do not share their ideology.

Right.  But let's cut to the chase.  Anyone paying attention knows the drill, though I'm fairly certain that a few of you here will disingenuously deny it.  It's happened over and over again in all kinds of "communities":

Step 1:  We just want to be included.

Step 2:  There aren't enough of us.  There needs to be more of us.  Keep X out to make room.  Usually, "X" is carefully chosen to be someone that no one really likes anyway.  You have to be a free speech AND free association purist to defend X.

Step 3:  Now that there are enough of to dictate policy, we'll start pushing others out of leadership positions for "reasons".  Suddenly, it's "Y" and "Z" that are getting culled, and not everyone is happy about this.  Speak up, and your words will be twisted.  You'll be passively attacked.

Step 4:  Now that we've got control, we'll run everyone out one way or the other, unless they kowtow to us.  If we can't do it any other way (e.g. academia tenure), we'll make sure to get hold of the hiring process, so that no one is hired that doesn't fit our narrow view.

Step 5:  We drop even the pretense that anyone else is even considered.

This is not all leftists, not even all radical leftists, by any shape, form, or fashion.  I've known a few hardcore, radical feminists, as just one example, that were also free speech purists and horrified by such tactics.  It is all SJWs.  When they say they want "tolerance", they are lying through their teeth or are "useful idiots" to the more intelligent, lying ones.  (Well, except for the third group of their sometimes supporters, AKA "the fools".  But fools can be found in any group, supporting any cause.)  SJW want you to "tolerate" them until they have power, and then they drop the veil.

Call me whatever name you want, but if it were solely up to me (Ha!), then the only reason for exclusion for any public or semi-public (e.g. corporate) group would be the direct forced disassociation of someone else on free speech grounds.  AKA, "free speech is not a suicide pact".  That is, anyone that's willing to have free speech for everyone else, also gets free speech themselves.  Anyone trying to drive "X" or "Y" or "Z" out of the group loses, at the very least, the benefit of the doubt.  

To forestall the obvious, pithy, 2-line, drive by comment, by one of the usual suspects:  No, that is not circular. I should not be driven out by the logic of what I'm advocating causing other people to be driven out.  The conditional logic is very important to the point, and cannot be removed from it.  Anyone that opts in on free speech is protected.  No matter who they are or what their beliefs.  If someone thinks their beliefs override someone else's free speech, then insofar as their particular advocacy and cause is concerned, their speech should be restricted.  Many normal people understand this distinction.  There have been plenty of ways to state it in a normal fashion by several posters here recently.  "You are welcome in my hobby as long as you don't  try to decide who is welcome in my hobby.  Then you aren't anymore."

Finally, "Welcome in my hobby" and "Welcome in my particular game" are not the same thing.  There are all kinds of personal reasons for the chemistry of a gaming group.  There are plenty of people with whom I have no quarrel whatsoever, but I'm not going to game with them.

I will not answer any drive-by reply to this post by an SJW that refuses to engage with the argument presented above.  Such people are either liars, idiots, or fools.  I can't tell which from the post, but it's a waste of time to argue with any of them.  That is my reply to your lack of engagement (and probably attempt at distraction from a point you desperately do not want made or discussed).  Engaged answers, no matter how pithy, are of course appreciated.

Quote from: SHARK;1081458I am a military veteran, having served in the United States Marine Corps. You do know what that entails, right? By long-standing policy, those recruits that have ever been members of the Communist party or supporters thereof, are summarily dismissed from the Marine Corps. Past training in Boot Camp, such members embracing such political ideology are subject to formal punishment and sanction, including reduction in rank, fines, imrisonment, and a dishonourable discharge from the United States Marine Corps. I assume very similar regulations are embraced by the other branches of the military, and pursue such through the UCMJ.
...
The football players that "took a knee" is rude, insuting, and disrespectful to the military, to our country, and to the fans and *customers* of the game.

What does the military have to do with the protests? Are you under the impression that they were protesting the military or in active service? I'm surprised that you are so easily offended and play the victim card here.

So, do you you support tech, media, and entertainment companies firing right-leaning employees for being "rude," "insulting," "disrespectful," and "unprofessional" in their outspoken political stances while on the job? If so, that's totally fair, and while I don't agree with it, i can respect the opinion.

If not, that's a double standard and communist-thinking on your part and is exactly what happens in fun places like North Korea. Stalin and Castro would be proud.

Also, if all the sensitive snowflakes "so offended" by the protest were the majority or made a dent in profits, the NFL would adjust and make an "Anthem policy." This points to the fact that most NFL fans aren't so thin-skinned and easily offended nor live in a state of perpetual victimhood like you do. So not everybody thinks a certain protest is "rude" and some even applaud it. That's why punishing them for something that isn't remotely universal is akin to corporate fascism.

Quote from: jhkimI'm left doubting what exactly it means to be an SJW for you.

Quote from: S'mon;1081482Jessica Price. Stacey D. Chris Helton. Anita Sarkeesian.

Beliefs don't make an SJW. Behaviour does.

I've never gamed with any of those four - but I have some friends in common with them (at least the first three). I'm reasonably certain that I could easily sit down to a game table with them and play a game, just like I suspect I could sit down and play a game with most of the posters here.

Quote from: jhkim;1081494I've never gamed with any of those four - but I have some friends in common with them (at least the first three). I'm reasonably certain that I could easily sit down to a game table with them and play a game, just like I suspect I could sit down and play a game with most of the posters here.

I'm not sure why your ability to play games with SJWs is relevant? Like you said, you share most of their beliefs, you like them, you like associating with them. You're hardly going to be a primary target for them.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1081489Right.  But let's cut to the chase.  Anyone paying attention knows the drill, though I'm fairly certain that a few of you here will disingenuously deny it.  It's happened over and over again in all kinds of "communities":

Step 1:  We just want to be included.

Step 2:  There aren't enough of us.  There needs to be more of us.  Keep X out to make room.  Usually, "X" is carefully chosen to be someone that no one really likes anyway.  You have to be a free speech AND free association purist to defend X.

Step 3:  Now that there are enough of to dictate policy, we'll start pushing others out of leadership positions for "reasons".  Suddenly, it's "Y" and "Z" that are getting culled, and not everyone is happy about this.  Speak up, and your words will be twisted.  You'll be passively attacked.

Step 4:  Now that we've got control, we'll run everyone out one way or the other, unless they kowtow to us.  If we can't do it any other way (e.g. academia tenure), we'll make sure to get hold of the hiring process, so that no one is hired that doesn't fit our narrow view.

Step 5:  We drop even the pretense that anyone else is even considered.

This is not all leftists, not even all radical leftists, by any shape, form, or fashion.  I've known a few hardcore, radical feminists, as just one example, that were also free speech purists and horrified by such tactics.  It is all SJWs.  When they say they want "tolerance", they are lying through their teeth or are "useful idiots" to the more intelligent, lying ones.  (Well, except for the third group of their sometimes supporters, AKA "the fools".  But fools can be found in any group, supporting any cause.)  SJW want you to "tolerate" them until they have power, and then they drop the veil.

Call me whatever name you want, but if it were solely up to me (Ha!), then the only reason for exclusion for any public or semi-public (e.g. corporate) group would be the direct forced disassociation of someone else on free speech grounds.  AKA, "free speech is not a suicide pact".  That is, anyone that's willing to have free speech for everyone else, also gets free speech themselves.  Anyone trying to drive "X" or "Y" or "Z" out of the group loses, at the very least, the benefit of the doubt.  

To forestall the obvious, pithy, 2-line, drive by comment, by one of the usual suspects:  No, that is not circular. I should not be driven out by the logic of what I'm advocating causing other people to be driven out.  The conditional logic is very important to the point, and cannot be removed from it.  Anyone that opts in on free speech is protected.  No matter who they are or what their beliefs.  If someone thinks their beliefs override someone else's free speech, then insofar as their particular advocacy and cause is concerned, their speech should be restricted.  Many normal people understand this distinction.  There have been plenty of ways to state it in a normal fashion by several posters here recently.  "You are welcome in my hobby as long as you don't  try to decide who is welcome in my hobby.  Then you aren't anymore."

Finally, "Welcome in my hobby" and "Welcome in my particular game" are not the same thing.  There are all kinds of personal reasons for the chemistry of a gaming group.  There are plenty of people with whom I have no quarrel whatsoever, but I'm not going to game with them.

I will not answer any drive-by reply to this post by an SJW that refuses to engage with the argument presented above.  Such people are either liars, idiots, or fools.  I can't tell which from the post, but it's a waste of time to argue with any of them.  That is my reply to your lack of engagement (and probably attempt at distraction from a point you desperately do not want made or discussed).  Engaged answers, no matter how pithy, are of course appreciated.

Well said mate!

Quote from: Kael;1081442Very true. But it wasn't just the fans. It was also the owners, teammates, corporate sponsors, right-wing media, and the POTUS. I believe "sonsabitches" is the term he used.

So basically:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3279[/ATTACH]

Personally, I always stand for the Anthem. But for those that choose not to, I'm glad they have the freedom to do so. Likewise, I'm happy that people can boycott anything they choose. It's the American Way and something to be proud of.

You know that is fake news, right?  POTUS never said that neo Nazis were fine people that was just a CNN lie.

Quote from: S'mon;1081496I'm not sure why your ability to play games with SJWs is relevant? Like you said, you share most of their beliefs, you like them, you like associating with them. You're hardly going to be a primary target for them.

Fair enough. So, what do you think would happen if you sat down to a convention game with Stacey D? What do you think they would do, or you would do?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1081489Anyone that opts in on free speech is protected.  No matter who they are or what their beliefs.  If someone thinks their beliefs override someone else's free speech, then insofar as their particular advocacy and cause is concerned, their speech should be restricted.  Many normal people understand this distinction.  There have been plenty of ways to state it in a normal fashion by several posters here recently.  "You are welcome in my hobby as long as you don't  try to decide who is welcome in my hobby.  Then you aren't anymore."

The problem here is that essentially everyone *claims* they are in favor of free speech. However, nearly everyone shows bias in terms of what they consider being made unwelcome or what are the limits of free speech. So, for example, conservatives would find reason to ban - say, Matt Loter, who is accused but not convicted of of attacked Jeremy Hambly near GenCon. Others might say that he has not been convicted of any crime and so should be allowed until the charges are proven. Conversely, liberals might want to ban Bill Webb for alleged harassment - but others claim that the charges have not been proven.

Who is banned - and thus limits on free speech - show up in bias and excuses, and almost never as saying "I oppose free speech."

Quote from: Kael;1081491What does the military have to do with the protests? Are you under the impression that they were protesting the military or in active service? I'm surprised that you are so easily offended and play the victim card here.

SHARK thinks far too highly of the military, but as he is a military dude that is not surprising.

I think there is also something of a cultural element there (and SHARK can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - but preferably with brevity, I don't want to read a wall of text) in which there seems to be a sense that the military is emblematic of the US as a whole. If I had to guess I'd probably say that given that military service is presently voluntary, there is a strong patriotic element there, so military folk view disrespect towards the flag as disrespect to the military as well as to the nation as a whole.

QuoteSo, do you you support tech, media, and entertainment companies firing right-leaning employees for being "rude," "insulting," "disrespectful," and "unprofessional" in their outspoken political stances while on the job? If so, that's totally fair, and while I don't agree with it, i can respect the opinion.

You have this logic backwards.

Right now, anyone who touts a right-of-center political view in their place of employment will almost assuredly get shown the door. People can and absolutely have been fired for having right-wing political beliefs.

In that greater societal context, it is entirely fair of people on the right to demand that outward displays of left-leaning political beliefs be shown the same treatment. Hence the response to the NFL kneeling.

If you want to be able to can people for their political beliefs, and for expression of said beliefs in a work environment, that needs to cut both ways. Similarly, if you want free speech to be an inviolate right, then firing somebody for political expression even while on the job should be illegal (and unconstitutional, though I'm not sure if that's relevant here).

But right now there is pretty clear favoritism, and that's where the problem comes from. Personally I'm not sure which way I lean (in terms of whether or not folk should be reprimanded in the workplace for voicing their political views - I can see both sides, and have a very strong "no politics, no religion" thing when I'm at work), but the inequity of the situation is what bothers me the most.

Quote from: Shasarak;1081499You know that is fake news, right?  POTUS never said that neo Nazis were fine people that was just a CNN lie.

Good thing I never claimed that he did say that, right? He said the folks protesting the removal of Confederate statues are "very fine people." Those protestors are shown in the meme, some of which also happen to be those he denounced. TRD strikes again. It illustrates his conflicting views on protesters. No more, no less.

Quote from: Kael;1081502He said the folks protesting the removal of Confederate statues are "very fine people."

Removal of history - no matter how distasteful someone may find it - is downright Orwellian. There are plenty of folk who have no particular horse in the race that is remembering the Confederacy that have strong opinions regarding statue removal.

Quote from: jhkim;1081500Fair enough. So, what do you think would happen if you sat down to a convention game with Stacey D? What do you think they would do, or you would do?

I don't want to find out! I'm sure I would be too frightened and anxious to enjoy whatever the game was. Maybe I'd say something she objected to and she'd do a blog write up on me afterwards so I'd be the target of an Internet harassment campaign.

Edit: For instance, reading over your query reminds me that she currently goes by 'they', so if I called her 'her' that'd be a speech crime. I could end up like this guy -  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/court-orders-christian-to-pay-55000-to-trans-politician-for-calling-him-biological-male

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081503Removal of history - no matter how distasteful someone may find it - is downright Orwellian. There are plenty of folk who have no particular horse in the race that is remembering the Confederacy that have strong opinions regarding statue removal.

I agree. But I'm talking about silent, peaceful protesting, not history.

Whether the statues are in a museum or displayed prominently in a town square, is a whole other debate and has nothing to do with RPGs, nor do any of these random NFL rants. Besides, I already stated earlier that I agree with Trump's point about the statues and the Founding Fathers, etc. so hopefully that's extra clear now.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081501SHARK thinks far too highly of the military, but as he is a military dude that is not surprising.

I think there is also something of a cultural element there (and SHARK can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - but preferably with brevity, I don't want to read a wall of text) in which there seems to be a sense that the military is emblematic of the US as a whole. If I had to guess I'd probably say that given that military service is presently voluntary, there is a strong patriotic element there, so military folk view disrespect towards the flag as disrespect to the military as well as to the nation as a whole.

You have this logic backwards.

Right now, anyone who touts a right-of-center political view in their place of employment will almost assuredly get shown the door. People can and absolutely have been fired for having right-wing political beliefs.

In that greater societal context, it is entirely fair of people on the right to demand that outward displays of left-leaning political beliefs be shown the same treatment. Hence the response to the NFL kneeling.

If you want to be able to can people for their political beliefs, and for expression of said beliefs in a work environment, that needs to cut both ways. Similarly, if you want free speech to be an inviolate right, then firing somebody for political expression even while on the job should be illegal (and unconstitutional, though I'm not sure if that's relevant here).

But right now there is pretty clear favoritism, and that's where the problem comes from. Personally I'm not sure which way I lean (in terms of whether or not folk should be reprimanded in the workplace for voicing their political views - I can see both sides, and have a very strong "no politics, no religion" thing when I'm at work), but the inequity of the situation is what bothers me the most.

I don't think my logic is backwards (maybe it is), since I agree with this entirely. You make my point in a much more eloquent manner than I. I think this is a worthy debate and it should cut both ways. I lean towards freedom of individual expression myself. If you can be fired for "wrongthink" that's certainly a topic worth discussing.

I love the military and come from a military family. I won't go into more detail because I see no reason to virtue-signal the way Shark does. But above all else, I'm pro-freedom of the individual and people that get their little feelings hurt over a protest are sensitive and weak.

I don't like the hypocrisy of whining when the left do it, and then frothing at the mouth to get the right to behave in kind. That kind of ideological warfare annoys me greatly.

Quote from: Kael;1081502Good thing I never claimed that he did say that, right? He said the folks protesting the removal of Confederate statues are "very fine people." Those protestors are shown in the meme, some of which also happen to be those he denounced. TRD strikes again. It illustrates his conflicting views on protesters. No more, no less.

Then why show a picture of NEo Nazis and claim that POTUS said that they were fine people?  That is just a lie he never said that neo Nazis were fine people.  

Now you are just spreading fake news.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081501SHARK thinks far too highly of the military, but as he is a military dude that is not surprising.

I think there is also something of a cultural element there (and SHARK can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - but preferably with brevity, I don't want to read a wall of text) in which there seems to be a sense that the military is emblematic of the US as a whole. If I had to guess I'd probably say that given that military service is presently voluntary, there is a strong patriotic element there, so military folk view disrespect towards the flag as disrespect to the military as well as to the nation as a whole.



You have this logic backwards.

Right now, anyone who touts a right-of-center political view in their place of employment will almost assuredly get shown the door. People can and absolutely have been fired for having right-wing political beliefs.

In that greater societal context, it is entirely fair of people on the right to demand that outward displays of left-leaning political beliefs be shown the same treatment. Hence the response to the NFL kneeling.

If you want to be able to can people for their political beliefs, and for expression of said beliefs in a work environment, that needs to cut both ways. Similarly, if you want free speech to be an inviolate right, then firing somebody for political expression even while on the job should be illegal (and unconstitutional, though I'm not sure if that's relevant here).

But right now there is pretty clear favoritism, and that's where the problem comes from. Personally I'm not sure which way I lean (in terms of whether or not folk should be reprimanded in the workplace for voicing their political views - I can see both sides, and have a very strong "no politics, no religion" thing when I'm at work), but the inequity of the situation is what bothers me the most.

Greetings!

Exactly, Gnomeworks. Thank you. You understand perfectly. I'm certainly not some "perpetually offended snowflake" as Kael accused me of. Every veteran I know that sees the football players "taking a knee" believe the same way I do. The players are being rude, insulting, and disrespectful to our Flag, our National Anthem, and our military. They all believe that the owners should not tolerate such behavior, and that such players should be disciplined, and fired. Every veteran I know that is also a football fan is offended that such players are seeking to bring politics into the game. They don't want to hear about politics of "X". They want to watch a good football game without politics involved. Every veteran I know thinks such behavior is absolutely inappropriate, and disrespectful. Such players are free to speak and march or protest whatever they want--ON THEIR OFF TIME. Come game day, they should be entirely professional, respectful, and dignified.

Salute! :)

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Kael;1081483Yes I know. He said both things. Which is true and my point. And again, it's just a joke to point out inconsistencies in messaging when it comes to his views on protests. Don't let a picture of a swastika trigger you.

You're talking to a guy who, on this very forum, had an avatar of a Nazi Dinosaur with a swastika on it's flank and machine guns strapped to it's horns.
I assure you, a swastika isn't going to trigger me.

Addendum for anyone fancying same trick. The mods told me to change it, and I did.

Quote from: Kael;1081506I think this is a worthy debate and it should cut both ways. I lean towards freedom of individual expression myself. If you can be fired for "wrongthink" that's certainly a topic worth discussing.

I think it was at... Google, if I recall, that some right-wing folk got in hot water for their political leanings. Meanwhile those upset with the organization's dealings with the Pentagon (and thereby presumably left-wing) were rewarded by Google backing out of those arrangements.

Ultimately it comes down to the double standard. Either people need to keep their politics at home, or everybody can speak their mind and it's cool (within reason). I can see both sides of the argument, and while I personally lean towards a policy of leaving political and religious discussions at the door, I don't particularly mind either way, so long as it's applied equally.

QuoteI'm pro-freedom of the individual and people that get their little feelings hurt over a protest are sensitive and weak.

I get it, but again I think it comes down to the double standard.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081511You're talking to a guy who, on this very forum, had an avatar of a Nazi Dinosaur with a swastika on it's flank and machine guns strapped to it's horns.
I assure you, a swastika isn't going to trigger me.

Addendum for anyone fancying same trick. The mods told me to change it, and I did.

LOL. Fair enough! I'm honestly too scared to ask any follow-up questions...(goes to watch some cat videos...)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081512I get it, but again I think it comes down to the double standard.

Yes, very much agree.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081480Analogies of murder vs. genocide have nothing to do with with self-defense.

Sure they do. What you're advocating is analogous to murder.

The analogy to self defense would be removing an SJW from your game.

Your right to self defense ends when you're actively hunting down the opposition.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081465Personally, I welcome SJWs. I would never have realized how terrible their arguments and tactics are if they hadn't tried to shoehorn them into the "community". It gave me an opportunity to recognize the flaws and pitfalls of identity politics, and refine my arguments against it.

I dont mind talking with SJWs but you would need to make sure that they were not Mods though.  Never known a people as thin skinned desperately clutching their X card.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1081512I think it was at... Google, if I recall, that some right-wing folk got in hot water for their political leanings. Meanwhile those upset with the organization's dealings with the Pentagon (and thereby presumably left-wing) were rewarded by Google backing out of those arrangements.

It does not get much worse then Google.  They are literally helping the Chinese Government to oppress their people which is as Left as you can get without swinging all the way round to being a Nazi.

But... they're only doing it for money! (Detect the sarcasm.)

Can we take the NFL or other stuff to a separate thread in Pundit's forum, or just drop it? It really doesn't belong here in the RPG forum.

Quote from: jhkimFair enough. So, what do you think would happen if you sat down to a convention game with Stacey D? What do you think they would do, or you would do?

Quote from: S'mon;1081504I don't want to find out! I'm sure I would be too frightened and anxious to enjoy whatever the game was. Maybe I'd say something she objected to and she'd do a blog write up on me afterwards so I'd be the target of an Internet harassment campaign.

Edit: For instance, reading over your query reminds me that she currently goes by 'they', so if I called her 'her' that'd be a speech crime. I could end up like this guy -  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/court-orders-christian-to-pay-55000-to-trans-politician-for-calling-him-biological-male

OK, so you're afraid of potentially being harassed, so you wouldn't want to sit down and game with Stacey. That's your choice. However, it seems to run counter to your earlier claim that "If someone of left wing views is happy to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with me then by definition they are not an SJW."

By what you initially said, if Stacey is willing to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with you, then you claimed that by definition they would not be an SJW. But I think that isn't the case. Even if they were happy to sit down and play D&D with you, you'd be afraid and refuse to play with them - and presumably you'd still consider them an SJW.


As for the latter, I mess up pronouns all the time. With a bunch of transgender friends and acquaintances, it's hard not to. I've sometimes been mildly embarrassed about it, but that's about it. The point seems to buy into the idea that transgender people are so well protected now, that really it's the conservative people who have to fear the stigma if they use the wrong pronouns or otherwise cross them. I find that ridiculous. I've before suggested people try it for a day or so - just dress in opposite-gender clothing and go around doing normal things. For men in women's clothing, it has really crushing stigma to it - even in liberal areas. Overwhelmingly, most trans people just want to the relief of being treated like just another person.

Quote from: jhkim;1081500The problem here is that essentially everyone *claims* they are in favor of free speech. However, nearly everyone shows bias in terms of what they consider being made unwelcome or what are the limits of free speech. So, for example, conservatives would find reason to ban - say, Matt Loter, who is accused but not convicted of of attacked Jeremy Hambly near GenCon. Others might say that he has not been convicted of any crime and so should be allowed until the charges are proven. Conversely, liberals might want to ban Bill Webb for alleged harassment - but others claim that the charges have not been proven.

Who is banned - and thus limits on free speech - show up in bias and excuses, and almost never as saying "I oppose free speech."

Yes.  Which is why it should be a strict standard.  (By "strict standard" I mean roughly in the sense of the legal term, but IANAL and may be missing some technical details.)

Specifically, the strict standard would be actions, not merely speech.  As you say, people can say anything.  And yes, this would apply across the board, to any group.  It might clarify to say that my stance on this is essential Kantian, and not inline with either English common law nor the US Constitution.  In my view, it would require an amendment to the Constitution to have such a policy as a legal option, though I think voluntary groups could impose it with more freedom.  

For an example, let's assume I'm starting a new mostly free speech store front for RPGs.  It's got a forum.  If some guy Joe goes onto the forum and says that he thinks that the Hobbits and Houses RPG should be banned because of its exclusion of tall people, then that's not enough to hit the strict standard.  Everyone tells Joe he is an idiot; that we don't do that here.  If Joe turns into a single-issue troll over it, he might get suspended or banned eventually for that behavior, but not because of his speech.

OTOH, if Joe organizes an effort to get H&H banned everywhere, slanders the author, and so forth, then by the categorical imperative, Joe has said that he thinks that such a ban over such disagreements are just and warranted.  Therefore, we take Joe at his word and ban him.  He's crossed the line into active attempts to achieve the ban.  He's demonstrated by his actions that he does not believe in free speech.  

Now admittedly, that's still leaving some room for error.  I'd be much more hesitant to put that into law than into particular society, but I'm not worried about it since no such amendment would ever pass.  (I also am thankful I can't control the weather.)  

At any given time, such a policy might disproportionately affect "liberals" or "conservatives" or any number of groups.  That's because typically people that start throwing their weight around in this manner are the ones with some kind of cultural power.  That's fine with me.  I'd prefer the underdog win those arguments more often than not.  Also, I think it would be educational, and thus cut down on the worst of the excesses (from everyone) over time.

Quote from: Shasarak;1081520...  as Left as you can get without swinging all the way round to being a Nazi.

Yes! I always love it when I'm reminded that the political spectrum is circular.

Swing hard to the left and you end up in a socialist and communist single party system run by a dictator. See: Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and North Korea, Nazi Germany, etc.

Swing hard to the right and you end up in pure capitalist and anarchist system run by a warlord/druglord acting as a dictator. See: pretty much all of Africa and South/Central America.

Go old school and you end up with feudalism, empires, monarchies, papalities, etc. run by ... wait for it ...  a dictator. The ultimate goal of any modern society should be the avoidance of those things that lead to a dictatorship (single person in charge with absolute authority.)

It's not even a left/right issue at all. It's a "avoid the extremes" thing.

Quote from: jhkim;1081523OK, so you're afraid of potentially being harassed, so you wouldn't want to sit down and game with Stacey. That's your choice. However, it seems to run counter to your earlier claim that "If someone of left wing views is happy to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with me then by definition they are not an SJW."

By what you initially said, if Stacey is willing to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with you, then you claimed that by definition they would not be an SJW. But I think that isn't the case. Even if they were happy to sit down and play D&D with you, you'd be afraid and refuse to play with them - and presumably you'd still consider them an SJW.

Don't know if my reasoning is the same as S'mon's, but my answer to this is that I don't want to play with her/him/it because when she/he/it said she was willing to just sit at my table and play, without dragging in the other stuff--I don't believe her/him/it.  I don't need much credibility to sit down and at least try a game with someone, but I need more than she/he/it has with me on this issue.

Such credibility issues are case by case, and can of course change over time.

Quote from: jhkim;1081523Can we take the NFL or other stuff to a separate thread in Pundit's forum, or just drop it? It really doesn't belong here in the RPG forum.

Welcome to the (post)modern world: where it's all politics, all the time.

Trying to shut it out won't make it go away.

Quote from: KaelThe ultimate goal of any modern society should be the avoidance of those things that lead to a dictatorship (single person in charge with absolute authority.)

See it's funny that you say that, because I'm a monarchist.

Quote from: jhkim;1081494I'm reasonably certain that I could easily sit down to a game table with them and play a game, just like I suspect I could sit down and play a game with most of the posters here.

No, you wouldn't.  Because they'd kick you out and then make sure you'd never be able to do anything, including feeding yourself and having shelter, because you're 'problematic'.  People like them, HAVE done this.

Quote from: Kael;1081526Yes! I always love it when I'm reminded that the political spectrum is circular.

Swing hard to the left and you end up in a socialist and communist single party system run by a dictator. See: Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and North Korea, Nazi Germany, etc.

Swing hard to the right and you end up in pure capitalist and anarchist system run by a warlord/druglord acting as a dictator. See: pretty much all of Africa and South/Central America.

Go old school and you end up with feudalism, empires, monarchies, papalities, etc. run by ... wait for it ...  a dictator. The ultimate goal of any modern society should be the avoidance of those things that lead to a dictatorship (single person in charge with absolute authority.)

It's not even a left/right issue at all. It's a "avoid the extremes" thing.

Capitalism probably would not work very well in an anarchy.  In fact I would not even rank it on a scale of Law - Chaos.

Dictatorships can work very well if you get the right person in place and dont care too much about human rights.  But if you ask me then I much prefer the chaos of democracy. ;)

Quote from: Shasarak;1081533Capitalism probably would not work very well in an anarchy.  In fact I would not even rank it on a scale of Law - Chaos.

Indeed it wouldn't. For capitalism to actually work, it needs some central (i.e. socialist) oversight to prevent monopolies, otherwise it descends into a "winner takes all" anarchy. This oversight also can't fall under the power of a single person because corruption will occur without fail.

So, at this point, any unchecked power will eventually be consolidated into a dictatorship and hence the circular spectrum. All extreme roads, whether through the government or through private means, lead to a consolidation of power which inevitably ends up with a single person on top.

Some African and Central/South American situations are good examples of what happens when "the guy with all the guns and drug money" or simply "the richest dude" grabs control and the puppet government has no actual power. It's a laissez faire style of capitalism that leads to constant civil warring tribes/factions, which leads to true anarchy, that leads to a power vacuum with a single person taking control, usually by force and money. Rinse and repeat.

The flip side is a communist-style single-party government taking total control with a single person on top. Both avenues end up in the same place: dictator. The only difference is how you got there. In reality, a healthy mix of socialism/capitalism is needed to maintain proper socioeconomic balance and stability. Whether that mix should be 55/45 or 45/55, is a boring and endless debate that will rage on long after we are all dead.

However, as long as both sides have a voice and neither takes control, you end up somewhere in the middle of the pro-employer/pro-employee and nonprofit/max profit spectrum, which is where you want to be for steady, longterm growth.

In the middle east, there are still quite a few religious monarchies (i.e. dictators backed by drug and oil money), and those systems seem to be working out great for all the commoners that aren't born into the royal families as princes. /s

Quote from: jhkim;1081523As for the latter, I mess up pronouns all the time. With a bunch of transgender friends and acquaintances, it's hard not to. I've sometimes been mildly embarrassed about it, but that's about it. The point seems to buy into the idea that transgender people are so well protected now, that really it's the conservative people who have to fear the stigma if they use the wrong pronouns or otherwise cross them. I find that ridiculous. I've before suggested people try it for a day or so - just dress in opposite-gender clothing and go around doing normal things. For men in women's clothing, it has really crushing stigma to it - even in liberal areas. Overwhelmingly, most trans people just want to the relief of being treated like just another person.

I've mentioned this before, but I live in western washington in the tech sector. I would have no problem crossdressing to work. People here bend over backwards to be accomidating and inclusive. I get the HR emails every so often, reminding me that I live in progressive, left, social justice central. I'd get even more specific, but I don't want to out myself and get fired.

Quote from: jhkim;1081523OK, so you're afraid of potentially being harassed, so you wouldn't want to sit down and game with Stacey. That's your choice. However, it seems to run counter to your earlier claim that "If someone of left wing views is happy to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with me then by definition they are not an SJW."

By what you initially said, if Stacey is willing to sit down and play a regular game of D&D with you, then you claimed that by definition they would not be an SJW. But I think that isn't the case. Even if they were happy to sit down and play D&D with you, you'd be afraid and refuse to play with them - and presumably you'd still consider them an SJW.

She has amply demonstrated that she won't just sit down and play.

Maybe I should have made some caveats

- Has not demonstrated a hatred of 'straight white men', ie me

- Is willing to sit down and play without looking for an attack vector.

What I am trying to get at is that I GM/play with a lot of left-liberal people, some may have SJW friends, some may share the general worldview of SJWs, or at least think they do - but they don't behave like SJWs. It's the behaviour that matters.

(For me it's the same with someone on the Far Right - if they can keep quiet and play, I don't care about their opinions. But I do care about their behaviour, and they better not be harrassing any gay/black/trans players, or ranting at the table, or threatening me.)

Quote from: jhkim;1081523I've before suggested people try it for a day or so - just dress in opposite-gender clothing and go around doing normal things.

I don't think the radical Islamist students at my work would be too keen on that. The cultural Marxists among the staff would love it though! :D

Counterpoint, whatever your stance, you better accomplish that by playing in a session Friday night than posting on internet forums.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081541Counterpoint, whatever your stance, you better accomplish that by playing in a session Friday night than posting on internet forums.

My next session is 08.30am (online) - just over an hour from now - followed by 2pm tomorrow (tabletop) , followed by 6pm Tuesday (tabletop). My previous sessions were Tuesday, Sunday & Saturday. :D It's possible to play plenty while still wasting lots of time on internet forums!

Quote from: S'mon;1081543My next session is 08.30am (online) - just over an hour from now - followed by 2pm tomorrow (tabletop) , followed by 6pm Tuesday (tabletop). My previous sessions were Tuesday, Sunday & Saturday. :D It's possible to play plenty while still wasting lots of time on internet forums!

Fine you get a pass.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081544Fine you get a pass.

The secret lies in not having a TV, not regularly playing video games, and not spending too much time on Youtube or the newspapers.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081517Sure they do. What you're advocating is analogous to murder.

The analogy to self defense would be removing an SJW from your game.

Your right to self defense ends when you're actively hunting down the opposition.

No they don't, no I'm not, and no it doesn't when I am advocating we defend the RPG hobby as a whole.

Took me a bit but I see what you are trying to do here.

You keep using words like genocide, and murder, when I am talking about the RPG hobby.

Nothing I am advocating is in the same ballpark as genocide and murder. Not even in the same reality.

And could not be construed as such by any reasonable person.

You keep trying to say my words are equivalent to physical violence, when I have not advocated physical violence of any kind.

SJW's use a similar tactic. They equate the words of their opposition with 'literally hurting people' so that they feel justified in using physical violence as a response to people that they disagree with. Antifa does this in their rhetoric all the time.

Why are you doing it?

Quote from: jhkim;1081481Interesting. This is nearly exactly parallel to what I hear from liberal advocates to be safe from conservative harassment and intolerance. Do you think you would actually have common ground and could come up with common rules for gaming safe spaces with liberal advocates?

I would predict that you'll have a problem with how to define the hate that you want to ban. The very extreme of violence like fistfights are trivial to ban - and in fact, are already banned at all game conventions that I've seen. However, you'll find that most of what you consider SJWs operate much more subtly - like socially shunning conservative players, and/or running games where conservatives feel unwelcome. Then you'll either have to tolerate that hate, or you'll have to start trying to define and ban micro-aggressions against conservatives.



I'm left doubting what exactly it means to be an SJW for you. I play pretty regularly with people that I believe most posters here would consider SJWs (and heck, there are posters who consider me an SJW). They're enthusiastic about the X card, introductions with what pronouns to use, punching nazis, and so forth.

On the other hand, most of them are happy to sit down and play a game of D&D with me. (Some just don't like D&D but will play other games, which I assume is still OK.)

Greetings!

The problem with attempting to play with SJW's, Jhkim, is that SJW's are social misfits. They are mentally and emotionally unstable. SJW's often need "safe spaces" and are always worried about being "triggered" for some stupid psuedo-traumatic drama that so many of them claim to be an eternal victim of. SJW's are seemingly hyper-vigilant about proper "representation" and any kind of campaign which embraces "problematic" issues can cause them to spiral into a pearl-clutching frenzy. All of these deeply tortured and emotionally fragile people really shouldn't be attempting to game in a vibrant, diverse world. They need to be heavily medicated, and kept in special places where they can clutch their stuffed animal and watch endless reruns of bad soap-operas. :)

Conservatives are typically normal, emotionally stable and mature people that can play a game of D&D with different people--and without all of the deep emotional and psychological problems that seem to plague SJW's. It is that precise dynamic that has normal gamers cautious about playing with anyone that is a self-proclaimed SJW--or who might be. Like S'mon maintains, SJW's behaviour is deeply disruptive and entirely too swallowed up with drama for most people to tolerate--or even to contemplate dealing with. I can certainly understand S'mon not wanting Stacy to be at his table. I wouldn't either. People like that are like walking around with a backpack full of explosive eggs on them. You never know what anything--of a dozen things--usually entirely normal, innocuous, and mostly what everyone else considers to be reasonable, healthy, and fun--might suddenly offend the SJW and set them off on some Turretz-like emotional breakdown and sobbing fit.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Jaeger;1081548No they don't, no I'm not, and no it doesn't when I am advocating we defend the RPG hobby as a whole.

Took me a bit but I see what you are trying to do here.

You keep using words like genocide, and murder, when I am talking about the RPG hobby.

Nothing I am advocating is in the same ballpark as genocide and murder. Not even in the same reality.

And could not be construed as such by any reasonable person.

You keep trying to say my words are equivalent to physical violence, when I have not advocated physical violence of any kind.

SJW's use this same tactic. They equate the words of their opposition with 'literally hurting people' so that they feel justified in using physical violence as a response to people that they disagree with. Antifa does this in their rhetoric all the time.

Why are you doing it?

Greetings!

Razor-sharp, my friend. You always have to stay vigilant about how SJW's like to corrupt normal language, and subtly slip in loaded language to undermine you, and increasingly tighten the verbal screws on you so that YOU look and feel like some kind of monster.

BOOM! Great commentary, Jaeger. :)

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

This thread is exactly why I love this place. It's an insane asylum and you're all batshit crazy poo flinging chimps, but hot damn, its refreshing to see everyone using their freedom of speech. That will be missed in the coming years.

SJWs are free to make SJW RPGs. They've become a niche on Kickstarter. I get the Kickstarter Games email and its regularly laughably SJW Pravda 4 Games, plus the latest CMON style overhyped boardgame. However, as an advocate for free speech, free expression and capitalism, I support everyone's right to create and sell, and that includes SJWs. But its sad to see the SJW disease poison every platform.

I don't know the right path regarding SJWs and D&D.

Personally, I've written off WotC. But I acknowledge they are the 500 lb non-binary gorilla in our hobby. To some extent, how WotC goes, so does the hobby as a whole. Thus, I can understand RPGPundit and others who feel the need to fight for the future of D&D to be non-SJW.

But since we don't control WotC, I doubt we can influence WotC, especially while 5e is making good money. I'm sure WotC brass is being sold the story by Mearls & Crew that being woke makes them gobs of money, so mo woke = mo money. And maybe it is? Maybe SJWs are the new D&D market. I don't pretend to know what demographic is actually buying WotC's books.

All of US society is fracturing because politics has become culture, so of course our hobby will fracture as well. Gamers will either play at tables that ban political yabbering, or gamers will self-segregate into tables of only people with similar politics.

Quote from: S'mon;1081545The secret lies in not having a TV, not regularly playing video games, and not spending too much time on Youtube or the newspapers.

Video games > TV > YouTube > Internet Forums > Drug Use > Newspapers

Quote from: Jaeger;1081548No they don't, no I'm not, and no it doesn't when I am advocating we defend the RPG hobby as a whole.

Took me a bit but I see what you are trying to do here.

You keep using words like genocide, and murder, when I am talking about the RPG hobby.

Nothing I am advocating is in the same ballpark as genocide and murder. Not even in the same reality.

And could not be construed as such by any reasonable person.

You keep trying to say my words are equivalent to physical violence, when I have not advocated physical violence of any kind.

SJW's use a similar tactic. They equate the words of their opposition with 'literally hurting people' so that they feel justified in using physical violence as a response to people that they disagree with. Antifa does this in their rhetoric all the time.

Why are you doing it?

Jesus H Christ

Deciding who gets to be allowed at your table and your thr equivalent of Pol Pot enforcer during the worst years of his regime. Some SJWs are certifiably crazy imo.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081548Why are you doing it?

Because he/she/xe is an SJW.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1081541Counterpoint, whatever your stance, you better accomplish that by playing in a session Friday night than posting on internet forums.

I played X-Wing on thursday, and I'm playing Starfinder society today. Do I get credit even though it's not specifically friday?

Quote from: S'mon;1081545The secret lies in not having a TV, not regularly playing video games, and not spending too much time on Youtube or the newspapers.

I play video games, paint miniatures, work, watch TV, putter around on youtube and the internet and do table top games. (Not necessarily all in the same day)

Quote from: Spinachcat;1081551This thread is exactly why I love this place. It's an insane asylum and you're all batshit crazy poo flinging chimps, but hot damn, its refreshing to see everyone using their freedom of speech. That will be missed in the coming years.

SJWs are free to make SJW RPGs. They've become a niche on Kickstarter. I get the Kickstarter Games email and its regularly laughably SJW Pravda 4 Games, plus the latest CMON style overhyped boardgame. However, as an advocate for free speech, free expression and capitalism, I support everyone's right to create and sell, and that includes SJWs. But its sad to see the SJW disease poison every platform.

I don't know the right path regarding SJWs and D&D.

Personally, I've written off WotC. But I acknowledge they are the 500 lb non-binary gorilla in our hobby. To some extent, how WotC goes, so does the hobby as a whole. Thus, I can understand RPGPundit and others who feel the need to fight for the future of D&D to be non-SJW.

But since we don't control WotC, I doubt we can influence WotC, especially while 5e is making good money. I'm sure WotC brass is being sold the story by Mearls & Crew that being woke makes them gobs of money, so mo woke = mo money. And maybe it is? Maybe SJWs are the new D&D market. I don't pretend to know what demographic is actually buying WotC's books.

I think we've made some measure of progress already. When this latest bout of social justice started, post 9/11 (Paul Vanderklay on youtube has made the observation that 9/11 was the polarization event for a lot of this identity politics) it seemed like everyone was on board, and there were no dissenters, but dissent has been slowly building up. Social justice relied heavily on a sort of manipulation of the overton window, controlling which opinions were "acceptable" in the community. But that has changed.

The biggest first step is to say "No" when the SJWs get out of hand. If someone in your group starts haranging about how straight white men are sexual terrorists (http://latining.tumblr.com/post/141567276944/tabletop-gaming-has-a-white-male-terrorism-problem), you can recognize the politics in that statement, and dissent and/or ditch the group.

QuoteAll of US society is fracturing because politics has become culture, so of course our hobby will fracture as well. Gamers will either play at tables that ban political yabbering, or gamers will self-segregate into tables of only people with similar politics.

True. My hope is that the "get woke, go broke" effect will influence companies like WOTC to focus on games and less on partisan politics.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1081527Don't know if my reasoning is the same as S'mon's, but my answer to this is that I don't want to play with her/him/it because when she/he/it said she was willing to just sit at my table and play, without dragging in the other stuff--I don't believe her/him/it.  I don't need much credibility to sit down and at least try a game with someone, but I need more than she/he/it has with me on this issue.

Such credibility issues are case by case, and can of course change over time.

When choosing people to game with, I believe the following. Like viking, SJW is an activity, not an identity. You can play at my table or I will play at yours if you leave your SJW activities at the door, even if you are a Warrior for (a) cause(s) I believe in. While there has been one person, girlfriend of a girlfriend of mine, who could not stop complaining about the setting I was running and eventually left the game, that has not often been a problem. Obviously, just as there were Norsemen who were nearly full-time raiiders, there are some nearly full-time SJWs and, living in New Haven, I knew some of them. None of them were ever interested in gaming and their comments about gaming were not heeded.

Quote from: SHARK;1081509Greetings!

Exactly, Gnomeworks. Thank you. You understand perfectly. I'm certainly not some "perpetually offended snowflake" as Kael accused me of. Every veteran I know that sees the football players "taking a knee" believe the same way I do. The players are being rude, insulting, and disrespectful to our Flag, our National Anthem, and our military.
Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I was in the Army and probably before you were born and I don't feel that way. The protests were never about the flag, the military or veterans. They were  about the behavior of some police officers and departments. Politicians promoted the idea that you should be offended. I haven't cared about the NFL since they started making pass defense too difficult and the teams are privately owned and can choose to discipline players however they choose but I am not going to get worked up about the protests. Rugby and college football (roll, tide, ROLL) are better than the NFL game anyway.

Quote from: jhkim;1081523Can we take the NFL or other stuff to a separate thread in Pundit's forum, or just drop it? It really doesn't belong here in the RPG forum.

Yes, I agree. Consider it dropped on my end. My apologies to the thread.

I unfortunately made the mistake of engaging with a mentally-ill Selachimorpha who feels it necessary to shove his off-topic politics into other people's faces at every turn. I'll try to do a better job of ignoring the raving lunatics who make everything political all the time like the social retards they are and claims to speak for an entire branch of service.

Quote from: Kael;1081578Yes, I agree. Consider it dropped on my end. My apologies to the thread.

I unfortunately made the mistake of engaging with a mentally-ill Selachimorpha who feels it necessary to shove his off-topic politics into other people's faces at every turn. I'll try to do a better job of ignoring the raving lunatics who make everything political all the time like the social retards they are and claims to speak for an entire branch of service.

Stay classy Kael!

To me, as long as we are consistent, then things work out fine. For instance, if some psychopath sits down at my table and goes on a red bull-fueled rant about the NFL protests and border walls, they can fuck off and leave my table.

On the other hand, if some sociopath sits down at my table and starts raving about all white people (or whomever) being the devil, they can fuck off too, and leave my table.

If I hated myself and wanted a table that talks incessant politics, then everyone is welcome to be an annoying shit. I think it's basically that simple.

As far as WOTC is concerned, if they want to put rainbows and unicorns, or swastikas and confederate flags on every page, who gives a flying fuck? Just don't give them any money and move on. So far, WOTC hasn't done anything to me to warrant a boycott, but any other potential customers and Hasbro alike are free to do as they please.

Quote from: S'mon;1081580Stay classy Kael!

Where's the fun in that?? :D If he's gonna dish it out, he should be able to take a few bites as well. I have nothing against Shark personally at all, I just very much enjoy his irony. If it turns out that he's a Russian bot, I wouldn't be at all surprised (I kid....sorta.) ;)

Anyway, I'll fully admit this place is pretty fun/wheels off, lol.

And just generally-speaking for myself, I don't have the same type of delusional, conspiratorial paranoia that many seem to possess. For instance, I'm just not one those people that thinks Fox News is trying to make everyone a racist anymore than I think that CNN is trying to turn every newborn gay.

This whole culture war thing is overblown to me, but what do I know, maybe the world is a shit show after all and I'm just oblivious to it.

I simply think the media does a good job of pitting people against each other to get eyeballs, garner attention, and rake in money. Both sides do this equally and most folks are very susceptible to it.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081548No they don't, no I'm not, and no it doesn't when I am advocating we defend the RPG hobby as a whole.

From what?

QuoteNothing I am advocating is in the same ballpark as genocide and murder. Not even in the same reality.

That's why it's called an analogy. Which is a form of counterfactual. Like playing a game.

QuoteYou keep trying to say my words are equivalent to physical violence, when I have not advocated physical violence of any kind.

No, I said they are the hobby version of it. That does not make the equivalent.

You don't like being backed into a corner by your own words, so you insert equivocation to claim a moral superiority that doesn't exist rather than face the truth that you're behaving just like the people you decry.

QuoteSJW's use a similar tactic. They equate the words of their opposition with 'literally hurting people' so that they feel justified in using physical violence as a response to people that they disagree with. Antifa does this in their rhetoric all the time.

Too bad that's not what I did here.

QuoteWhy are you doing it?

To watch as you use a SJW argument to try and remove legitimacy from someone else... like the people you claim to want to defend against.

I haven't changed any of my terms, yet you desperately dance to create new ones to explain why you think you're justified.

Quote from: sureshot;1081566Jesus H Christ

Deciding who gets to be allowed at your table and your thr equivalent of Pol Pot enforcer during the worst years of his regime. Some SJWs are certifiably crazy imo.

Yeah. I wonder why Jaeger felt so threatened.

Quote from: Kael;1081578Selachimorpha

To the Google! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJZbef8eYO8)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1081588To the Google! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJZbef8eYO8)

Lol, I have such irrational love for that show. I can still remember watching the reruns as a kid before bed on Nick at Nite (I think that's right). Selina Kyle....(drool). The world needs another Adam West. :(

Quote from: Jaeger;1081548No they don't, no I'm not, and no it doesn't when I am advocating we defend the RPG hobby as a whole.

Took me a bit but I see what you are trying to do here.

You keep using words like genocide, and murder, when I am talking about the RPG hobby.

Nothing I am advocating is in the same ballpark as genocide and murder. Not even in the same reality.

And could not be construed as such by any reasonable person.

You keep trying to say my words are equivalent to physical violence, when I have not advocated physical violence of any kind.

SJW's use a similar tactic. They equate the words of their opposition with 'literally hurting people' so that they feel justified in using physical violence as a response to people that they disagree with. Antifa does this in their rhetoric all the time.

Why are you doing it?

I think you just answered your own question.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081584Yeah. I wonder why Jaeger felt so threatened.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3283[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081583\...

 To watch as you use a SJW argument to try and remove legitimacy from someone else... like the people you claim to want to defend against.

I haven't changed any of my terms, yet you desperately dance to create new ones to explain why you think you're justified.

LOL. Sorry no. Nice try.


So lets breakdown his "argument" directly here:

He keeps saying what I am advocating is 'analogous':  "similar or comparable to something else either in general or in some specific detail"

To murder and genocide: His words. See his previous posts.

When what I am advocating is not comparable to murder or genocide.

He is making an apples and oranges comparison, and trying to get everyone to believe that they both are basically the same thing.

That is disingenuous at best.

So either he is an SJW, or is clearly unable, or refuses, to see what they are all about, and what they represent.

I cannot fix that in a forum thread.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081593LOL. Sorry no. Nice try.


So lets breakdown his "argument" directly here:

He keeps saying what I am advocating is 'analogous':  "similar or comparable to something else either in general or in some specific detail"

To murder and genocide: His words. See his previous posts.

Correct so far.

QuoteWhen what I am advocating is not comparable to murder or genocide.

He is making an apples and oranges comparison, and trying to get everyone to believe that they both are basically the same thing.

Wrong. That would be equivocation to say they are basically the same thing. Analogy is drawing a comparison to another field and finding out what would be a similar situation in that field. That does not mean the two things are equivalent. Landing a plane to park it for the evening could be viewed as analogous to readying your computer to turn off for the evening. They both involve ordered steps of some kind to ready it to cease to be used (analogy) but one wouldn't say that shutting down your computer is as hard as landing a plane (which would be equivocation).

See, my situation would now be analogous to Ben Shapiro squarely holding a mirror up to his opponents and watching them flounder to shift terms and add something new to the conversation to try to win. That does not mean I am saying I am Ben's equivalent.

Again, I am not the one shifting terms here. Go back and look. I never claimed this was equivalent.

QuoteThat is disingenuous at best.

Only if you don't want to see your opponent's side.

QuoteSo either he is an SJW, or is clearly unable, or refuses, to see what they are all about, and what they represent.

Speaking of ad hominem...

It's amazing how quickly you went from, "This guy is against me," to, "therefore he must be an SJW!" We can also then reasonably conclude that you feel I should not be in your hobby at all, based on your earlier argument. All because I disagreed with you, and never once did I do anything even remotely threatening to you.

Does that attitude sound familiar at all? It should.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1081592[ATTACH=CONFIG]3283[/ATTACH]

Hmm... how? I didn't refute anything in my statement. I pondered something. That had nothing to do with his argument or him as a person.

EDIT: I mean, I suppose if you want to characterize it as an attack then it would be ad hominem, but it really wasn't intended to be one. It was an observation. Calling someone an SJW would seem to be a direct ad hominem.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081656Again, I am not the one shifting terms here. Go back and look. I never claimed this was equivalent.

Ok, so lets get all semantic then:


So lets breakdown his "argument" directly here:

He keeps saying what I am advocating is 'analogous': "similar or comparable to something else either in general or in some specific detail"

To murder and genocide: His words. See his previous posts.

When what I am advocating is not analogous to murder or genocide.

He is making an apples and oranges comparison, and trying to get everyone to believe that they are analogous to each other.

That is disingenuous at best.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081656...

It's amazing how quickly you went from, "This guy is against me," to, "therefore he must be an SJW!" ....

LOL. In the very quote you used, I said no such thing.

I listed three either, or, possibilities.

You picked one and put words in my mouth.

Disingenuous again.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081664Ok, so lets get all semantic then:


So lets breakdown his "argument" directly here:

He keeps saying what I am advocating is 'analogous': "similar or comparable to something else either in general or in some specific detail"

To murder and genocide: His words. See his previous posts.

When what I am advocating is not analogous to murder or genocide.

Sure it is. You're advocating the removal of someone else from the existence of this field. You're advocating killing their ability to have a voice or be a part of a broader community. The analogy to life would be... murder.

EDIT (for context):

QuoteAny hobby or community can save themselves a lot of trouble in the long run, by identifying and driving out SJW entryists early and often.

Now back to your current post.

QuoteHe is making an apples and oranges comparison, and trying to get everyone to believe that they are analogous to each other.

That is disingenuous at best.

I think you don't understand what analogy is. THIS (as in preceding sentence) is an ad hominem statement because I'm left with nothing else to refute. You've retreated into your corner and refuse to make a cogent argument.

QuoteLOL. In the very quote you used, I said no such thing.

I listed three either, or, possibilities.

You picked one and put words in my mouth.

Disingenuous again.

I left the other two off because the other two amounted to the same thing as the first: a reason to discount anything I had written. That first was the only one where there was another argument to explore. All three are actually the same response for purposes of this conversation, but only one has a broader implication that you are unwilling to address.

You know, if you don't like the analogy, there are plenty of others we could go with. Forced relocation. Political expulsion. Political arrests. Take your pick. In the end, they are all about murdering someone else's voice, so why dicker about it?

Tanin sometimes people need to be pointed to the door and be told to leave.  No amount of weaseling you can make won't change that.  SJWs had overstayed their welcome.  It is not genocide, but a get out of my bar situation.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081666You know, if you don't like the analogy, there are plenty of others we could go with. Forced relocation. Political expulsion. Political arrests. Take your pick. In the end, they are all about murdering someone else's voice, so why dicker about it?

What would be the appropriate analogy to some would be squatters wanting to take over your property, and you not letting them in? Would your behaviour be more akin to murder, to genocide, to forced relocation, to political expulsion, to political arrest? Or to all of these at once?

Quote from: S'mon;1081672What would be the appropriate analogy to some would be squatters wanting to take over your property, and you not letting them in? Would your behaviour be more akin to murder, to genocide, to forced relocation, to political expulsion, to political arrest? Or to all of these at once?

Well, so let's examine that two ways: first, compared to one another. Second, compared to the current gaming community, as may or may not be implied in your question (but even if it's not, I'm bringing it up, so it's largely irrelevant).

Analogizing Squatting to Another Cognizable Harm

I'm going to take the liberty of summarizing murder, genocide, forced relocation, political expulsion, and political arrest as "another cognizable harm." If that term is too broad for you, I'm willing to discuss narrowing it. Further, I'm going to throw out there an assumption that the squatters have done nothing to beautify or add to the abandoned property (which is a requirement for "squatting" in some places) and that definition of squatter can be reasonably agreed to simply be, "one who settles on property without right or title or payment of rent."

The last thing that has to be brought up before analyzing the analogies: generally squatters have to already be on your abandoned (key word there) property to be squatting. So I'm going to assume that by "you not letting them in," you mean "you did not give permission." If you mean that you're physically, actively, right now, not letting them in, then they're tautologically, not squatters.

Operating from these premises, the closest form of cognizable harm is not an analogy at all, it's called trespass. (In many jurisdiction, there's a distinction between trespassers and squatters, but to the layman it's a pretty razor thin distinction.) In trespass, you have a right to defend your property and remove them. But you know what you do not have a right to do? Kill the squatters. Unless they threaten you bodily. If they only threaten your property, you normally have no right to harm them over it any more than is absolutely required to get them to leave. If that force would significantly endanger them to grievous bodily harm or kill them, you have no right to do that. (It's worth noting that this is changing in America, slowly.)

But, if you want to stick to just the categories you offered: you really cannot analogize it to them very well because they lack a specific or general means of comparison. In the offered categories, "you" (the generic you) would be the aggressor silencing someone else who has a right to speak. The squatter has no equivalent right to your property. Though his actions and good-will towards your abandoned property may actually grant him rights as a tenant, depending on the circumstances, in which case you could analogize your use of force quite clearly to murder or forced relocation: you want to silence his rights to exist.

Taking this Analogy to the RPG World

The analogy of a squatter in general does not work because implicit in it is an assumption that they do not have a right to play in the hobby. If we look at buying a book, or subscription to an ebook, as a close analogy to "paying rent" and forming, or joining, a gaming group, or wanting to discuss the hobby in the meta-sense, as actively contributing to the land, for better or ill, then they are landlords or tenants, not squatters. And if they were simply invited to join someone's group, or to a forum that is open to everyone, then that's explicitly being invited "on to the land." For them to be squatting or trespassing, you'd need to show they have no right to be here to begin with.

So if you're experiencing a problem with squatters at your table, I'd wonder how they got in there to begin with that did not involve the landlord inviting them in. Even once the landlord withdraws his invitation, to continue the analogy, you're still looking at going through an eviction process (presumably the analogy here would be banning them from a forum or removing the player from the group) and they would, again, be a trespasser only insofar as they no longer are welcome.

But to generalize trespass to the entire community would be like saying that because I was a squatter in Indiana, I can now no longer rent anywhere in the United States. It does not follow one to the other.

Taking it a step further, to your right to defend yourself if you're being threatened on your property (i.e. they're trying to push you out of the gaming community), then, by analogy, you would only have the right to prevent your own expulsion, which could, if reasonable, be done by expelling ("murdering") the trespasser. However, you would need to show that you were in imminent danger AND that it is actually YOUR property, not just that you have a right to be there. (That is, inherent in the analogy, you are claiming to own all of RPG community.)

If you want to extend the analogy to "all members of the community own the community" then we're talking about creating a government, not an individual owner. Else you are acting with the voice of all on your own, which is rather illegitemately despotic.

Quote from: Snowman0147;1081667Tanin sometimes people need to be pointed to the door and be told to leave.  No amount of weaseling you can make won't change that.  SJWs had overstayed their welcome.  It is not genocide, but a get out of my bar situation.

I didn't know it's your bar.

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081665Sure it is. You're advocating the removal of someone else from the existence of this field. You're advocating killing their ability to have a voice or be a part of a broader community. The analogy to life would be... murder.

And you're doing it again. Loaded words.

Why not? Participation, suppressing, and ostracization, in their place?

But then you wouldn't get to obliquely paint me as an advocate for murder and genocide would you?

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081665I think you don't understand what analogy is. ....

I do. You are making an apples and oranges comparison.


 

Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1081665I left the other two off because the other two amounted to the same thing as the first: a reason to discount anything I had written. That first was the only one where there was another argument to explore. All three are actually the same response for purposes of this conversation, but only one has a broader implication that you are unwilling to address...

No.

The other two are perfectly valid reasons why you would not get what I and others in this thread are saying.

Do you see SJW entryism as a threat? If so, what counter steps do you think are adequate enough to deal with them?

If you actually answer, the worst thing I could say in reply is that we have a fundamental disagreement of the level of danger SJW's present to the hobby in particular, and society at large.

Quote from: Jaeger;1081681And you're doing it again. Loaded words.

So you want to make an analogy that has words that have no meaning? If not, then please explain what your loaded term, "loaded words," means.

QuoteWhy not? Participation, suppressing, and ostracization, in their place?

We can use those instead: I'm perfectly comfortable with drawing up a similar analogy around participating, suppressing, and ostracizing. I mean that's a wide open field of other wonderful things we could analogize your desire to suppress their speech to!

QuoteBut then you wouldn't get to obliquely paint me as an advocate for murder and genocide would you?

Again, that's argument from equivocation, not argument from analogy. Analogy does not mean that because I like and discuss the merits D&D 3.5 that I also advocate any system analogous to it. It means that there's a comparison that can be drawn.

If you feel like you are personally being accused of advocating for those things, maybe you should look hard in the mirror and figure out why you feel that way from a simple analogy that does not ascribe advocacy of the actual thing analogized to onto you.

QuoteI do. You are making an apples and oranges comparison.

You do understand that false analogy only works if the analogy is actually false, right? If I asked what would be the analogous fruit the Orange tree bears to what an Apple tree bears based on fruit it bears alone (not comparing anything else like taste, color, quality, but solely on the fact that they are fruit bearing trees), what would the answer be? Would that answer imply that I am advocating for oranges?

QuoteNo.

The other two are perfectly valid reasons why you would not get what I and others in this thread are saying.

I did not say they were not valid answers. I said they amounted to the same thing.

QuoteDo you see SJW entryism as a threat? If so, what counter steps do you think are adequate enough to deal with them?

If by threat you mean a threat to me and my game? No, not really.

If by threat you mean an existential threat to the hobby? Only if men and women of good conscience refuse to engage them in open and meaningful debate, thereby dragging their ideology into the light where it can be judged on its merits. (Should they refuse to join such debate, or even actively sabotage it, that only reflects poorly on them.) Of course, in answering whether or not there is a threat, I have also given you what counter steps are adequate enough to deal with them.

QuoteIf you actually answer, the worst thing I could say in reply is that we have a fundamental disagreement of the level of danger SJW's present to the hobby in particular, and society at large.

And that's perfectly OK. This is a forum for debate, after all, isn't it?

Back on topic while yet another SJW continues to derail the thread...

Personally I think there are all manner of entryists into the hobby and not all are the loony fringe. Some may simply have had no frame of refference before and not known there were other styles of play, types of games, been lied to by storygamers or SJWs, etc. Give folk the benefit of a doubt until/unless they start acting badly.

Quote from: Omega;1081686Back on topic while yet another SJW continues to derail the thread...

Personally I think there are all manner of entryists into the hobby and not all are the loony fringe. Some may simply have had no frame of refference before and not known there were other styles of play, types of games, been lied to by storygamers or SJWs, etc. Give folk the benefit of a doubt until/unless they start acting badly.

Now that's a sensible way of going about it that doesn't involve suppression of speech.

So how did Snyder do up there in Michigan anyway? I remember when I helped get him elected. He won me over in the 2010 primary when Pete Hoekstra busted into Snyder's town hall to ask why Snyder didn't agree to a debate. (This was in Warren, up at the Sterling Inn on 15 Mile and Van Dyke. I was one of the GOP delegates for Shelby Township.) Snyder bested him by responding to his challenge with a let's-not-wait, let's do it now! And they debated right there, no prep. Hoekstra certainly didn't see that coming. Good memories.

Candice Miller still had the picture of my wife, the then-1-year old and myself with her at a Tea Party rally in her Sterling Heights HQ up on Hall Road.

Good memories. Had a lot of good gaming up in that area.

I'm still not clear on how this kicking SJWs out of the bar will work in practical terms. My prior discussion of this with S'mon got derailed a little, so I would return to this.

Quote from: S'mon;1081460I guess refusing to pander to them? Eg 'no politics' rules deter them from Internet forums. Not giving them the game content they want. Not engaging with their demands - not debating them. A major characteristic of SJWs is that they won't just sit down and play - "Everything is Political".

Quote from: S'mon;1081460I think it's hard to keep SJWs out of conventions. They love wrecking conventions. I guess one can ban individual SJWs for specific behaviour such as targeted harrassment of the convention organisers and other attendees, but either they attack conventions they're not attending (eg Chris Helton's attack on NTRPG Con last year) or they sneak in then cause trouble at the con itself.

Mm, perhaps some kind of behaviour code. Call it an "Anti-Harassment Code"....  

We can create "Safe Spaces" where SJW hate and violence is not tolerated. Where it happens, as with that comics guy (Hambly?) attacked by an SJW, the SJW should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and their victim supported.

Really, the more I think about it, the more I think an active policy of SJW-exclusion has great merit. It's the "Paradox of Tolerance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)" problem - tolerate the intolerant (SJWs) and your tolerant society will be destroyed.

So would you have a campaign calling on conventions to ban people for being SJWs? i.e. Call on GenCon to ban Jessica Price, Stacey D, and others. As I mentioned, the anti-harassment code and safe space seems very similar to what many conventions are already doing - so it seems like you'd just be cooperating in that process.

Within Internet discussion groups, calling for a "no politics" rule seems like a concrete step - but it's ironic since you're discussing politics here on this Internet discussion group (as people do very regularly). I dislike such a rule - I think there's a significant set of gamers - including many of theRPGsiters - who are into politics and its reflections in gaming.

Quote from: Kael;1081442Very true. But it wasn't just the fans. It was also the owners, teammates, corporate sponsors, right-wing media, and the POTUS. I believe "sonsabitches" is the term he used.

So basically:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3279[/ATTACH]

Personally, I always stand for the Anthem. But for those that choose not to, I'm glad they have the freedom to do so. Likewise, I'm happy that people can boycott anything they choose. It's the American Way and something to be proud of.

Again, I get that some people above apparently misled you but this subject is ABSOLUTELY off-topic. Don't post about it on the RPG forum again.

Second, no one has ever said "very fine people" about those assholes. No one. You are spreading a lie the mainstream media made up about Donald Trump. He explicitly stated in the speech where he talked about fine people that he did NOT mean the neo-nazis.

But you do not get to respond here to this (neither does anyone else). If you really want to, you can post about it on the RPGpundit's forum and see if I am interested enough to reply.

Quote from: SHARK;1081362Greetings!

Well, no, it isn't a bannable offense.

It is ABSOLUTELY off-topic. It is therefore a potentially 'bannable' offense. This forum is for talking about RPGs, not for talking about football.

Don't post off-topic in the main forum again. Don't mislead people by claiming that this is on-topic (saying it's a 'side comment' does not make it on topic; unless you're talking D&D players taking a knee during a national anthem at a gaming con it is NOT on topic). Consider this a warning. I trust you won't do it again.

Finally, a GENERAL WARNING TO EVERYONE POSTING: from this point on ANYONE who posts on this thread with a subject that I deem to be off-topic to the subject WILL BE PERMABANNED.

Do so at your own risk.

Quote from: jhkim;1081691So would you have a campaign calling on conventions to ban people for being SJWs? i.e. Call on GenCon to ban Jessica Price, Stacey D, and others. A

I would be in favour of conventions banning people who have engaged in convention-related targeted harassment. Eg Chris Helton targeted NTRPGCon. Stacey D targeted Garycon. Off hand I can't recall if Price has targeted a convention specifically*.

I think beyond that it gets murkier. 'Being an asshole' should not in itself be grounds for banning I think; so eg when Price published Mentzer's PMs to her in order to wreck his Kickstarter, she was being an asshole, but I think the appropriate response is pointing that out & criticising the behaviour. A general rule against such behaviour could easily be used - abused - against legitimate whistleblowers.

I would rather err on the side of not banning in questionable cases. So eg Jessica Price is very unpleasant but I would need to see/recall actual harassment behaviour from her to justify a ban; likewise as Pundit here can be an asshole to people, but is not a harassser. But when behaviour is clear, and clearly amounts to harassment, then yes, they should be banned. That includes harassing of individuals when it includes defamatory lies, doxxing etc, like the Zweihander guy vs Pundit.

*Paizocon maybe, but I'm not sure her behaviour ever reached the necessary threshold beyond 'being a massive jerk'.

Quote from: jhkim;1081691Within Internet discussion groups, calling for a "no politics" rule seems like a concrete step - but it's ironic since you're discussing politics here on this Internet discussion group

I like having this place to vent! :D But I don't want politics in the vast majority of my RPG online 'communities' - Facebook groups, Meetups, bulletin boards etc. I very much value sites like Dragonsfoot that enforce even-handed 'no politics' rules. I don't allow political discussion in the groups I run. I don't particularly enjoy finding out that one of my players thinks Antifa is just swell, or that National Action had a good point (those are hypothetical examples only! IRL the worst I've seen is some anti-Trump & anti-conservative type stuff).

If an RPG site does allow political discussion, it needs to be even-handed. The worst sites are those which allow Progressive Left politics only.

Quote from: S'mon;1081720I would be in favour of conventions banning people who have engaged in convention-related targeted harassment. Eg Chris Helton targeted NTRPGCon. Stacey D targeted Garycon. Off hand I can't recall if Price has targeted a convention specifically*.

I think beyond that it gets murkier. 'Being an asshole' should not in itself be grounds for banning I think; so eg when Price published Mentzer's PMs to her in order to wreck his Kickstarter, she was being an asshole, but I think the appropriate response is pointing that out & criticising the behaviour. A general rule against such behaviour could easily be used - abused - against legitimate whistleblowers.

I would rather err on the side of not banning in questionable cases. So eg Jessica Price is very unpleasant but I would need to see/recall actual harassment behaviour from her to justify a ban; likewise as Pundit here can be an asshole to people, but is not a harassser. But when behaviour is clear, and clearly amounts to harassment, then yes, they should be banned. That includes harassing of individuals when it includes defamatory lies, doxxing etc, like the Zweihander guy vs Pundit.

*Paizocon maybe, but I'm not sure her behaviour ever reached the necessary threshold beyond 'being a massive jerk'.

I agree with all of that.

Quote from: S'mon;1081720I would be in favour of conventions banning people who have engaged in convention-related targeted harassment. Eg Chris Helton targeted NTRPGCon. Stacey D targeted Garycon. Off hand I can't recall if Price has targeted a convention specifically*.

I think beyond that it gets murkier. 'Being an asshole' should not in itself be grounds for banning I think; so eg when Price published Mentzer's PMs to her in order to wreck his Kickstarter, she was being an asshole, but I think the appropriate response is pointing that out & criticising the behaviour. A general rule against such behaviour could easily be used - abused - against legitimate whistleblowers.

I would rather err on the side of not banning in questionable cases. So eg Jessica Price is very unpleasant but I would need to see/recall actual harassment behaviour from her to justify a ban; likewise as Pundit here can be an asshole to people, but is not a harassser. But when behaviour is clear, and clearly amounts to harassment, then yes, they should be banned. That includes harassing of individuals when it includes defamatory lies, doxxing etc, like the Zweihander guy vs Pundit.

Depending on the details, I could totally get behind that. It could be a pretty elegant way of giving people a voice and a chance to prove themselves bad actors before removal. Preserving maximum practicable speech.

Quote from: S'mon;1081720I would be in favour of conventions banning people who have engaged in convention-related targeted harassment. Eg Chris Helton targeted NTRPGCon. Stacey D targeted Garycon. Off hand I can't recall if Price has targeted a convention specifically*.

Yeah, well, the goal for them is to create a climate of fear and to exercise arbitrary power. That's what totalitarians do, and in that context I wouldn't blame cons at all for telling them to go fuck themselves.  As soon as any of them rediscover their testicles and realize what a gang of fucking Stalinists these people are, and that no amount of cowering to them will fix the problem.