Wizards has announced they will be making a new "evolved" edition of the D&D core books. It's easy to guess what "evolution" they plan to impose on gamers.
(https://i.imgur.com/zE7pFuB.png) Logo proposal.
"Get the **** out so everyone can play!" - ain't that just perfect the perfect motto for them, too. *chases everyone off* "Which -ism can we blame for our lack of players this time?" and *repeat*
Here's to this flopping like fish on on land.
Quote from: GeekEclectic on September 30, 2021, 03:30:13 AM
"Get the **** out so everyone can play!" - ain't that just perfect the perfect motto for them, too. *chases everyone off* "Which -ism can we blame for our lack of players this time?" and *repeat*
WotC has always had 'fire the current fans' as a component of their approach to new D&D editions--they did it with 3E, with 4E, and even with 5E, although in the odd-numbered cases, it's somewhat disguised by the 'chasing the 1E nostalgia' element they also built into the marketing.
Given 5E's success, though, I expect this time will look a bit different--more a 'double down on all the new fans and forget the old ones.'
Where is Mike Mearls? You know, the only guy with talent in the bunch...
Quote from: horsesoldier on September 30, 2021, 01:46:51 PM
Where is Mike Mearls? You know, the only guy with talent in the bunch...
He got moved off tabletop and onto the Baldur's Gate III team last year.
Mechanically, there's nothing really wrong with 5e that can't be tweaked with an addendum or a few house rules.
Unless they wanted to ditch the archetypes and pull the mechanics out of the backgrounds, making character creation quicker. (Side effect: When character generation is quicker, that's one less bit of resistance to deadlier games... ;) )
This might fit the idea of making the game more accessible by simplifying things player-side.
Unfortunately, speculation leans towards cultural shifts. Stamping X-cards and consent forms into PHBs.
We have 2 years to speculate, and the rest of our lives to ignore 5.5, playing other games if we wish.
Quote from: Mad Tom on September 30, 2021, 02:40:25 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on September 30, 2021, 01:46:51 PM
Where is Mike Mearls? You know, the only guy with talent in the bunch...
He got moved off tabletop and onto the Baldur's Gate III team last year.
Reading between the lines in social media and in interviews. I think that Crawford, Perkins etc, didn't particularly agree with Mearl's vision for 5e, and were glad to see the back of him.
Notice how the increase in the book publishing schedule, and the changes in 5e lore, alignment, race, etc, all happened
after Mearl's was replaced as the head of D&D...
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on September 30, 2021, 09:39:47 AM
Given 5E's success, though, I expect this time will look a bit different--more a 'double down on all the new fans and forget the old ones.'
They are betting that the 'new' D&D fans now overwhelmingly outnumber the grognards, and even if they do drop a good portion of the older player base, they'll still be the number one RPG by orders of magnitude.
They have been wanting to drop the old guard since the 4e era, and they'll never have a better chance than in 2024 to finally pull it off given 5e's meteoric popularity.
I do disagree with Pundit on two of his points:1: 5e would eventually need a revision of some kind even with the core rules. With 1-20 level HP escalation, 5e runs into the same scaling issues that 3e did, just in a bit milder form. They did not iron out all the kinks during the playtest.
And once the game hits the wild, more issues would be revealed. So a revision to smooth/balance out known issues would be inevitable.
But that would not be too much of a change unless they started publishing splat books adding more feats, classes, and rules for doing different things. Which are also impossible to fully playtest before publication.
Which is exactly what WotC did.
2: I think that the 50th 'not-edition' will be a solid 5.5+ edition of the game.
As a follow up to what I just wrote: There are just too many small things that they want to change, and too many rules from splat books that they want to incorporate back into the core rules that they will have to go through and re-balance to make them work with all the other changes.
The accumulation of all these "small changes" will have a cascade effect that
will push them into doing a full on 5.5+ 'not-edition'.
And that is completely leaving aside the fact that in the announcement video WotC has openly said they will do a new round of survey's asking their 'players' how they can make the "Evolved" D&D Revision better...
IMHO they are relying on the idea of it being a "50th anniversary release" to give them the cover to do all this with minimal pushback from the player base.
And as I said in the: "It seems like we're really getting 5.5e in 2024" thread; everyone should take claims of "Fully Compatible" with a grain of salt.
Interestingly enough on other forums their is very little pushback on the 50AE 'not-edition'. If anything it seems that people are exited that they will see various "fixes" being implemented...
As I noted, no "revised edition" has actually really succeeded.
Quote from: RPGPundit on September 30, 2021, 06:52:53 PM
As I noted, no "revised edition" has actually really succeeded.
I like Star Wars 2e Revised & Expanded. Shadow of the Demon Lord Revised is nice too.
Here's hoping they jump the shark and go full SJW on this one. It will push more regular people into other games and the OSR. The only thing D&D has at this point that other games and the OSR lack is a large player base. So more players moving away from D&D can only be a good thing!
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 30, 2021, 08:10:48 PM
Here's hoping they jump the shark and go full SJW on this one. It will push more regular people into other games and the OSR. The only thing D&D has at this point that other games and the OSR lack is a large player base. So more players moving away from D&D can only be a good thing!
You're assuming that if they move away from D&D they'll move to another RPG. I have my doubts that will happen. Instead, if D&D tanks, the RPG industry as a whole will hit a low.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 30, 2021, 08:14:17 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 30, 2021, 08:10:48 PM
Here's hoping they jump the shark and go full SJW on this one. It will push more regular people into other games and the OSR. The only thing D&D has at this point that other games and the OSR lack is a large player base. So more players moving away from D&D can only be a good thing!
You're assuming that if they move away from D&D they'll move to another RPG. I have my doubts that will happen. Instead, if D&D tanks, the RPG industry as a whole will hit a low.
Meaning the normies will drop out together with the ppl wanting to use the hobby to change the world into their commie utopia.
That's a win in my book.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 30, 2021, 08:14:17 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 30, 2021, 08:10:48 PM
Here's hoping they jump the shark and go full SJW on this one. It will push more regular people into other games and the OSR. The only thing D&D has at this point that other games and the OSR lack is a large player base. So more players moving away from D&D can only be a good thing!
You're assuming that if they move away from D&D they'll move to another RPG. I have my doubts that will happen. Instead, if D&D tanks, the RPG industry as a whole will hit a low.
I'm making no assumptions; I'm observing what is happening around me. People diffuse from D&D to the OSR and other games all the time. Look at places like Reddit or wherever for loads posts like "I've only played 5e what other games should I try now?" Do you ever see the opposite? "I've only played OSR games, should I try 5e." Ridiculous.
Its popularity makes D&D the gateway drug. If it suddenly starts causing worse side effects, the options are quit or move to another game. Yeah, low effort normies who only play because their friends play might quit. But people actually interested in the hobby who can't deal with the SJW nonsense will move. It happens today, and D&D nosediving into Wokeland 4 years from will make it happen more.
Plus, what GeekyBugle said.
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 30, 2021, 09:18:57 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 30, 2021, 08:14:17 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 30, 2021, 08:10:48 PM
Here's hoping they jump the shark and go full SJW on this one. It will push more regular people into other games and the OSR. The only thing D&D has at this point that other games and the OSR lack is a large player base. So more players moving away from D&D can only be a good thing!
You're assuming that if they move away from D&D they'll move to another RPG. I have my doubts that will happen. Instead, if D&D tanks, the RPG industry as a whole will hit a low.
I'm making no assumptions; I'm observing what is happening around me. People diffuse from D&D to the OSR and other games all the time. Look at places like Reddit or wherever for loads posts like "I've only played 5e what other games should I try now?" Do you ever see the opposite? "I've only played OSR games, should I try 5e." Ridiculous.
Its popularity makes D&D the gateway drug. If it suddenly starts causing worse side effects, the options are quit or move to another game. Yeah, low effort normies who only play because their friends play might quit. But people actually interested in the hobby who can't deal with the SJW nonsense will move. It happens today, and D&D nosediving into Wokeland 4 years from will make it happen more.
Plus, what GeekyBugle said.
So taking away the gateway drug (or at least making it less appealing) might draw in some of those that have already tasted it, but after that... Your gateway is gone, and how many players start right off with OSR or other less-known games? That brief surge might look appealing for someone looking to drop product to make a few bucks, but I don't believe it will be sustainable without a strong D&D to keep pulling in new blood.
If it does badly enough maybe they will sell the license to someone who will do a better job with It. There's probably too much money in the IP for that to happen, but I'm an optimist. At the very least, perhaps my like-new 1st printing books will become valuable someday. They still have the consultants listed in the credits!
If D&D tanks you would see the collapse of the current fad, and this would lead to an important percentage of exclusive 5e players just quitting, and others just continuing to play the older edition in their own groups.
A certain percentage would move to other games, particularly if we saw a Pathfinder-style scenario, where a direct rival appeared made to appeal to 5e gamers (and with enough corporate power to promote it enough).
Some would migrate to other existing games, some would look at the OSR.
But of course, the current mass-popularity of D&D would collapse.
The hobby itself would continue. And if you later saw a new edition that corrected the insanity (like that 5e was for 4e) you might see another revival. It would probably take about a decade though.
I'm hoping pronouns will be included as part of the character sheet, preferably replacing some of those unimportant numbers like Constitution. I'd also appreciate if the Rule 0 wording is changed to, "If any player at the table at any point says something that you don't approve of, you are fully justified in yelling at them and harassing them on social media #inclusivity."
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 30, 2021, 09:18:57 PM
Look at places like Reddit or wherever for loads posts like "I've only played 5e what other games should I try now?" Do you ever see the opposite? "I've only played OSR games, should I try 5e."
I see the latter on Dragonsfoot, and have myself recruited some grognards over to 5e fans, so yes it does happen.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 30, 2021, 08:14:17 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 30, 2021, 08:10:48 PM
Here's hoping they jump the shark and go full SJW on this one. It will push more regular people into other games and the OSR. The only thing D&D has at this point that other games and the OSR lack is a large player base. So more players moving away from D&D can only be a good thing!
You're assuming that if they move away from D&D they'll move to another RPG. I have my doubts that will happen. Instead, if D&D tanks, the RPG industry as a whole will hit a low.
I disagree. We already experienced a period of years, after 4e came out, when D&D was not only not the top game but it wasn't even selling and the industry did just fine. People will always find another 800 lb gorilla to gravitate to.
Quote from: Mad Tom on September 30, 2021, 02:40:25 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on September 30, 2021, 01:46:51 PM
Where is Mike Mearls? You know, the only guy with talent in the bunch...
He got moved off tabletop and onto the Baldur's Gate III team last year.
That's good to hear actually. I regret ever looking at his Twitter of course, but MM has done some excellent design. He continues the grand tradition of RPG writers getting poached into vidya.
Quote from: RPGPundit on September 30, 2021, 11:17:50 PM
If D&D tanks you would see the collapse of the current fad, and this would lead to an important percentage of exclusive 5e players just quitting, and others just continuing to play the older edition in their own groups.
A certain percentage would move to other games, particularly if we saw a Pathfinder-style scenario, where a direct rival appeared made to appeal to 5e gamers (and with enough corporate power to promote it enough).
Some would migrate to other existing games, some would look at the OSR.
But of course, the current mass-popularity of D&D would collapse.
The hobby itself would continue. And if you later saw a new edition that corrected the insanity (like that 5e was for 4e) you might see another revival. It would probably take about a decade though.
Yeah that's pretty solid analysis.
In the meantime this *will* give other systems a chance to grow. While most new players in the hobby will disperse, a lot of the players that stick around will find whatever else is popular. The loss of D&D will not grossly affect people that play non-D&D systems as their go-to.
The hobby itself isn't going anywhere.
Quote from: palaeomerus on September 30, 2021, 12:38:26 AM
Logo proposal.
A goatse reference in 2021? Warms my relatively old bitter heart.
Quote from: Banjo Destructo on October 01, 2021, 01:31:47 PM
Quote from: palaeomerus on September 30, 2021, 12:38:26 AM
Logo proposal.
A goatse reference in 2021? Warms my relatively old bitter heart.
:o I didn't even catch that. This sucker's got
layers of meaning!
I expect that there will be a sizable chunk of the 5E fan base that will continue to use the books they already own, rather than feeling obligated to purchase the same books all over again, + various pronouns and safe spaces.
I predict that a bunch of new players will purchase the new materials, because that is what will be available on store shelves and amazonk at the time; complete with shiny new artwork.
If people want the original 5E books, they are almost as common as air. They can most definitely be found. So many copies have been printed.
Strixhaven sucked. I'm sure they will draw inspiration from it though.... Strixhaven, and Tasha's probably paint a pretty accurate picture of 5.5. I thought Tasha's was a great excuse to jump off the 5E bandwagon. Xanathar's was really the finishing touch to the core 3 books I could justify, but I ended up with Tasha's as a gift anyway. There sure are a lot of different Rangers in 5E now.
There's a petition to try to convince WoTC to convert all measurement in the next edition into metric:
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-of-the-coast-please-consider-a-metric-system-version-for-dungeons-dragons-5-5-6th-edition
ROFL
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 07:41:58 AM
There's a petition to try to convince WoTC to convert all measurement in the next edition into metric:
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-of-the-coast-please-consider-a-metric-system-version-for-dungeons-dragons-5-5-6th-edition
ROFL
Unless I am reading it wrong, it seems they only thing being requested is the same level of support for the metric system WotC has provided for 5e. I don't think that request is out of bounds at all.
However, like a lot of change.org, choosing this platform with this approach is laughable, which is where I think you were going with this. There are many ways this request could me made, including...I don't know...waiting to see a product roadmap, AMA, or maybe wait more than 20 minutes after the announcement to start mobilizing the next quest.
Just looking at the names, the signees are probably more likely to listen to Hasslehoff than Creed, so I can understand the importance of having the metric system version. Of course this way, they get to be a pseudo-activist, so erection achieved I suppose.
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 07:41:58 AM
There's a petition to try to convince WoTC to convert all measurement in the next edition into metric:
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-of-the-coast-please-consider-a-metric-system-version-for-dungeons-dragons-5-5-6th-edition
ROFL
If anyting, you'll get the "rough equivalencies" approach with something like 1 meter = 1 yard, 1 kilogram = 2 pounds, and 3 kilometers = 2 miles. In many fantasy games, that's probably close enough anyways.
Quote from: FingerRod on October 02, 2021, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 07:41:58 AM
There's a petition to try to convince WoTC to convert all measurement in the next edition into metric:
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-of-the-coast-please-consider-a-metric-system-version-for-dungeons-dragons-5-5-6th-edition
ROFL
Unless I am reading it wrong, it seems they only thing being requested is the same level of support for the metric system WotC has provided for 5e. I don't think that request is out of bounds at all.
However, like a lot of change.org, choosing this platform with this approach is laughable, which is where I think you were going with this. There are many ways this request could me made, including...I don't know...waiting to see a product roadmap, AMA, or maybe wait more than 20 minutes after the announcement to start mobilizing the next quest.
Just looking at the names, the signees are probably more likely to listen to Hasslehoff than Creed, so I can understand the importance of having the metric system version. Of course this way, they get to be a pseudo-activist, so erection achieved I suppose.
As a Mexican the imperial system sucks monkey balls. That being said since I'm not having to do much math with it I can happily ignore it's suckiness.
As a global megacorp, it surprizes me Hasbro hasn't made WotC include a conversion table for easy use, but then again, maybe their main market doesn't use the metric system in their everyday life?
Agreed that this is inactivism at it's finest.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:05:51 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 02, 2021, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 07:41:58 AM
There's a petition to try to convince WoTC to convert all measurement in the next edition into metric:
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-of-the-coast-please-consider-a-metric-system-version-for-dungeons-dragons-5-5-6th-edition
ROFL
Unless I am reading it wrong, it seems they only thing being requested is the same level of support for the metric system WotC has provided for 5e. I don't think that request is out of bounds at all.
However, like a lot of change.org, choosing this platform with this approach is laughable, which is where I think you were going with this. There are many ways this request could me made, including...I don't know...waiting to see a product roadmap, AMA, or maybe wait more than 20 minutes after the announcement to start mobilizing the next quest.
Just looking at the names, the signees are probably more likely to listen to Hasslehoff than Creed, so I can understand the importance of having the metric system version. Of course this way, they get to be a pseudo-activist, so erection achieved I suppose.
As a Mexican the imperial system sucks monkey balls. That being said since I'm not having to do much math with it I can happily ignore it's suckiness.
As a global megacorp, it surprizes me Hasbro hasn't made WotC include a conversion table for easy use, but then again, maybe their main market doesn't use the metric system in their everyday life?
Agreed that this is inactivism at it's finest.
As an American I find metric system sucks because it's base units aren't intuitive but are based on arbitrary units like an arc second of the Earth's average circumference.
Imperial is based on humanistic units; a foot is about the length of a person's foot, an inch is about the length of a finger joint, a yard is about the span of one arm to your chest, the mile (derived from the Roman mille pacum) is 1000 paces (2000 steps). What they lack in easy division by 10 (which makes it useful for science), they more than make up for in ease of use for everyday purposes.
Naturalistic units also make a ton more sense in a pseudo-medieval setting where initial values of things like the circumference of the globe is unknown, but how long a person's foot, finger joint or how many steps it takes to get somewhere can be easily determined.
This is why my own game measures combat movement and distance in paces (the Roman unit happens to be almost exactly 5') because it's also very useful for visualizing (i.e. "he's 5 paces from you.").
Personally, I'd go the other way and change back to old money.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 02, 2021, 12:33:26 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:05:51 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 02, 2021, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 07:41:58 AM
There's a petition to try to convince WoTC to convert all measurement in the next edition into metric:
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-of-the-coast-please-consider-a-metric-system-version-for-dungeons-dragons-5-5-6th-edition
ROFL
Unless I am reading it wrong, it seems they only thing being requested is the same level of support for the metric system WotC has provided for 5e. I don't think that request is out of bounds at all.
However, like a lot of change.org, choosing this platform with this approach is laughable, which is where I think you were going with this. There are many ways this request could me made, including...I don't know...waiting to see a product roadmap, AMA, or maybe wait more than 20 minutes after the announcement to start mobilizing the next quest.
Just looking at the names, the signees are probably more likely to listen to Hasslehoff than Creed, so I can understand the importance of having the metric system version. Of course this way, they get to be a pseudo-activist, so erection achieved I suppose.
As a Mexican the imperial system sucks monkey balls. That being said since I'm not having to do much math with it I can happily ignore it's suckiness.
As a global megacorp, it surprizes me Hasbro hasn't made WotC include a conversion table for easy use, but then again, maybe their main market doesn't use the metric system in their everyday life?
Agreed that this is inactivism at it's finest.
As an American I find metric system sucks because it's base units aren't intuitive but are based on arbitrary units like an arc second of the Earth's average circumference.
Imperial is based on humanistic units; a foot is about the length of a person's foot, an inch is about the length of a finger joint, a yard is about the span of one arm to your chest, the mile (derived from the Roman mille pacum) is 1000 paces (2000 steps). What they lack in easy division by 10 (which makes it useful for science), they more than make up for in ease of use for everyday purposes.
Naturalistic units also make a ton more sense in a pseudo-medieval setting where initial values of things like the circumference of the globe is unknown, but how long a person's foot, finger joint or how many steps it takes to get somewhere can be easily determined.
This is why my own game measures combat movement and distance in paces (the Roman unit happens to be almost exactly 5') because it's also very useful for visualizing (i.e. "he's 5 paces from you.").
Do you know how many times have I needed to know the circumference of the earth to use the metric system? ZERO.
I do agree that from a "realistic" point of view the imperial system makes more sense on pseudo medieval settings. But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian. So I guess it has more to do with where did the RPG hobby originated than with "realism".
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian.
We don't?
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 01:25:19 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian.
We don't?
I haven't seen any pseudo egyptian, aztec, etc setting that switches measuring systems. Have you?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 02, 2021, 12:33:26 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:05:51 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 02, 2021, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 07:41:58 AM
There's a petition to try to convince WoTC to convert all measurement in the next edition into metric:
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-of-the-coast-please-consider-a-metric-system-version-for-dungeons-dragons-5-5-6th-edition
ROFL
Unless I am reading it wrong, it seems they only thing being requested is the same level of support for the metric system WotC has provided for 5e. I don't think that request is out of bounds at all.
However, like a lot of change.org, choosing this platform with this approach is laughable, which is where I think you were going with this. There are many ways this request could me made, including...I don't know...waiting to see a product roadmap, AMA, or maybe wait more than 20 minutes after the announcement to start mobilizing the next quest.
Just looking at the names, the signees are probably more likely to listen to Hasslehoff than Creed, so I can understand the importance of having the metric system version. Of course this way, they get to be a pseudo-activist, so erection achieved I suppose.
As a Mexican the imperial system sucks monkey balls. That being said since I'm not having to do much math with it I can happily ignore it's suckiness.
As a global megacorp, it surprizes me Hasbro hasn't made WotC include a conversion table for easy use, but then again, maybe their main market doesn't use the metric system in their everyday life?
Agreed that this is inactivism at it's finest.
As an American I find metric system sucks because it's base units aren't intuitive but are based on arbitrary units like an arc second of the Earth's average circumference.
Imperial is based on humanistic units; a foot is about the length of a person's foot, an inch is about the length of a finger joint, a yard is about the span of one arm to your chest, the mile (derived from the Roman mille pacum) is 1000 paces (2000 steps). What they lack in easy division by 10 (which makes it useful for science), they more than make up for in ease of use for everyday purposes.
Naturalistic units also make a ton more sense in a pseudo-medieval setting where initial values of things like the circumference of the globe is unknown, but how long a person's foot, finger joint or how many steps it takes to get somewhere can be easily determined.
This is why my own game measures combat movement and distance in paces (the Roman unit happens to be almost exactly 5') because it's also very useful for visualizing (i.e. "he's 5 paces from you.").
Do you know how many times have I needed to know the circumference of the earth to use the metric system? ZERO.
I do agree that from a "realistic" point of view the imperial system makes more sense on pseudo medieval settings. But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian. So I guess it has more to do with where did the RPG hobby originated than with "realism".
American scifi rpgs on the other hand routinely use the Metric system instead of Imperial even when the property it was based on built their models in Imperial (ex. the movie Enterprise is 305 meters and the Enterprise-D is 641 meters... because the models were scaled to precisely 1000' and 2100') precisely because Metric feels more modern/futuristic. This despite Metric being far less intuitive to their primary audience.
d20 Star Wars for example used 2m squares (and had 10m as the ground speed for humans... so technically 5 squares instead of D&D's 6, but still about 30').
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 01:33:04 PM
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 01:25:19 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian.
We don't?
I haven't seen any pseudo egyptian, aztec, etc setting that switches measuring systems. Have you?
Dont be silly,, the Aztecs clearly used zones while the Egyptians used range bands. Both of these feature in several games.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 02, 2021, 02:49:54 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 02, 2021, 12:33:26 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:05:51 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 02, 2021, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 07:41:58 AM
There's a petition to try to convince WoTC to convert all measurement in the next edition into metric:
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-of-the-coast-please-consider-a-metric-system-version-for-dungeons-dragons-5-5-6th-edition
ROFL
Unless I am reading it wrong, it seems they only thing being requested is the same level of support for the metric system WotC has provided for 5e. I don't think that request is out of bounds at all.
However, like a lot of change.org, choosing this platform with this approach is laughable, which is where I think you were going with this. There are many ways this request could me made, including...I don't know...waiting to see a product roadmap, AMA, or maybe wait more than 20 minutes after the announcement to start mobilizing the next quest.
Just looking at the names, the signees are probably more likely to listen to Hasslehoff than Creed, so I can understand the importance of having the metric system version. Of course this way, they get to be a pseudo-activist, so erection achieved I suppose.
As a Mexican the imperial system sucks monkey balls. That being said since I'm not having to do much math with it I can happily ignore it's suckiness.
As a global megacorp, it surprizes me Hasbro hasn't made WotC include a conversion table for easy use, but then again, maybe their main market doesn't use the metric system in their everyday life?
Agreed that this is inactivism at it's finest.
As an American I find metric system sucks because it's base units aren't intuitive but are based on arbitrary units like an arc second of the Earth's average circumference.
Imperial is based on humanistic units; a foot is about the length of a person's foot, an inch is about the length of a finger joint, a yard is about the span of one arm to your chest, the mile (derived from the Roman mille pacum) is 1000 paces (2000 steps). What they lack in easy division by 10 (which makes it useful for science), they more than make up for in ease of use for everyday purposes.
Naturalistic units also make a ton more sense in a pseudo-medieval setting where initial values of things like the circumference of the globe is unknown, but how long a person's foot, finger joint or how many steps it takes to get somewhere can be easily determined.
This is why my own game measures combat movement and distance in paces (the Roman unit happens to be almost exactly 5') because it's also very useful for visualizing (i.e. "he's 5 paces from you.").
Do you know how many times have I needed to know the circumference of the earth to use the metric system? ZERO.
I do agree that from a "realistic" point of view the imperial system makes more sense on pseudo medieval settings. But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian. So I guess it has more to do with where did the RPG hobby originated than with "realism".
American scifi rpgs on the other hand routinely use the Metric system instead of Imperial even when the property it was based on built their models in Imperial (ex. the movie Enterprise is 305 meters and the Enterprise-D is 641 meters... because the models were scaled to precisely 1000' and 2100') precisely because Metric feels more modern/futuristic. This despite Metric being far less intuitive to their primary audience.
d20 Star Wars for example used 2m squares (and had 10m as the ground speed for humans... so technically 5 squares instead of D&D's 6, but still about 30').
In this instance you might be correct, but I still think the imperial system is used in RPGs published in the USA/UK due to familiarity, since I've seen at least 2 examples of pseudo medieval games published in Spain that use the metric system.
It's not something that's going to throw you out of immersion and it's just a shortcut, because I'm sure Medieval Spain didn't use the British measurement system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_customary_units
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 02, 2021, 12:33:26 PM
As an American I find metric system sucks because it's base units aren't intuitive but are based on arbitrary units like an arc second of the Earth's average circumference.
Imperial is based on humanistic units; a foot is about the length of a person's foot, an inch is about the length of a finger joint, a yard is about the span of one arm to your chest, the mile (derived from the Roman mille pacum) is 1000 paces (2000 steps). What they lack in easy division by 10 (which makes it useful for science), they more than make up for in ease of use for everyday purposes.
Naturalistic units also make a ton more sense in a pseudo-medieval setting where initial values of things like the circumference of the globe is unknown, but how long a person's foot, finger joint or how many steps it takes to get somewhere can be easily determined.
This is why my own game measures combat movement and distance in paces (the Roman unit happens to be almost exactly 5') because it's also very useful for visualizing (i.e. "he's 5 paces from you.").
As a Canadian, despite us being officially metric, I agree with you 100%. Metric is great for science, but imperial is way better for everyday measurements. Traditional units are traditional for a reason. The history of these units is also quite interesting, too. The league for example is how far you can typically walk in 1 hour. The important part is the 1 hour, not the 2.2 km or whatever.
I run games with theater of mind mostly, so actual units rarely come up. He's a head taller than you. He's 8-10 paces away. This shot would be long range. Etc etc. It's never an issue. Leagues are great though. The town is 10 leagues away, so it will take all day to get there.
In Wokards of the Coast 5.5 edition:
- Experience Points are replaced with Lived Experience for underprivileged races. Lived Experience may be assigned at the player's discretion
- Levels no longer exist after being found to be discriminatory against demihumans who historically have been excluded from Levels afforded to human characters
- The term demihuman is no longer used as this is humanocentric imperialism inappropriate to the multiracial fantasy utopian settings suitable for WOTC's 5.5e
- The term Race is no longer used. It is replaced with the equitable and inclusive term, Folx
- Ability Scores are now replaced by the Equity Index. Characters no longer add personal modifiers to skill rolls, but add the group's equity index to all rolls, simplifying and speeding up play while emphasizing teamwork
- Skill Checks are replaced by Success Rolls. All characters automatically succeed at all actions, the result indicated by the dice indicates the degree of praise that should be awarded by players within 1d10 feet
Quote from: Zelen on October 02, 2021, 10:10:34 PM
- The term demihuman is no longer used as this is humanocentric imperialism inappropriate to the multiracial fantasy utopian settings suitable for WOTC's 5.5e
Umm, 2000 called. They banned Demihuman with 3.0e! ;D
I almost wondered for a moment if "evolved" meant they were adding evolution mechanically into the game. So maybe you would inherit your parents' ability score, and the people in your worlds would share common characteristics. Then I remembered this is WoTC and any hint of biological determinism is a dog whistle to far right neo Nazis, or something...
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 02, 2021, 12:33:26 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:05:51 PM
Quote from: FingerRod on October 02, 2021, 10:05:02 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on October 02, 2021, 07:41:58 AM
There's a petition to try to convince WoTC to convert all measurement in the next edition into metric:
https://www.change.org/p/wizards-of-the-coast-please-consider-a-metric-system-version-for-dungeons-dragons-5-5-6th-edition
ROFL
Unless I am reading it wrong, it seems they only thing being requested is the same level of support for the metric system WotC has provided for 5e. I don't think that request is out of bounds at all.
However, like a lot of change.org, choosing this platform with this approach is laughable, which is where I think you were going with this. There are many ways this request could me made, including...I don't know...waiting to see a product roadmap, AMA, or maybe wait more than 20 minutes after the announcement to start mobilizing the next quest.
Just looking at the names, the signees are probably more likely to listen to Hasslehoff than Creed, so I can understand the importance of having the metric system version. Of course this way, they get to be a pseudo-activist, so erection achieved I suppose.
As a Mexican the imperial system sucks monkey balls. That being said since I'm not having to do much math with it I can happily ignore it's suckiness.
As a global megacorp, it surprizes me Hasbro hasn't made WotC include a conversion table for easy use, but then again, maybe their main market doesn't use the metric system in their everyday life?
Agreed that this is inactivism at it's finest.
As an American I find metric system sucks because it's base units aren't intuitive but are based on arbitrary units like an arc second of the Earth's average circumference.
Imperial is based on humanistic units; a foot is about the length of a person's foot, an inch is about the length of a finger joint, a yard is about the span of one arm to your chest, the mile (derived from the Roman mille pacum) is 1000 paces (2000 steps). What they lack in easy division by 10 (which makes it useful for science), they more than make up for in ease of use for everyday purposes.
Naturalistic units also make a ton more sense in a pseudo-medieval setting where initial values of things like the circumference of the globe is unknown, but how long a person's foot, finger joint or how many steps it takes to get somewhere can be easily determined.
This is why my own game measures combat movement and distance in paces (the Roman unit happens to be almost exactly 5') because it's also very useful for visualizing (i.e. "he's 5 paces from you.").
As an American engineer, I love the metric system.
As for being arbitrary, the base units of the metric system are loosely tied back to "naturalistic" units (e.g., a meter is approximately a yard; a kilogram is the weight of approximately 1 quart of water). Moreover, Imperial system units also arbitrary (e.g., whose "foot"; 1 inch = the length of 3 barleycorns).
The "ease of use" of Imperial units (pounds, yards, feet, inches) is their divisibility by many factors (e.g., 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 16). More of a consideration for a medieval merchant than for a modern-day person. Otherwise, I imagine that metric system works just fine for "ease of use for everyday purposes" for everyone else in the world (e.g., GeekyBugle).
That said, for a non-modern setting, I can see how measurement systems other than the metric could contribute to verisimilitude. And, as an American, the English system is the easiest to grasp. Conversely, I know that when I played Traveller and Space Opera in my misspent youth, distances in meters felt SciFi, and I mentally converted them to 1 meter ~ 1 yd.
"Here it is written in the old way, this means 1.74m high..."
"But, take back 0.29m to honour the Hebrew God whose Ark this is."
Quote from: mightybrain on October 03, 2021, 09:49:36 AM
"Here it is written in the old way, this means 1.74m high..."
"But, take back 0.29m to honour the Hebrew God whose Ark this is."
Well played!
When they babble about 'evolved' all I can think of is that lowlife Youtuber who ragequits out of his games and insists other players 'evolve' to match him.
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
WotC has tied D&D's fate to the woketards. We'll see how that plays out.
Meanwhile, the Deplorables & Dice brigade is alive and well in the OSR.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 02, 2021, 12:33:26 PM
This is why my own game measures combat movement and distance in paces (the Roman unit happens to be almost exactly 5') because it's also very useful for visualizing (i.e. "he's 5 paces from you.").
I use paces (and leagues) for the same reason. For games now, there is another handy aspect of this, though. I deliberately built my "paces" as an in-game measurement that works OK if you visualize the pace as 3 feet, 3 1/3 feet, 5 feet, or 6 feet, or 1 or 2 meters, etc. It's not perfect being stretched like that, and probably makes more sense somewhere in the 5 feet range, but it will work well enough at the other distances.
I kept the league at about 3 miles and the walk 1 hour mark but then assumed a default marching range of 8 leagues. What I lose in "7 league boots" being a day's travel in 7 steps, I gain in 8 leagues and 24 miles working really nice for movement rates at 3/4, 1/2, and 1/4 due to terrain. Also not exactly accurate for movement rates, either, but ridiculously easy to use in game. Since it's hard to get the full movement rate (good road, flat open field), most travel happens at around the 3/4 or worse rate, which gets us back down to a reasonable move. So when someone want to run "leagues" as "5 kilometers" instead of about 4.828 kilometers, no problem.
This feels like a too useful discussion to have in a topic about WotC plans ... ;D
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 02, 2021, 04:35:32 PM
The history of these units is also quite interesting, too. The league for example is how far you can typically walk in 1 hour. The important part is the 1 hour, not the 2.2 km or whatever.
Very cool. How did they measure an "hour" back then?
Quote from: Zalman on October 05, 2021, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 02, 2021, 04:35:32 PM
The history of these units is also quite interesting, too. The league for example is how far you can typically walk in 1 hour. The important part is the 1 hour, not the 2.2 km or whatever.
Very cool. How did they measure an "hour" back then?
Some articles sheeding light into how old the 24 hour day is and why it is how it is.
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-1487,00.html (https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-1487,00.html)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-time-division-days-hours-minutes/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-time-division-days-hours-minutes/)
https://andreacefalo.com/2014/01/29/telling-time-in-the-middle-ages-5-things-you-didnt-know/ (https://andreacefalo.com/2014/01/29/telling-time-in-the-middle-ages-5-things-you-didnt-know/)
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Honestly I am not looking forward to this and will most likely not buy it.
My group and I would be fine if Wizards of the Coast didn't release anything new; we are playing older editions(currently playing a 4e campaign) and planning to try out new systems that are unrelated to D&D.
Quote from: Zalman on October 05, 2021, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 02, 2021, 04:35:32 PM
The history of these units is also quite interesting, too. The league for example is how far you can typically walk in 1 hour. The important part is the 1 hour, not the 2.2 km or whatever.
Very cool. How did they measure an "hour" back then?
I presume by counting 3600 Mississippi's.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Perkins is mainly known to me as the Penny-Arcade live-at-a-con celebrity D&D DM who got them a WotC deal and sort of helped them rehabilitate from Dick Wolves. The vibe I get from Perkins is sort of...Peter Garrett from Midnight Oil trying to become Jeffery Combs after Michael Stipe stole his whole "being bald, bad dancing , & groaning in the middle of a song" Schtick.
Crawford I could not pick out of a lineup.
In order for it to work, they would have to offer up a new setting. And I suspect that setting would be an absolute fail! They would attempt to introduce things that simply would only cater to a very small group of fans and it would not be all that interesting. The majority of fans will ignore it.
Quote from: Zalman on October 05, 2021, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 02, 2021, 04:35:32 PM
The history of these units is also quite interesting, too. The league for example is how far you can typically walk in 1 hour. The important part is the 1 hour, not the 2.2 km or whatever.
Very cool. How did they measure an "hour" back then?
In Roman times, an hour was literally just 1/12 (measured by angle of the sun) of the daylight hours; meaning the distance of a league (in the sense of how far you could travel on foot in an hour) varied with the time of year. Eventually, they figured out a standard unit, just as with the foot, the pound and the pace (mostly likely based on the mille passum; 1000 paces; from which the mile derived).
That said, the variable length league isn't that crazy as daylight really was the deciding factor in how far you could travel and seasonal conditions also played a role in how far (or even IF) you could travel.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2021, 05:50:22 AM
Eventually, they figured out a standard unit, just as with the foot, the pound and the pace (mostly likely based on the mille passum; 1000 paces; from which the mile derived).
Cool! I think I'll go over to 5,000 foot miles = 1,000 5' paces in my D&D games. ;D
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 02, 2021, 04:35:32 PM
The history of these units is also quite interesting, too. The league for example is how far you can typically walk in 1 hour. The important part is the 1 hour, not the 2.2 km or whatever.
Neat! I honestly never new that. I knew a league was more than a mile, but didn't really know exactly how long, or why.
Quote from: mightybrain on October 03, 2021, 08:13:00 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 02, 2021, 04:35:32 PMThe important part is the 1 hour
Or 41.6 centi-days.
Based and Imperial-pilled.
Quote from: Shasarak on October 05, 2021, 04:11:38 PM
Quote from: Zalman on October 05, 2021, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on October 02, 2021, 04:35:32 PM
The history of these units is also quite interesting, too. The league for example is how far you can typically walk in 1 hour. The important part is the 1 hour, not the 2.2 km or whatever.
Very cool. How did they measure an "hour" back then?
I presume by counting 3600 Mississippi's.
Naturally.
Quote from: S'mon on October 06, 2021, 06:49:28 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2021, 05:50:22 AM
Eventually, they figured out a standard unit, just as with the foot, the pound and the pace (mostly likely based on the mille passum; 1000 paces; from which the mile derived).
Cool! I think I'll go over to 5,000 foot miles = 1,000 5' paces in my D&D games. ;D
That's literally what my own system's setting uses as it's default. A mile is 1000 paces/5000'.
I also use "a pint's a pound the whole world round" as the basis for weights and measures. A pound in universe is equal to a pint of fresh water. A pint in-universe is a cylinder thar is one palm (approx. 3") across by one hand (approx. 4") tall; basically the volume of a mug that would comfortably fit in someone's hand.
Similarly, the inch is derived from finger joint, the foot from a foot, and the yard from the length of a man's belt. The pace is two steps (or one foot being picked up until it is planted again), the mile a thousand paces... all of it essentially derived from anthropic units or simple divisions thereof.
Even the currency is based on the pound silver with the common currency being the cent (as in "one per cent of a pound") and then the bit (a quarter of a cent).
Being able to reference the actual anthropic origins for each unit I've found goes a long way towards establishing versimultude in the setting while also making it easy to visualize in relation to the generally human-sized characters in it.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2021, 05:50:22 AM
In Roman times, an hour was literally just 1/12 (measured by angle of the sun) of the daylight hours.
So were people back then just really adept at measuring the angle of the sun visually, and calculating "1/12th" of the daylight hours for that particular time of year
in their heads? Or did they carry an elaborate system of sunrise/sunset tables and a measuring instrument? If so, what instrument is that?
And how did they measure "hours" on cloudy days?
Did Roman armies have a designated timekeeper that walked around holding an hourglass upright?
Curious.
Quote from: Zalman on October 06, 2021, 10:32:32 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2021, 05:50:22 AM
In Roman times, an hour was literally just 1/12 (measured by angle of the sun) of the daylight hours.
So were people back then just really adept at measuring the angle of the sun visually, and calculating "1/12th" of the daylight hours for that particular time of year in their heads? Or did they carry an elaborate system of sunrise/sunset tables and a measuring instrument? If so, what instrument is that?
And how did they measure "hours" on cloudy days?
Did Roman armies have a designated timekeeper that walked around holding an hourglass upright?
Curious.
The answer is, it varied.
An important thing to keep in mind is that from the founding of the Republic until the collapse of the Western Empire was nearly a thousand years (and the Eastern half lasted another century beyond that).
A lot of the measurements that started out as variables were standardized, particularly as government became more centralized. The length of a League stopped being how far an army could march in an hour to a statute distance before Julius even became dictator (in fact, ALL of Julius' conquests which we traditionally associate with the Empire actually occured during the Republic and Julius himself was never Emperor).
The standard measuring systems of time for Romans were the sundial and the water clock. So distances would have been calculated at some point using those and once standardized would be measured using ropes (the origin of the term knots comes from laying out a rope with evenly spaced knots behind a ship for a period of time and then counting the knots) or lengths of chain (and the associated imperial measurement).
Basic measurements of time can also be done using a person's hand; a trick still used today. The width of the four fingers on a human hand at arm's length is about the distance the sun travels across the sky in an hour. So going hand over hand from the horizon to the sun along its arc of travel will give a rough measure of hours after sunrise or before sunset (with each finger being a quarter hour/15 minutes).
It would vary a bit from person-to-person obviously, but as a rough guide the hand trick is often "good enough."
Quote from: Zalman on October 06, 2021, 10:32:32 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2021, 05:50:22 AM
In Roman times, an hour was literally just 1/12 (measured by angle of the sun) of the daylight hours.
So were people back then just really adept at measuring the angle of the sun visually, and calculating "1/12th" of the daylight hours for that particular time of year in their heads? Or did they carry an elaborate system of sunrise/sunset tables and a measuring instrument? If so, what instrument is that?
And how did they measure "hours" on cloudy days?
Did Roman armies have a designated timekeeper that walked around holding an hourglass upright?
Curious.
I'd imagine something similar to a sundial might have been used, then you'd watch it and mark sunrise/sundown, then you could mark halfway between those, then halfway between the other marks, etc.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2021, 10:23:37 AM
Even the currency is based on the pound silver with the common currency being the cent (as in "one per cent of a pound") and then the bit (a quarter of a cent).
I almost did the same thing, but I couldn't get over the part that a "bit" is typically an eighth of something, not a quarter. So I went with quarter of a cent as a farthing and left "bit" out, because I didn't need a coin that small. No matter, how you do it, you end up making compromises, especially when I'm doing a late dark ages, early middle ages economy often using terms that didn't occur to much later. Bah, if D&D can have weapon and armor lists that span centuries, I can play fast and lose with currency--yet, "bit" was a bridge too far for some reason.
Maybe if I didn't know that in American terms, "a shave and a hair cut for 2 bits" means "a quarter", or 1/8th of a dollar in this case, and wasn't a long time programmer back when manipulating bits as still 8ths, I could get over it.
What I did with the ratio of pennies to my next highest made up unit won't survive careful scrutiny, but it did make game play so much easier than what I had previously. :D
On a side note, the players in my D&D campaign have grown to hate electrum pieces (they were getting them in treasure hauls due to me running them through Into the Borderlands).
For coinage, I went with:
1 gold duket = 100 silver guilder = 1000 copper bob
For size:
copper bob ~ US penny
silver guilder ~ US nickel
gold duket ~ US quarter
If you assume pure metal for those sizes:
100 copper bobs = 0.85 lb
100 silver guilders = 1.60 lb
100 gold dukets = 3.46 lb
I assume that coins have a 50% packing density. A 6"x6"x6" box will hold:
4085 copper bob (34.6 lb)
2569 silver guilder (41.0 lb)
2188 gold duket (75.6 lb)
Set up another topic for the evolving discussion: Game Units of Measurement (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/game-units-of-measurement/)
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 07, 2021, 03:33:02 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2021, 10:23:37 AM
Even the currency is based on the pound silver with the common currency being the cent (as in "one per cent of a pound") and then the bit (a quarter of a cent).
I almost did the same thing, but I couldn't get over the part that a "bit" is typically an eighth of something, not a quarter. So I went with quarter of a cent as a farthing and left "bit" out, because I didn't need a coin that small. No matter, how you do it, you end up making compromises, especially when I'm doing a late dark ages, early middle ages economy often using terms that didn't occur to much later. Bah, if D&D can have weapon and armor lists that span centuries, I can play fast and lose with currency--yet, "bit" was a bridge too far for some reason.
Maybe if I didn't know that in American terms, "a shave and a hair cut for 2 bits" means "a quarter", or 1/8th of a dollar in this case, and wasn't a long time programmer back when manipulating bits as still 8ths, I could get over it.
What I did with the ratio of pennies to my next highest made up unit won't survive careful scrutiny, but it did make game play so much easier than what I had previously. :D
I completely rebuilt the equipment table and costs from the ground up and a quarter cent was basically the smallest unit I needed for it and the font I was using had a nice þ symbol (which I know is technically the Old English "thorn", but it looks like a stylized 'b' and I've got some fluff about how in one of the realms they were nicknamed thorns; as in bothersome things to carry around) to go along with my use of £ for pounds and ¢ for cents... so þ for bits is what I ended up with.
It should also be noted too though that other than the main location of the default setting, all the terms are mostly for ease of play... individual realms are expected to to have their own coinage of varying values... a literal pound of silver and fractions of it just makes for an easy conversion rate between the mostly 'real metal/barter value' used in interstate trade without a centralized government to establish uniform coinage or weights and measures.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
Do you know how many times have I needed to know the circumference of the earth to use the metric system? ZERO.
I do agree that from a "realistic" point of view the imperial system makes more sense on pseudo medieval settings. But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian. So I guess it has more to do with where did the RPG hobby originated than with "realism".
There's two kinds of countries in this world, good buddy. Those who use the Metric System, and those that have put men on the Moon.
Quote from: thedungeondelver on October 07, 2021, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
Do you know how many times have I needed to know the circumference of the earth to use the metric system? ZERO.
I do agree that from a "realistic" point of view the imperial system makes more sense on pseudo medieval settings. But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian. So I guess it has more to do with where did the RPG hobby originated than with "realism".
There's two kinds of countries in this world, good buddy. Those who use the Metric System, and those that have put men on the Moon.
And in orther to put men in the moon, that country had to use the metric system... Cuz it's the scientific system.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 07, 2021, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver on October 07, 2021, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
Do you know how many times have I needed to know the circumference of the earth to use the metric system? ZERO.
I do agree that from a "realistic" point of view the imperial system makes more sense on pseudo medieval settings. But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian. So I guess it has more to do with where did the RPG hobby originated than with "realism".
There's two kinds of countries in this world, good buddy. Those who use the Metric System, and those that have put men on the Moon.
And in orther to put men in the moon, that country had to use the metric system... Cuz it's the scientific system.
Only in the internal computer codes; all the displays for the pilots were in pounds, feet per second and nautical miles, because that's what Air Force pilots train in and knew how to do the pen, paper and slide rule math for.
NASA didn't officially switch to metric primary until about 1990 and even today enough good old feet and miles remain that they still often need instruments that display both.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 08, 2021, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 07, 2021, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver on October 07, 2021, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
Do you know how many times have I needed to know the circumference of the earth to use the metric system? ZERO.
I do agree that from a "realistic" point of view the imperial system makes more sense on pseudo medieval settings. But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian. So I guess it has more to do with where did the RPG hobby originated than with "realism".
There's two kinds of countries in this world, good buddy. Those who use the Metric System, and those that have put men on the Moon.
And in orther to put men in the moon, that country had to use the metric system... Cuz it's the scientific system.
Only in the internal computer codes; all the displays for the pilots were in pounds, feet per second and nautical miles, because that's what Air Force pilots train in and knew how to do the pen, paper and slide rule math for.
NASA didn't officially switch to metric primary until about 1990 and even today enough good old feet and miles remain that they still often need instruments that display both.
Right, instruments had to be in imperial because the pilots didn't know metric.
To machine imperial (standard) pieces that need high precision they need to drop the fractions and switch to? thousands of an inch. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's using the metric way on a non metric unit.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 08, 2021, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 07, 2021, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver on October 07, 2021, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
Do you know how many times have I needed to know the circumference of the earth to use the metric system? ZERO.
I do agree that from a "realistic" point of view the imperial system makes more sense on pseudo medieval settings. But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian. So I guess it has more to do with where did the RPG hobby originated than with "realism".
There's two kinds of countries in this world, good buddy. Those who use the Metric System, and those that have put men on the Moon.
And in orther to put men in the moon, that country had to use the metric system... Cuz it's the scientific system.
Only in the internal computer codes; all the displays for the pilots were in pounds, feet per second and nautical miles, because that's what Air Force pilots train in and knew how to do the pen, paper and slide rule math for.
NASA didn't officially switch to metric primary until about 1990 and even today enough good old feet and miles remain that they still often need instruments that display both.
Right, instruments had to be in imperial because the pilots didn't know metric.
To machine imperial (standard) pieces that need high precision they need to drop the fractions and switch to? thousands of an inch. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's using the metric way on a non metric unit.
Seeing as how the 1/1000 of inch measure (i.e. the mil) came into common use in the 1850's... I think your argument is on the shaky side.
The principal element of the Metric System was not base-10 decimal mathematics (which has been in use since at least the Egyptian Old Kingom) but on the SI units of the meter, gram and second.
Fun fact; the actual length of the fixed meter wasn't agreed upon until the Metre Convention of 1875 and the other SI units not fully agreed to until 1921.
So the mil that NASA used for its engineering was already in use two decades before the length of a meter was even agreed to. Kinda hard to say the mil used by NASA was the result or the Metric System when it's OLDER than the Metric System.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 08, 2021, 01:14:48 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 08, 2021, 11:44:45 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 07, 2021, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver on October 07, 2021, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 02, 2021, 12:56:37 PM
Do you know how many times have I needed to know the circumference of the earth to use the metric system? ZERO.
I do agree that from a "realistic" point of view the imperial system makes more sense on pseudo medieval settings. But we don't switch to the Egyptian system when the setting is pseudo egyptian. So I guess it has more to do with where did the RPG hobby originated than with "realism".
There's two kinds of countries in this world, good buddy. Those who use the Metric System, and those that have put men on the Moon.
And in orther to put men in the moon, that country had to use the metric system... Cuz it's the scientific system.
Only in the internal computer codes; all the displays for the pilots were in pounds, feet per second and nautical miles, because that's what Air Force pilots train in and knew how to do the pen, paper and slide rule math for.
NASA didn't officially switch to metric primary until about 1990 and even today enough good old feet and miles remain that they still often need instruments that display both.
Right, instruments had to be in imperial because the pilots didn't know metric.
To machine imperial (standard) pieces that need high precision they need to drop the fractions and switch to? thousands of an inch. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's using the metric way on a non metric unit.
Seeing as how the 1/1000 of inch measure (i.e. the mil) came into common use in the 1850's... I think your argument is on the shaky side.
The principal element of the Metric System was not base-10 decimal mathematics (which has been in use since at least the Egyptian Old Kingom) but on the SI units of the meter, gram and second.
Fun fact; the actual length of the fixed meter wasn't agreed upon until the Metre Convention of 1875 and the other SI units not fully agreed to until 1921.
So the mil that NASA used for its engineering was already in use two decades before the length of a meter was even agreed to. Kinda hard to say the mil used by NASA was the result or the Metric System when it's OLDER than the Metric System.
Okay, I didn't know that, I stand corrected, still the metric system is superior which is why it's the one scientists use.
Take care I'm not saying USA, the UK or any other country SHOULD drop the imperial and switch because I'm not an authoritarian. I'm just saying it's easier to work with.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:18:41 PM
Take care I'm not saying USA, the UK or any other country SHOULD drop the imperial and switch because I'm not an authoritarian. I'm just saying it's easier to work with.
It's easier to work with, in certain contexts. By the same token, in certain contexts hexadecimal or even binary are easier. Sometimes "natural" units are easier.
There are all kinds of tricks in carpentry which are basically Euclidean geometry, with occasional measurements (in whatever form you want) to make cuts. It happens that fractions of an inch work well in some of that because the typical "kerf" (usually the width of the cut) of a carpentry saw blade is very close to 1/16th of an inch. You could could work around in metric, but you'd have to drop some shortcuts to do it. That's just under 1.59 mm, which means that for rough cuts using 1.5 would be fine, but for precision you need it closer than that. Of course, they could make metric blades that had a kerf closer to 1.5, and the tricks come back. the blade wouldn't hold up as well at that thickness, and might be some safety issues with the teeth, but could work around with a better grade of steel.
For most everyday things, the best measurement is the one that you are used to using. Cooking? It's a really rare baking recipe that is down to that precision, and a lot of things you can do "by handfuls" or a "cup" in the sense of a "mug of about the right size, as long as use the same one", because proportion matters more than exact amounts.
So metric is better for most things for people that are used to using it and worse for most people that aren't--end of story. Anyone working in a field where it matters should learn the measurements in that field--also end of story. A moderately bright person ought to be able to learn more than one set of units, and anyone less bright than that shouldn't be working in a field that requires that level of precision.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 01:37:57 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:18:41 PM
Take care I'm not saying USA, the UK or any other country SHOULD drop the imperial and switch because I'm not an authoritarian. I'm just saying it's easier to work with.
It's easier to work with, in certain contexts. By the same token, in certain contexts hexadecimal or even binary are easier. Sometimes "natural" units are easier.
There are all kinds of tricks in carpentry which are basically Euclidean geometry, with occasional measurements (in whatever form you want) to make cuts. It happens that fractions of an inch work well in some of that because the typical "kerf" (usually the width of the cut) of a carpentry saw blade is very close to 1/16th of an inch. You could could work around in metric, but you'd have to drop some shortcuts to do it. That's just under 1.59 mm, which means that for rough cuts using 1.5 would be fine, but for precision you need it closer than that. Of course, they could make metric blades that had a kerf closer to 1.5, and the tricks come back. the blade wouldn't hold up as well at that thickness, and might be some safety issues with the teeth, but could work around with a better grade of steel.
For most everyday things, the best measurement is the one that you are used to using. Cooking? It's a really rare baking recipe that is down to that precision, and a lot of things you can do "by handfuls" or a "cup" in the sense of a "mug of about the right size, as long as use the same one", because proportion matters more than exact amounts.
So metric is better for most things for people that are used to using it and worse for most people that aren't--end of story. Anyone working in a field where it matters should learn the measurements in that field--also end of story. A moderately bright person ought to be able to learn more than one set of units, and anyone less bright than that shouldn't be working in a field that requires that level of precision.
Why is the "kerf" that size? Could it be because most companies are USA companies?
I use cups and spoons for cooking. Mine happen to be metric cups, so a cup = 0.250 liter
You can do the same for mixing concrete, one bucket of this for that many buckets of that plus that many buckets of that other thing, etc. If the buckets are in gallons or liters is irrelevant.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:51:24 PM
Why is the "kerf" that size? Could it be because most companies are USA companies?
I'm sure that they are that size partially because the people using them wanted them that size for the reasons I stated. However, my point is that given the specs on the materials, there are limits to how thin you can make the blades--and even within those limits, the thinner you make them the lower tolerances you get. Since the primary driving factor is using the Euclidean geometry for rapid shortcuts, the measurement system used should be one (in some hypothetical ideal world) that maximizes the safety and production costs of those materials.
In other words, there is not a huge reason to use metric or imperial here (because let's face it, there are ways to work around the margins) but changing from one to the other is
not as simple as the user learning a new set of measurements. Heck, even mechanics have an easier switch, since all they need is a set of metric specific tools (wrenches and the like). Absent some really compelling reason to switch, there should be no switch. Other countries deciding it would be easier for them if you switched is not a compelling reason in this case.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:51:24 PM
I use cups and spoons for cooking. Mine happen to be metric cups, so a cup = 0.250 liter
You can do the same for mixing concrete, one bucket of this for that many buckets of that plus that many buckets of that other thing, etc. If the buckets are in gallons or liters is irrelevant.
Yes, which I believe I stated. There is no inherent advantage to either system. So the one you use most often is the best one to use. There is no good reason why I should switch to yours or you should switch to mine.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:51:24 PM
"kerf" (usually the width of the cut) of a carpentry saw blade is very close to 1/16th of an inch. You could could work around in metric, but you'd have to drop some shortcuts to do it. That's just under 1.59 mm, which means that for rough cuts using 1.5 would be fine, but for precision you need it closer than that.
Then why not just machine them to 1.59 mm? I assume if that's really the sweet spot to make the geometric tricks work, it would be well known abroad and foreign blade manufacturs would just . . . make them the right size regardless of which system of measurement they were using. Machining can probably go even more precise than that, since you did say "slightly less." I actually looked it up. It seems machines can have a tolerance level(margin of error, basically) between 0.1 mm to 0.002 mm. So a low-end machine wouldn't be accurate enough, but just a mid-range machine could give you a spread of 1.58 to 1.6, both .8 closer to the sweet spot than 1.5.
Quote
So metric is better for most things for people that are used to using it and worse for most people that aren't--end of story. Anyone working in a field where it matters should learn the measurements in that field--also end of story. A moderately bright person ought to be able to learn more than one set of units, and anyone less bright than that shouldn't be working in a field that requires that level of precision.
Exactly. But I'm still not sure why foreign manufacturers can't just make the right-width sawblade. Metric really makes no sense as a hindrance here.
Quote from: GeekEclectic on October 08, 2021, 05:50:04 PM
Then why not just machine them to 1.59 mm? I assume if that's really the sweet spot to make the geometric tricks work, it would be well known abroad and foreign blade manufacturs would just . . . make them the right size regardless of which system of measurement they were using. Machining can probably go even more precise than that, since you did say "slightly less." I actually looked it up. It seems machines can have a tolerance level(margin of error, basically) between 0.1 mm to 0.002 mm. So a low-end machine wouldn't be accurate enough, but just a mid-range machine could give you a spread of 1.58 to 1.6, both .8 closer to the sweet spot than 1.5.
What you quoted was me, not Geeky.
The kerf should be as close as you can get it to the smallest measurement that you are likely to use. Or more specifically, no more than double the smallest. Most cuts in carpentry are going to be as close to a 1/16 of an inch as you can get, so the kerf should match. 1.59 mm is not going to be a useful, quick measurement when translating linear distance of the measurement of the cut. You could do it with 1.5 mm with a kerf of that width. (In the same way, occasionally you'll need 1/32 in carpentry, and eyeballing the middle of the blade is usually OK--though harder for someone like me with bad depth perception. But then, I can't make furniture precise enough for that to matter anyway.)
Setting up for mass production, this wouldn't matter so much. You'd pull out a micrometer and set it to exactly what you needed, with stop, complete with an exact inclusion of the exact kerf you have on the saw. My dad does that occasionally for key measurements in really tight pieces. That's obviously a lot slower than being able to consistently eyeball the blade. You can't do that every cut as a carpenter if you want to eat, though.
As I said before, this is all at the margins, though. Give me nothing but metric to use and an 1/16th kerf, I could make the piece. It would just take longer, with more mistakes, and probably wouldn't be quite as fine as I'd make otherwise. Wood's got a certain amount of give and take anyway. What my dad would make under the same conditions would be better than what I'd make without the handicap, but not as good as what he'd make without it.
Give him a 1.5 mm kerf and nothing but metric, he'd adapt. He'd get back to the same quality as he has now, eventually. The point is that nothing would be gained except others would have the satisfaction of knowing they'd forced metric on someone. This isn't like chemistry, where there is a solid, positive, compelling reason for the switch.
Edited: Of course you can make a 1.59 mm blade. We've already got that. You can also make a 1.5 mm blade, which would be a heck of a lot more convenient for someone using metric otherwise. The difficulty is that blades are surprisingly fine in how they work, such that changing the width that much changes their manufacturing for a given finesse of cut. Some of the diamond tip blades are already expensive. Granted, nothing compared to the cost of the saw, but the saw lasts a lot longer, Again, could be made to work, but there isn't any appreciable gain for switching, and carpenters don't make a fortune (i.e. already have fairly tight economic margins). Now, a 2 mm kerf might be pretty amazing in some cases.
This reminds me of the old Attack Table players. Sure they could use that new fangled THAC0 but really what does it add that they can't just read off their attack tables?
Quote from: Shasarak on October 09, 2021, 04:14:47 AM
This reminds me of the old Attack Table players. Sure they could use that new fangled THAC0 but really what does it add that they can't just read off their attack tables?
Except the math was essentially the same (or nearly so), just not laid out on a table for easy reference. It's the difference between doing the math in your head and having a slide rule on hand to provide the results based on inputs.
The math on 1/16" vs. 1.59mm is different in that one is easy to do in your head, while one would need more time and possibly a pen and paper to achieve the same degree of accuracy and changing the tool to make the math into something easy enough to do as you go without a calculator is not as easy as it sounds because metallurgy doesn't care about what system of measurement you're using... it has X properties at one thickness and Y at another.
A better association would be that the 1/16" is the 2e THAC0 number and the 1.59mm is the 1e attack matrix but you're also using the weapon vs. armor to-hit adjustments with it (i.e. the same, but with extra math on top to get the right result).
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 01:37:57 PMIt's easier to work with, in certain contexts. By the same token, in certain contexts hexadecimal or even binary are easier. Sometimes "natural" units are easier.
This is why I find all this discussion between metric and imperial wrt the moon landing so amusing. I spent a good decade writing industrial control software and we didn't use either measuring system. Time was tracked by clock cycles. Distances were measure as the number of clock cycles between two inputs. Even analog measuring devices, such as scales, were converted to digital by the sensor's manufacturer in some arbitrary way so those numbers didn't have units either. The only time you'd convert those internal units to meters or feet is for display or for sending it to another computer system. And it's just as easy to fail by mixing mm and cm as it is to fail by mixing meters and feet.
IOW, in a digital age, there is no advantage or disadvantage to using metric over imperial. Either of them requires a conversion to display and that conversion takes exactly as much computer power regardless of the units being used.
Quote from: Chris24601 on October 09, 2021, 09:20:42 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on October 09, 2021, 04:14:47 AM
This reminds me of the old Attack Table players. Sure they could use that new fangled THAC0 but really what does it add that they can't just read off their attack tables?
Except the math was essentially the same (or nearly so), just not laid out on a table for easy reference. It's the difference between doing the math in your head and having a slide rule on hand to provide the results based on inputs.
The math on 1/16" vs. 1.59mm is different in that one is easy to do in your head, while one would need more time and possibly a pen and paper to achieve the same degree of accuracy and changing the tool to make the math into something easy enough to do as you go without a calculator is not as easy as it sounds because metallurgy doesn't care about what system of measurement you're using... it has X properties at one thickness and Y at another.
A better association would be that the 1/16" is the 2e THAC0 number and the 1.59mm is the 1e attack matrix but you're also using the weapon vs. armor to-hit adjustments with it (i.e. the same, but with extra math on top to get the right result).
Exactly, an attack table is much easier to use then doing maths in your head. I wouldn't even know where to start calculating a 16th of an inch
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on September 30, 2021, 09:39:47 AM
Quote from: GeekEclectic on September 30, 2021, 03:30:13 AM
"Get the **** out so everyone can play!" - ain't that just perfect the perfect motto for them, too. *chases everyone off* "Which -ism can we blame for our lack of players this time?" and *repeat*
WotC has always had 'fire the current fans' as a component of their approach to new D&D editions--they did it with 3E, with 4E, and even with 5E, although in the odd-numbered cases, it's somewhat disguised by the 'chasing the 1E nostalgia' element they also built into the marketing.
Given 5E's success, though, I expect this time will look a bit different--more a 'double down on all the new fans and forget the old ones.'
3e did not try to get rid of its older players. In fact they put some effort into retaining them and the core books cleaved very close text-wise to their 2e counterparts. Aside from the big rules changes its still more and less D&D.
4e is where they had that whole advertisement campaign designed to insult the older players. And the rules and text share little to nothing with prior.
5e tried to course correct and overall worked by mostly jettsioning the 4e nuts and courting back the older gamers and overall succeeding despite the many flaws in the system. Its not till the SJWs hit full steam that WOTC started to antagonize older players again. But overall not via 5e but by slapping a WACIST!!! tag on all the older product. And have spiraled down from there.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 06:23:49 PM
Of course you can make a 1.59 mm blade. We've already got that.
Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.
I went ahead and looked up how carpenters abroad do things, and it turns out that for the most part they use the same sizes of equipment and materials as the current US standards, but . . . relabeled in metric! It's a field without a lot of clean numbers, though. Things like 38x89(mm) for a 2x4. In construction, though, they go for rounder numbers, often multiples of 30. I read it's becaues 30cm is a good round number that's close to a foot.
So the answer is that carpenters abroad usually use metric, and their equipment and materials will usually be labeled in metric, and the 1.59mm blade totally exists, which totally makes sense if it's the metric equivalent of the 1/16" sweet spot imperial blade.
Quote from: GeekEclectic on October 10, 2021, 11:39:16 AM
I went ahead and looked up how carpenters abroad do things, and it turns out that for the most part they use the same sizes of equipment and materials as the current US standards, but . . . relabeled in metric! It's a field without a lot of clean numbers, though. Things like 38x89(mm) for a 2x4. In construction, though, they go for rounder numbers, often multiples of 30. I read it's becaues 30cm is a good round number that's close to a foot.
So the answer is that carpenters abroad usually use metric, and their equipment and materials will usually be labeled in metric, and the 1.59mm blade totally exists, which totally makes sense if it's the metric equivalent of the 1/16" sweet spot imperial blade.
Given that the standard 2.4 is actually closer to 1 3/4" by 3 3/4" once dressed, that part doesn't matter all that much. The dressing is more that the judicious rounding on millimeters. We are back to proportion again. For most things requiring a 2x4, the main thing is that they are the same width. Besides, the first big break point on length is about 15 feet. Past that point, you need something sturdier than the typical 2x8, 2x10, 2x12 setup on floor and ceiling--double width attached, actual beams, extra supports, pillars, etc. And the wood don't care how you measure it, as long as you stay under that margin or compensate. :D
The only D&D i play are the classic or D&D 3rd. i don't anything of D&D after the 3rd. so i am good on that front. as for other games i own d20 starwars revised, gurps and starfinder that i play as well. So right now D&D has lost it flavor for me.
Something as shallow as having really nice looking covers, with a 50th Anniversary logo; will help sell a lot books from the outset.
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 23, 2021, 09:27:49 PM
Something as shallow as having really nice looking covers, with a 50th Anniversary logo; will help sell a lot books from the outset.
Quite possible. The second Star Wars Disney movie sold pretty well too, because people were rushing to see it. But as a result of that, there was a massive backlash.
I won't automatically discount it going well it could be a mega hit or mega flop.
Though they deserve to go broke for being woke imo.
Even before the announcement I was and am getting tired of new editions. Between being married and life in general and the general wokeness of the company, l can't keep justifying personally and financially to keep buying new editions of RPGs. After a certain point how many editions of an RPGs can one store let alone play.
I have four or is it five editions of D&D a mix of old and new. Unless they make it faster and easier to run than what I have then a hard pass from me.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Aside from the most popular edition of the world's most popular RPG lmao
Of course it's "evolved". The creators are being written out of the official history.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 10, 2021, 09:35:20 PM
Given that the standard 2.4 is actually closer to 1 3/4" by 3 3/4" once dressed, that part doesn't matter all that much. The dressing is more that the judicious rounding on millimeters.
Dressing? This ain't a salad. Rough-sawn 2x4s are that dimension, but standard ones are 1.5x3.5 inches. Quite often 1 9/16" x 3 9/16" when they're still wet.
On topic, I wonder if 5e Evolved or whatever is just going to end up being known as 6e. "D&D Next" didn't catch on either.
Quote from: Tubesock Army on November 24, 2021, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Aside from the most popular edition of the world's most popular RPG lmao
They were not the creators of that RPG, though. They "have" the Good Name of that edition on their side, which is an advantage to be sure. But 4e's designers had the Good Name of 3e to bank on, and then completely tanked when they put out a Shit Edition anyways.
And just like with 4e, look for D&D CRT Edition to SHIT ALL OVER 5e, in this case talking about how bigoted and transphobic and White-male-oriented and Colonialist it was and how anyone who ever like it (or maybe even played it) was a Literal Nazi.
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 25, 2021, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: Tubesock Army on November 24, 2021, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Aside from the most popular edition of the world's most popular RPG lmao
They were not the creators of that RPG, though. They "have" the Good Name of that edition on their side, which is an advantage to be sure. But 4e's designers had the Good Name of 3e to bank on, and then completely tanked when they put out a Shit Edition anyways.
And just like with 4e, look for D&D CRT Edition to SHIT ALL OVER 5e, in this case talking about how bigoted and transphobic and White-male-oriented and Colonialist it was and how anyone who ever like it (or maybe even played it) was a Literal Nazi.
They're at the point where 5e (and PF, for that matter) is mature enough where they can't leave well enough alone and have to find "something" to "improve" it. They're the TTRPG publisher equivalent of the ACLU who also needs to justify their continued existence.
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 25, 2021, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: Tubesock Army on November 24, 2021, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Aside from the most popular edition of the world's most popular RPG lmao
They were not the creators of that RPG, though. They "have" the Good Name of that edition on their side, which is an advantage to be sure. But 4e's designers had the Good Name of 3e to bank on, and then completely tanked when they put out a Shit Edition anyways.
And just like with 4e, look for D&D CRT Edition to SHIT ALL OVER 5e, in this case talking about how bigoted and transphobic and White-male-oriented and Colonialist it was and how anyone who ever like it (or maybe even played it) was a Literal Nazi.
Pundit, they are going to shit upon the entire D&D catalog; from its humble wargaming roots, right up to the present day hobby. It must be redefined, and purged of its offensive content. And the current project managers want to cement their legacy of "fixing" D&D. No matter what they do, they will fail; because no amount of change will ever be enough.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 09, 2021, 11:43:44 AM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 01:37:57 PMIt's easier to work with, in certain contexts. By the same token, in certain contexts hexadecimal or even binary are easier. Sometimes "natural" units are easier.
This is why I find all this discussion between metric and imperial wrt the moon landing so amusing. I spent a good decade writing industrial control software and we didn't use either measuring system. Time was tracked by clock cycles. Distances were measure as the number of clock cycles between two inputs. Even analog measuring devices, such as scales, were converted to digital by the sensor's manufacturer in some arbitrary way so those numbers didn't have units either. The only time you'd convert those internal units to meters or feet is for display or for sending it to another computer system. And it's just as easy to fail by mixing mm and cm as it is to fail by mixing meters and feet.
IOW, in a digital age, there is no advantage or disadvantage to using metric over imperial. Either of them requires a conversion to display and that conversion takes exactly as much computer power regardless of the units being used.
Cool! Nice to see a fellow controls engineer on the boards. I work in other industries, though.
And wrt to units, if I'm doing physics, I'll convert everything to metric. Otherwise the best unit system is the one you're most familiar with. Switching has a real cost in time, effort, mistakes made along the way, frustration, and reworking equipment. Outside of science and engineering, there's really not a compelling reason to use one over the other.
Seems like D&D is less likely to be evolved than gelded and chained to the turning arm of a pump or mill like a draft horse, where the pump is a youtube show, and online play app, and a Hot Topic shelf as ab afterthought. Buy t-shirts and pops.
Quote from: palaeomerus on November 30, 2021, 10:01:29 AM
Seems like D&D is less likely to be evolved than gelded and chained to the turning arm of a pump or mill like a draft horse, where the pump is a youtube show, and online play app, and a Hot Topic shelf as ab afterthought. Buy t-shirts and pops.
More people are actually playing D&D today than ever played it before. And that's not an non-sequitur to your comment, it just takes some thought as to why that's relevant to what you claimed.
Quote from: Mistwell on November 30, 2021, 09:18:00 PM
Quote from: palaeomerus on November 30, 2021, 10:01:29 AM
Seems like D&D is less likely to be evolved than gelded and chained to the turning arm of a pump or mill like a draft horse, where the pump is a youtube show, and online play app, and a Hot Topic shelf as ab afterthought. Buy t-shirts and pops.
More people are actually playing D&D today than ever played it before. And that's not an non-sequitur to your comment, it just takes some thought as to why that's relevant to what you claimed.
Comics were always a loose leader for WB/Disney, the money is in the licenses.
Which is why you see this move to turn everything into a "Life-Brand". You don't need to play D&D to nuy funkos, comics, T-Shirts, etc. And WotC/Hasbro makes money of that with exactly zero risk. Because they get paid BEFORE anything is sold.
So, a hit movie/tv show/youtube scripted campaign are better for them than a better game. They got money upfront for the first two & the third one doesn't cost them a penny.
So, as long as the twitteratzis keep on promoting them for being part of the DIE cult (and their ratting keeps the stock valuable), the licenses will keep on getting sold at increasing prices. As long as the junk keeps on selling they could stop producing D&D or give it away for free and still not lose money in the process.
I actually saw D&D licensed candy in the store (and not some generic brand). Which was practically unthinkable for D&D for the last 20+ years.
Before, I was saddened at the idea that the worst edition of D&D would be the one to get the mass acclaim. But having familiarized myself with how reboots and marketting work as a whole, it makes perfect sense.
Quote from: 3catcircus on November 26, 2021, 10:16:38 AM
They're at the point where 5e (and PF, for that matter) is mature enough where they can't leave well enough alone and have to find "something" to "improve" it. They're the TTRPG publisher equivalent of the ACLU who also needs to justify their continued existence.
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 27, 2021, 01:27:05 AM
... the current project managers want to cement their legacy of "fixing" D&D. No matter what they do, they will fail; because no amount of change will ever be enough.
Well, the "it won't be a new edition of D&D", for the 50th anniversary "evolved" edition of 5e has begun...
Behold, the new WotC survey on D&D spells from the 5e PHB:
D&D Spells Survey:
https://survey.alchemer.com/s3/6620080/spells?src=twitter
"Totally backwards compatible", here we come...
Soon we're going to be at the 50th anniversary.
Wonder how theyre going to cash in on that, and how SJW it's going to be. Because the SJWs are just going to keep right on winning.
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 24, 2021, 05:04:11 AM
Quote from: Jam The MF on November 23, 2021, 09:27:49 PM
Something as shallow as having really nice looking covers, with a 50th Anniversary logo; will help sell a lot books from the outset.
Quite possible. The second Star Wars Disney movie sold pretty well too, because people were rushing to see it. But as a result of that, there was a massive backlash.
Years ago (it might have been 1998) when those prequels were about to come out there was a Vanity Fair article about the first one. Lucas said there would only be six and that was that, it would not be a nine-movie thing. A comic called "Dandy and Company" had a robot dog that got an army of nerds after him and his friends by saying he had all nine movies in his memory.
Those sequels were never supposed to exist. There was no possible way the first one, and probably the second, weren't going to make millions. And people would se the third just to get it all.
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 25, 2021, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: Tubesock Army on November 24, 2021, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Aside from the most popular edition of the world's most popular RPG lmao
They were not the creators of that RPG, though. They "have" the Good Name of that edition on their side, which is an advantage to be sure. But 4e's designers had the Good Name of 3e to bank on, and then completely tanked when they put out a Shit Edition anyways.
And just like with 4e, look for D&D CRT Edition to SHIT ALL OVER 5e, in this case talking about how bigoted and transphobic and White-male-oriented and Colonialist it was and how anyone who ever like it (or maybe even played it) was a Literal Nazi.
Its funny that you are on this campaign against an edition you actually helped build (you're a consultant on 5e right?) But I guess you eat your own and you turncoat when needed. As you are a part of the outrage brigade. Like OMG they use 'they/them' pronouns... its the END OF THE WORLD... omg.
Quote from: fixable on December 03, 2021, 03:32:20 AMIts funny that you are on this campaign against an edition you actually helped build (you're a consultant on 5e right?) But I guess you eat your own and you turncoat when needed. As you are a part of the outrage brigade. Like OMG they use 'they/them' pronouns... its the END OF THE WORLD... omg.
While I think 5e is hot garbage, and that the Pundits consultation is him hyping himself up for an achievement of nothing (for all his hate of 4e, 5e is largely just 4e repackaged), this is a moronic comparison.
If you make something, and then later down the line other people involved make it worse: of course your gonna be upset!
This is one of those 'Getting people fired for calling somebody gay when they where 13 is totally comprable to discussing how much you don't like a new release' false equivalencies
And like OMG are you really like like OMG doing that?
Quote from: Mistwell on November 30, 2021, 09:18:00 PM
Quote from: palaeomerus on November 30, 2021, 10:01:29 AM
Seems like D&D is less likely to be evolved than gelded and chained to the turning arm of a pump or mill like a draft horse, where the pump is a youtube show, and online play app, and a Hot Topic shelf as ab afterthought. Buy t-shirts and pops.
More people are actually playing D&D today than ever played it before. And that's not an non-sequitur to your comment, it just takes some thought as to why that's relevant to what you claimed.
Do you have any evidence of this? Yes, they are certainly selling more stuff including rule books. But even before this virus apocalypse, my FLGS were mostly filled with people playing MtG, Pokeman, and board games. It was rare to see another table playing an RPG.
The numbers of online gaming servers are quite big AFAIK.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 03, 2021, 02:26:46 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 30, 2021, 09:18:00 PM
...
More people are actually playing D&D today than ever played it before. ...
Do you have any evidence of this? Yes, they are certainly selling more stuff including rule books. But even before this virus apocalypse, my FLGS were mostly filled with people playing MtG, Pokeman, and board games. It was rare to see another table playing an RPG.
IMHO He's right - 5e's sales certainly bear that out. We have WOTCs PR releases - but they are backed up pretty well by ICV2 and Amazon's sales rankings.
But it is still no surprise that CCG's are still #1 for gaming stores when we take a look at a rough estimate of what D&D makes vs. Magic:
For the end of 2020: According to Forbes, Magic made $581.2 million in 2020. ICv2 notes that WotC made $816 million in sales in 2020. D&D would then be roughly $234.8 million.
D&D had 30%+ growth for several years running, and is still makes
less than Half of what Magic brings in...
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 03, 2021, 02:26:46 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 30, 2021, 09:18:00 PM
Quote from: palaeomerus on November 30, 2021, 10:01:29 AM
Seems like D&D is less likely to be evolved than gelded and chained to the turning arm of a pump or mill like a draft horse, where the pump is a youtube show, and online play app, and a Hot Topic shelf as ab afterthought. Buy t-shirts and pops.
More people are actually playing D&D today than ever played it before. And that's not an non-sequitur to your comment, it just takes some thought as to why that's relevant to what you claimed.
Do you have any evidence of this? Yes, they are certainly selling more stuff including rule books. But even before this virus apocalypse, my FLGS were mostly filled with people playing MtG, Pokeman, and board games. It was rare to see another table playing an RPG.
That's largely a function of logistics. It's pretty trivially easy to just show up to a store with a deck or two and play a handful of games in a couple of hours as opposed to gathering a like-minded group together to spend 4 or more hours playing an RPG. I'm not passing any judgement on the worthiness of either activity but PUG ccgs or even boardgames are easier.
Quote from: KingCheops on December 03, 2021, 05:07:24 PM
...
That's largely a function of logistics. It's pretty trivially easy to just show up to a store with a deck or two and play a handful of games in a couple of hours as opposed to gathering a like-minded group together to spend 4 or more hours playing an RPG. I'm not passing any judgement on the worthiness of either activity but PUG ccgs or even boardgames are easier.
Yes D&D was lucky to hit at the time it did before home video games started getting really good. Or ccg's became a thing.
IMHO it is almost a fluke that RPGs are as big as they are.
RPG's are a hobby activity, not a past time. Hobbies take actual work to do the fun stuff, unlike past times; like following sports.
RPGs are also unique in that The majority of the work is offloaded onto the GM that runs the game. So the hobbyist of the group is the GM, with the majority of the players viewing RPGs as a past time activity that they put minimal effort into for their fun.
Of course within individual groups there are exceptions, but generally that is the norm for the hobby.
Yeah, sales are high. The trouble with correlating sales numbers to active players/GMs are all the confounding factors, such as:
- Range. If you need 7 books to play now and only 2 before, then you can expect more sales per player/GM now.
- Different products. Toys, board games, apparel, digital fluff, licensing of video games, if all this is counted as D&D sales, it does not mean more players. All of this has increased steadily since D&D was first created.
- Triers. Someone who buys a few books because they saw it on Stranger Things, plays a couple times, and never plays again. 4x4 trucks/SUVs are very popular but actual 4x4ing in the mud isn't. I expect there are more of these people now because of all the media promoting D&D.
- Collectors. Everyone on this board probably has multiple rules books they bought just because they liked the system or the art without expectation of actually playing. I know I've got more than my share. Collectors have always been around, but they have much more money now because they are getting older. The 80s teenager who could barely afford the Players Handbook can now buy all the D&D stuff he wants.
D&D is certainly more popular than ever before. It's a very diversified brand that Hasbro is milking as much as they possibly can. It's in their interest to suggest that playing D&D has never been more popular.
I agree with Jaeger, though. It's a hobby for the DM and a pastime for most players. So this tells me that the real graph to look at to determine if D&D is increasing in popularity is sales year-over-year of the Dungeon Master's Guide.
Others have tried to untangle the statistics: https://www.mtblackgames.com/blog/how-many-dnd-players-are-there
It probably is true that there are more players now than ever, but it's difficult to prove and I don't think it's as dramatic as the sales numbers suggest.
Quote from: fixable on December 03, 2021, 03:32:20 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 25, 2021, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: Tubesock Army on November 24, 2021, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Aside from the most popular edition of the world's most popular RPG lmao
They were not the creators of that RPG, though. They "have" the Good Name of that edition on their side, which is an advantage to be sure. But 4e's designers had the Good Name of 3e to bank on, and then completely tanked when they put out a Shit Edition anyways.
And just like with 4e, look for D&D CRT Edition to SHIT ALL OVER 5e, in this case talking about how bigoted and transphobic and White-male-oriented and Colonialist it was and how anyone who ever like it (or maybe even played it) was a Literal Nazi.
Its funny that you are on this campaign against an edition you actually helped build (you're a consultant on 5e right?) But I guess you eat your own and you turncoat when needed. As you are a part of the outrage brigade. Like OMG they use 'they/them' pronouns... its the END OF THE WORLD... omg.
That's one hell of a take. I'm defending the current edition, against people who want to change it not to make it more gameable, but to suit an ideological agenda. Who is 'eating their own' here?
Quote from: Jaeger on December 03, 2021, 09:31:25 PM
RPG's are a hobby activity, not a past time. Hobbies take actual work to do the fun stuff, unlike past times; like following sports.
You never was a GM, was you?
Quote from: Reckall on December 05, 2021, 02:36:59 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 03, 2021, 09:31:25 PM
RPG's are a hobby activity, not a past time. Hobbies take actual work to do the fun stuff, unlike past times; like following sports.
You never was a GM, was you?
Effort/work, however you want to word it; GM's put in more to run the game than players do playing it.
How is that is a controversial statement?
Depending on how one preps and the game, the amount put in before each session can vary.
I've put in a few hours making up a set piece race that the PC's wanted to compete in. But more often than not its just 4-5 bullet point one sentence notes for the session.
You'll have to explain your difference of opinion better.
Well I mean D&D has dropped 80% in sales in the last year while other companies have seen sales go up.
Just saying.
Quote from: Ka'arl Sorcerer of Cha'alt on December 06, 2021, 05:40:08 PM
Well I mean D&D has dropped 80% in sales in the last year while other companies have seen sales go up.
Just saying.
If that number is accurate, then that explains their perceived "need" to release something new. Where did you find the "80%" drop in sales number?
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 30, 2021, 10:05:12 PM
I actually saw D&D licensed candy in the store (and not some generic brand). Which was practically unthinkable for D&D for the last 20+ years.
Before, I was saddened at the idea that the worst edition of D&D would be the one to get the mass acclaim. But having familiarized myself with how reboots and marketting work as a whole, it makes perfect sense.
Yeah D&D Nerds candy...
Link to video
https://dnd.wizards.com/nerds
Quote from: KingCheops on December 03, 2021, 05:07:24 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 03, 2021, 02:26:46 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on November 30, 2021, 09:18:00 PM
Quote from: palaeomerus on November 30, 2021, 10:01:29 AM
Seems like D&D is less likely to be evolved than gelded and chained to the turning arm of a pump or mill like a draft horse, where the pump is a youtube show, and online play app, and a Hot Topic shelf as ab afterthought. Buy t-shirts and pops.
More people are actually playing D&D today than ever played it before. And that's not an non-sequitur to your comment, it just takes some thought as to why that's relevant to what you claimed.
Do you have any evidence of this? Yes, they are certainly selling more stuff including rule books. But even before this virus apocalypse, my FLGS were mostly filled with people playing MtG, Pokeman, and board games. It was rare to see another table playing an RPG.
That's largely a function of logistics. It's pretty trivially easy to just show up to a store with a deck or two and play a handful of games in a couple of hours as opposed to gathering a like-minded group together to spend 4 or more hours playing an RPG. I'm not passing any judgement on the worthiness of either activity but PUG ccgs or even boardgames are easier.
I agree with you, but I recently got into Twilight Imperium 4th edition, and I have to smile. :)
(TI 4 is a huge game that can take more than 6 hours to play. We have gotten good at recording the game with phone pics and taking two days to finish a game.)
(The joke isn't mine)
QuoteGygaxian Cultist
@MontyYuanti
Trauma-free dice do not evoke a sense of failure. The lack of capitalistic numbers convey side equity. After rolling, the PC informs the Storyteller what they feel like the number should be.
Perfect for your D&DEvolved gaming!
Quote from: Ka'arl Sorcerer of Cha'alt on December 06, 2021, 05:40:08 PM
Well I mean D&D has dropped 80% in sales in the last year while other companies have seen sales go up.
Just saying.
When you buy Wizards books inside of Roll20 (or whatever online platform) do they count for this kind of counting? I'm guessing those numbers only count hardcopy sales or something.
Quote from: Ka'arl Sorcerer of Cha'alt on December 06, 2021, 05:40:08 PM
Well I mean D&D has dropped 80% in sales in the last year while other companies have seen sales go up.
..
Kinda need an actual link to prove this.
According to Wotc D&D has had 30% +ish growth for the last few years 2019-2020.
If the sales for D&D fell 80% in 2021 that is BIG NEWS - and needs verification...
And so far I'm not seeing any.
IMHO - we will not see big drop offs until at least a few years beyond the 50th not-edition release.
D&D will ride high on its current momentum for quite a bit. Like the Dr. Who tv show it will take several years from its peak popularity to really go full woke and cause the fans to leave in droves.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 09, 2021, 01:29:23 PM
Quote from: Ka'arl Sorcerer of Cha'alt on December 06, 2021, 05:40:08 PM
Well I mean D&D has dropped 80% in sales in the last year while other companies have seen sales go up.
..
Kinda need an actual link to prove this.
According to Wotc D&D has had 30% +ish growth for the last few years 2019-2020.
If the sales for D&D fell 80% in 2021 that is BIG NEWS - and needs verification...
Both can be accurate because D&D is currently much bigger than just it's book line. One could see an 80% fall off in physical book sales, but increases in the digital Roll20 packages, the miniatures, the "merch" (t-shirts and associated crap) could easily result in a net +30% growth for the "Lifestyle Brand."
Looks like both sales and revenue increased in 2020.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/13/dungeons-dragons-had-its-biggest-year-despite-the-coronavirus.html
Their sales aren't going to drop until the influencers and pretty people tell the FOMO fuckwits what the next pet rock/tamagotchi is.
Quote from: Chris24601 on December 10, 2021, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on December 09, 2021, 01:29:23 PM
Quote from: Ka'arl Sorcerer of Cha'alt on December 06, 2021, 05:40:08 PM
Well I mean D&D has dropped 80% in sales in the last year while other companies have seen sales go up.
..
Kinda need an actual link to prove this.
According to Wotc D&D has had 30% +ish growth for the last few years 2019-2020.
If the sales for D&D fell 80% in 2021 that is BIG NEWS - and needs verification...
Both can be accurate because D&D is currently much bigger than just it's book line. One could see an 80% fall off in physical book sales, but increases in the digital Roll20 packages, the miniatures, the "merch" (t-shirts and associated crap) could easily result in a net +30% growth for the "Lifestyle Brand."
Possible.
But to paraphrase my sometime debating partner on here Mistwell: "Links or it didn't happen..."
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 05, 2021, 01:29:13 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 03, 2021, 03:32:20 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 25, 2021, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: Tubesock Army on November 24, 2021, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Aside from the most popular edition of the world's most popular RPG lmao
They were not the creators of that RPG, though. They "have" the Good Name of that edition on their side, which is an advantage to be sure. But 4e's designers had the Good Name of 3e to bank on, and then completely tanked when they put out a Shit Edition anyways.
And just like with 4e, look for D&D CRT Edition to SHIT ALL OVER 5e, in this case talking about how bigoted and transphobic and White-male-oriented and Colonialist it was and how anyone who ever like it (or maybe even played it) was a Literal Nazi.
Its funny that you are on this campaign against an edition you actually helped build (you're a consultant on 5e right?) But I guess you eat your own and you turncoat when needed. As you are a part of the outrage brigade. Like OMG they use 'they/them' pronouns... its the END OF THE WORLD... omg.
That's one hell of a take. I'm defending the current edition, against people who want to change it not to make it more gameable, but to suit an ideological agenda. Who is 'eating their own' here?
People here, that's freaking who.
Quote from: Ka'arl Sorcerer of Cha'alt on December 06, 2021, 05:40:08 PM
Well I mean D&D has dropped 80% in sales in the last year
Do you have a source for that? Because I can't find anything, and it's quite an incredible claim.
I mean, no one is forcing you to play D&D with nonbinary people who use nonbinary pronouns, so I don't see what the big deal is. Nonbinary people have existed in many cultures all throughout human history, and nonbinary pronouns have always been in use in modern languages. Heck, Japanese mostly doesn't even use pronouns, at all, and doesn't have plurals other than markers like "-tachi" and "-gata". Instead of saying "they", in Japanese a person would say, "that person".
German uses "sie" as the feminine singular third person, and also as the plural third person pronoun for all genders, plus German uses "Sie" (capitalised) as the formal second person and third person singular and plural pronouns. Which, incidentally, is pronounced "zee". In most cases, when speaking in polite company, a German will use the formal "Sie" when addressing another person unless they are addressing family or a child, or a close confidant.
Hasbro wants to sell more books, and D&D5E is becoming cumbersome, with rules and rulings spread across a myriad number of books and supplements, UE, Errata, and Jeremy Crawford's Twitter. 5E absolutely needs a refresh and a consolidation.
And yes, it could do with a little more inclusiveness. I'm all for it.
Since when was D&D not inclusive. It's always been open to everyone. It's pure posturing to attract the woker than thou crowd and it will absolutely backfire because they don't buy anything.
Quote from: mightybrain on December 16, 2021, 06:30:02 AM
Since when was D&D not inclusive. It's always been open to everyone. It's pure posturing to attract the woker than thou crowd and it will absolutely backfire because they don't buy anything.
It might surprise you to learn that other people have different opinions, and the younger crowd, who is demonstrably the future of gaming, has a keen interest in overt support for diversity, inclusion, and equity. If you think this hobby is a bastion of inclusivity in this society/culture, I can only surmise from that that you personally do not experience marginalisation in this hobby.
Quote from: avaia on December 16, 2021, 06:47:13 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on December 16, 2021, 06:30:02 AM
Since when was D&D not inclusive. It's always been open to everyone. It's pure posturing to attract the woker than thou crowd and it will absolutely backfire because they don't buy anything.
It might surprise you to learn that other people have different opinions, and the younger crowd, who is demonstrably the future of gaming, has a keen interest in overt support for diversity, inclusion, and equity. If you think this hobby is a bastion of inclusivity in this society/culture, I can only surmise from that that you personally do not experience marginalisation in this hobby.
Ironically, I got into playing RPGs because I was marginalized.
Quote from: dkabq on December 16, 2021, 06:59:57 AM
Quote from: avaia on December 16, 2021, 06:47:13 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on December 16, 2021, 06:30:02 AM
Since when was D&D not inclusive. It's always been open to everyone. It's pure posturing to attract the woker than thou crowd and it will absolutely backfire because they don't buy anything.
It might surprise you to learn that other people have different opinions, and the younger crowd, who is demonstrably the future of gaming, has a keen interest in overt support for diversity, inclusion, and equity. If you think this hobby is a bastion of inclusivity in this society/culture, I can only surmise from that that you personally do not experience marginalisation in this hobby.
Ironically, I got into playing RPGs because I was marginalized.
D&D was a lot more inclusive before it was Inclusive.
(https://i.imgur.com/1teSEDz.png)
Yeah, sorry avaia, but you are wrong.
Roleplaying games in general have been a haven for the outcasts in the past. I've ranted on this several times.
Yes, we could be and were socially maladapted. So what? You're going to tell us we weren't 'inclusive' enough when our only request was 'roll the dice and play the game'?
All my groups have been chock full of misfits and weirdos going back to the 90s.
Pronouns are divisive. They create tribes and put distance between people. If the goal is acceptance and inclusion, the whole pronoun thing runs in the opposite direction.
Quote from: avaia on December 16, 2021, 06:11:10 AM
German uses "sie" as the feminine singular third person, and also as the plural third person pronoun for all genders, plus German uses "Sie" (capitalised) as the formal second person and third person singular and plural pronouns. Which, incidentally, is pronounced "zee". In most cases, when speaking in polite company, a German will use the formal "Sie" when addressing another person unless they are addressing family or a child, or a close confidant.
So, you're saying the German language also lacks inclusivity? What gender-neutral pronoun do you suggest that all German translations of D&D be rewritten to use?
That's the thing: Any attempt to create a singular "they" in German simply turns the pronoun into "she", so that "nonbinary" people will feel left out. Completely new artificial pronouns would have to be created to cover any additional "genders". What we are seeing today isn't "inclusivity", it's derangement!
New new pronouns are crazy and a collectivist way to distinguish yourself. Its like being a goth except the government calls you a different class of person.
NuPronouns are about insecurity and control over others. So saying that just adding them is 'inclusive' is like saying that some players may demand of all the other players and the GM to wear chains and call them 'master', and thats 'inclusive'.
They just don't feel safe unless your chained up. Just do them a favor and do it man.
Since when could inclusion be demanded?
Mentions of other cultures and 'historical precedent' are disengenous bullshit. If you tried to pull this 'I make up my own pronouns' shit in socially conservative Japan you would get MUCH less further in terms of any social clout then the USA. And historical precedence is also bullshit because the people pushing for it today have absolutely no reverence for tradition or any respect for the past unless it suits their modern whims.
Quote from: S'mon on December 16, 2021, 07:04:21 AM
Quote from: dkabq on December 16, 2021, 06:59:57 AM
Quote from: avaia on December 16, 2021, 06:47:13 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on December 16, 2021, 06:30:02 AM
Since when was D&D not inclusive. It's always been open to everyone. It's pure posturing to attract the woker than thou crowd and it will absolutely backfire because they don't buy anything.
It might surprise you to learn that other people have different opinions, and the younger crowd, who is demonstrably the future of gaming, has a keen interest in overt support for diversity, inclusion, and equity. If you think this hobby is a bastion of inclusivity in this society/culture, I can only surmise from that that you personally do not experience marginalisation in this hobby.
Ironically, I got into playing RPGs because I was marginalized.
D&D was a lot more inclusive before it was Inclusive.
But S'mon, using the new DnD I can imagine my character is anyone that I want.
Not like the old DnD which forced me to conform to artificial arbitrary standards.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 16, 2021, 03:56:35 PM
New new pronouns are crazy and a collectivist way to distinguish yourself. Its like being a goth except the government calls you a different class of person.
NuPronouns are about insecurity and control over others. So saying that just adding them is 'inclusive' is like saying that some players may demand of all the other players and the GM to wear chains and call them 'master', and thats 'inclusive'.
They just don't feel safe unless your chained up. Just do them a favor and do it man.
Since when could inclusion be demanded?
NuPronouns are more like a shibboleth than anything else.
Quote from: avaia on December 16, 2021, 06:47:13 AMIf you think this hobby is a bastion of inclusivity in this society/culture, I can only surmise from that that you personally do not experience marginalisation in this hobby.
I fully realize that the hobby wasn't "inclusive" in the 80s, in the sense that products were targeted toward a certain demographic (generally young, straight, white males). But from my perspective, the pendulum has swung the other way. WotC is now bending over backward to accommodate certain groups while telling their former audience to take a hike, sometimes in needlessly aggressive tones. See, for example, Mearls's "You're all fired" tweet from 2018, which not only rebuffed older fans of D&D, but dishonestly smeared them as sexists:
"Funny how many of the same "fans" who insist on gatekeeping via rules complexity and lore density also have a problem with women in tabletop gaming. Hey guys! You're all fired from D&D. Find another game."Now imagine if that tweet had been something along the lines of, "Funny how many of the same people who demand more non-binary representation in D&D are also pedophiles. Hey guys! You're all fired from D&D. Find another game."
Would you find that statement marginalizing (or worse)? Yeah, I bet you would. And now you know how many of us feel, and have felt for several years now.
The same people that demand nupronouns and justify it as a insignificant thing you can ignore also demand removal of chainmail bikinis or other "problematic" stuff.
Its all about power and control. Can we make you wear a hat and jump on command?
Quote from: avaia on December 16, 2021, 06:47:13 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on December 16, 2021, 06:30:02 AM
Since when was D&D not inclusive. It's always been open to everyone. It's pure posturing to attract the woker than thou crowd and it will absolutely backfire because they don't buy anything.
It might surprise you to learn that other people have different opinions, and the younger crowd, who is demonstrably the future of gaming, has a keen interest in overt support for diversity, inclusion, and equity. If you think this hobby is a bastion of inclusivity in this society/culture, I can only surmise from that that you personally do not experience marginalisation in this hobby.
Millennials aren't that young anymore. And recent studies show that Gen Z are increasingly sick of having their lives controlled by cancel culture extremists.
Quote from: Horace on December 16, 2021, 04:18:21 PM
I fully realize that the hobby wasn't "inclusive" in the 80s, in the sense that products were targeted toward a certain demographic (generally young, straight, white males).
Which came first, the marketing or the table top gamer?
I would guess the marketing-folks attempted to expand the one demographic that showed interest. Other groups sneered at D&D and gamers and marketing to them would have been a waste of time.
Quote from: avaia on December 16, 2021, 06:47:13 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on December 16, 2021, 06:30:02 AM
Since when was D&D not inclusive. It's always been open to everyone. It's pure posturing to attract the woker than thou crowd and it will absolutely backfire because they don't buy anything.
It might surprise you to learn that other people have different opinions, and the younger crowd, who is demonstrably the future of gaming, has a keen interest in overt support for diversity, inclusion, and equity. If you think this hobby is a bastion of inclusivity in this society/culture, I can only surmise from that that you personally do not experience marginalisation in this hobby.
For those of us not following the TBP narrative, do you have any examples of DIE that are missing from gaming?
The crowd who insists that everything about D&D needs to change, should have been ecstatic about Strixhaven. It was like Twilight, meets D&D. Has Strixhaven been a huge seller for WOTC? If not, then WOTC is putting their eggs in the wrong basket. I bet Volo's heavily outsold Strixhaven, but WOTC couldn't recognize why. So therefore, they began to retroactively take a dump on their own successful product. It's all very strange....
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 16, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
The crowd who insists that everything about D&D needs to change, should have been ecstatic about Strixhaven. It was like Twilight, meets D&D. Has Strixhaven been a huge seller for WOTC? If not, then WOTC is putting their eggs in the wrong basket. I bet Volo's heavily outsold Strixhaven, but WOTC couldn't recognize why. So therefore, they began to retroactively take a dump on their own successful product. It's all very strange....
Not when you realize that their goal has nothing to do with a good product, and everythign to do with destroying said product and brand.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 16, 2021, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Horace on December 16, 2021, 04:18:21 PM
I fully realize that the hobby wasn't "inclusive" in the 80s, in the sense that products were targeted toward a certain demographic (generally young, straight, white males).
Which came first, the marketing or the table top gamer?
I would guess the marketing-folks attempted to expand the one demographic that showed interest. Other groups sneered at D&D and gamers and marketing to them would have been a waste of time.
Either way, I can't fault anyone involved. A tabletop game catering to men is no worse than Lifetime (a TV network) catering to women. Being "non-inclusive" in this way is hardly objectionable. It just means designing a product for a specific audience.
Quote from: Horace on December 16, 2021, 09:24:20 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 16, 2021, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: Horace on December 16, 2021, 04:18:21 PM
I fully realize that the hobby wasn't "inclusive" in the 80s, in the sense that products were targeted toward a certain demographic (generally young, straight, white males).
Which came first, the marketing or the table top gamer?
I would guess the marketing-folks attempted to expand the one demographic that showed interest. Other groups sneered at D&D and gamers and marketing to them would have been a waste of time.
Either way, I can't fault anyone involved. A tabletop game catering to men is no worse than Lifetime (a TV network) catering to women. Being "non-inclusive" in this way is hardly objectionable. It just means designing a product for a specific audience.
Yeah, it's like complaining that BET doesn't show enough movies with Asian or White protagonists. They have identified a market and they are serving it. Does BET need to be "diversified"?
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 16, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
The crowd who insists that everything about D&D needs to change, should have been ecstatic about Strixhaven. It was like Twilight, meets D&D. Has Strixhaven been a huge seller for WOTC? If not, then WOTC is putting their eggs in the wrong basket. I bet Volo's heavily outsold Strixhaven, but WOTC couldn't recognize why. So therefore, they began to retroactively take a dump on their own successful product. It's all very strange....
It's currently sitting at #3 on D&D books at Amazon. I find this frankly insane, but it's explaining so much about why I don't care for most 5E players.
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2021, 07:45:51 PM
Quote from: avaia on December 16, 2021, 06:47:13 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on December 16, 2021, 06:30:02 AM
Since when was D&D not inclusive. It's always been open to everyone. It's pure posturing to attract the woker than thou crowd and it will absolutely backfire because they don't buy anything.
It might surprise you to learn that other people have different opinions, and the younger crowd, who is demonstrably the future of gaming, has a keen interest in overt support for diversity, inclusion, and equity. If you think this hobby is a bastion of inclusivity in this society/culture, I can only surmise from that that you personally do not experience marginalisation in this hobby.
For those of us not following the TBP narrative, do you have any examples of DIE that are missing from gaming?
Whenever you hear someone complaining about "marginalization", you can immediately conclude you are dealing with a whiny, narcissist who is upset that other people don't recognize how special and important they are. Some people just can't seem to get the fact that it's not all about them. Rather than carve out their own space, like many of us had to (in the days when simply playing RPGs made you an outcast), they expect everyone else to present them with a space and whatever else they want. Too many spoiled brats in adult bodies...
Quote from: Palleon on December 16, 2021, 10:05:50 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 16, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
The crowd who insists that everything about D&D needs to change, should have been ecstatic about Strixhaven. It was like Twilight, meets D&D. Has Strixhaven been a huge seller for WOTC? If not, then WOTC is putting their eggs in the wrong basket. I bet Volo's heavily outsold Strixhaven, but WOTC couldn't recognize why. So therefore, they began to retroactively take a dump on their own successful product. It's all very strange....
It's currently sitting at #3 on D&D books at Amazon. I find this frankly insane, but it's explaining so much about why I don't care for most 5E players.
Category error. "Buys 5e books" is far from synonymous with "Plays 5e".
Quote from: RandyB on December 16, 2021, 10:54:44 PM
Quote from: Palleon on December 16, 2021, 10:05:50 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 16, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
The crowd who insists that everything about D&D needs to change, should have been ecstatic about Strixhaven. It was like Twilight, meets D&D. Has Strixhaven been a huge seller for WOTC? If not, then WOTC is putting their eggs in the wrong basket. I bet Volo's heavily outsold Strixhaven, but WOTC couldn't recognize why. So therefore, they began to retroactively take a dump on their own successful product. It's all very strange....
It's currently sitting at #3 on D&D books at Amazon. I find this frankly insane, but it's explaining so much about why I don't care for most 5E players.
Category error. "Buys 5e books" is far from synonymous with "Plays 5e".
True, but money talks.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 16, 2021, 10:10:56 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on December 16, 2021, 07:45:51 PM
Quote from: avaia on December 16, 2021, 06:47:13 AM
Quote from: mightybrain on December 16, 2021, 06:30:02 AM
Since when was D&D not inclusive. It's always been open to everyone. It's pure posturing to attract the woker than thou crowd and it will absolutely backfire because they don't buy anything.
It might surprise you to learn that other people have different opinions, and the younger crowd, who is demonstrably the future of gaming, has a keen interest in overt support for diversity, inclusion, and equity. If you think this hobby is a bastion of inclusivity in this society/culture, I can only surmise from that that you personally do not experience marginalisation in this hobby.
For those of us not following the TBP narrative, do you have any examples of DIE that are missing from gaming?
Whenever you hear someone complaining about "marginalization", you can immediately conclude you are dealing with a whiny, narcissist who is upset that other people don't recognize how special and important they are. Some people just can't seem to get the fact that it's not all about them. Rather than carve out their own space, like many of us had to (in the days when simply playing RPGs made you an outcast), they expect everyone else to present them with a space and whatever else they want. Too many spoiled brats in adult bodies...
Lets give Avaia a chance to steelman the argument for DIE in gaming. I mean there has to be more then buzz words and rhetoric.
Quote from: Palleon on December 16, 2021, 10:05:50 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 16, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
The crowd who insists that everything about D&D needs to change, should have been ecstatic about Strixhaven. It was like Twilight, meets D&D. Has Strixhaven been a huge seller for WOTC? If not, then WOTC is putting their eggs in the wrong basket. I bet Volo's heavily outsold Strixhaven, but WOTC couldn't recognize why. So therefore, they began to retroactively take a dump on their own successful product. It's all very strange....
It's currently sitting at #3 on D&D books at Amazon. I find this frankly insane, but it's explaining so much about why I don't care for most 5E players.
Here's the thing though: compared to previous products, that's not so good. Obviously all the top entries on Amazon for "D&D Books" are going to be D&D products. Its hard to say how well it did because that's a measure of relative sales at this time rather than a hard number, but you can at least get some kind of guideline by noticing how high it goes and how long it stays at the highest position it manages to reach.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 16, 2021, 04:42:27 PM
The same people that demand nupronouns and justify it as a insignificant thing you can ignore also demand removal of chainmail bikinis or other "problematic" stuff.
Its all about power and control. Can we make you wear a hat and jump on command?
Those people are, in fact, clinically defined as insane.
If someone demands you use the word "they" with the same case and tense as "he" or "she" to refer to a single person, it implies multiple personality disorder - hence - they're insane.
Does WotC already have disclaimers for the 3.5e books? I just came across this amusing sentence in the Lords of Madness:
"Fortunately for humankind (and all other humanoid races), bold and determined adventurers devote their careers to checking the plots of these brooding monstrosities and exterminating them from the face of the world."
There you have it folks, the job of adventurers is to EXTERMINATE aberrations.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on December 17, 2021, 09:23:18 AM
Does WotC already have disclaimers for the 3.5e books?
The disclaimer is on all product prior to Year Zero (aka 5e.)
Quote from: Palleon on December 16, 2021, 10:05:50 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 16, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
The crowd who insists that everything about D&D needs to change, should have been ecstatic about Strixhaven. It was like Twilight, meets D&D. Has Strixhaven been a huge seller for WOTC? If not, then WOTC is putting their eggs in the wrong basket. I bet Volo's heavily outsold Strixhaven, but WOTC couldn't recognize why. So therefore, they began to retroactively take a dump on their own successful product. It's all very strange....
It's currently sitting at #3 on D&D books at Amazon. I find this frankly insane, but it's explaining so much about why I don't care for most 5E players.
WotC's Magical School of Parry Hotter was always going to sell extremely well no matter what content was penned on the pages.
Quote from: 3catcircus on December 17, 2021, 08:32:46 AMIf someone demands you use the word "they" with the same case and tense as "he" or "she" to refer to a single person, it implies multiple personality disorder - hence - they're insane.
Nah, its TNG style 'Tell me there are four lights'. The people that demand this are unstable. They want you to become insane following inconsistent requests.
Quote from: Palleon on December 16, 2021, 10:05:50 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 16, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
The crowd who insists that everything about D&D needs to change, should have been ecstatic about Strixhaven. It was like Twilight, meets D&D. Has Strixhaven been a huge seller for WOTC? If not, then WOTC is putting their eggs in the wrong basket. I bet Volo's heavily outsold Strixhaven, but WOTC couldn't recognize why. So therefore, they began to retroactively take a dump on their own successful product. It's all very strange....
It's currently sitting at #3 on D&D books at Amazon. I find this frankly insane, but it's explaining so much about why I don't care for most 5E players.
Not in the UK currently. Here it's not in the top 10 and barely in the top 50. It's way behind Volo's Guide at #8.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Books-Role-Playing-War-Games/zgbs/books/270509/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_4_270508
Quote from: Snark Knight on December 17, 2021, 10:06:09 AM
Quote from: Palleon on December 16, 2021, 10:05:50 PM
Quote from: Jam The MF on December 16, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
The crowd who insists that everything about D&D needs to change, should have been ecstatic about Strixhaven. It was like Twilight, meets D&D. Has Strixhaven been a huge seller for WOTC? If not, then WOTC is putting their eggs in the wrong basket. I bet Volo's heavily outsold Strixhaven, but WOTC couldn't recognize why. So therefore, they began to retroactively take a dump on their own successful product. It's all very strange....
It's currently sitting at #3 on D&D books at Amazon. I find this frankly insane, but it's explaining so much about why I don't care for most 5E players.
WotC's Magical School of Parry Hotter was always going to sell extremely well no matter what content was penned on the pages.
Is there a way to verify this besides taking Amazon at their worrd? I mean it says :"Bestseller" on the top of the Amazon Strixhaven page, but when you go an read the customer reviews, all the well-written reviews are 1 and 2 stars.
Could Amazon/WOTC be padding these numbers a bit?
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on December 17, 2021, 08:36:46 PMCould Amazon/WOTC be padding these numbers a bit?
I doubt it. Plenty things make lots of sales from people that regret it later.
Interestingly its the (more expensive) variant cover that's in the top 100 in the UK, the original cover is way lower in the charts.
Some of the buyers may be current or former MtG players who simply want a setting book for Strixhaven. However, given the many negative reviews, many people were probably expecting something slightly different from what they got.
Quote from: mightybrain on December 18, 2021, 01:46:30 AM
Interestingly its the (more expensive) variant cover that's in the top 100 in the UK, the original cover is way lower in the charts.
The original cover art is very un-inspiring in my opinion. It's just a couple of people hanging out, wearing renfaire garb.
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 05, 2021, 01:29:13 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 03, 2021, 03:32:20 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 25, 2021, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: Tubesock Army on November 24, 2021, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Aside from the most popular edition of the world's most popular RPG lmao
They were not the creators of that RPG, though. They "have" the Good Name of that edition on their side, which is an advantage to be sure. But 4e's designers had the Good Name of 3e to bank on, and then completely tanked when they put out a Shit Edition anyways.
And just like with 4e, look for D&D CRT Edition to SHIT ALL OVER 5e, in this case talking about how bigoted and transphobic and White-male-oriented and Colonialist it was and how anyone who ever like it (or maybe even played it) was a Literal Nazi.
Its funny that you are on this campaign against an edition you actually helped build (you're a consultant on 5e right?) But I guess you eat your own and you turncoat when needed. As you are a part of the outrage brigade. Like OMG they use 'they/them' pronouns... its the END OF THE WORLD... omg.
That's one hell of a take. I'm defending the current edition, against people who want to change it not to make it more gameable, but to suit an ideological agenda. Who is 'eating their own' here?
Ok fair enough. I apologize for being absolutist about this. To be honest I'm pretty sure your input into 5e has probably steered it away from doubling down on the 4e paradigm and bringing it closer to old school roots... and for that I would thank you.
But there is still a matter of the nature of the hobby in general. I follow this site and see constant attacks on so called social justice warriors and woke commies. It is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion. From my point of view, anyone who has an opinion on the game that doesn't conform with your own opinion is a a SJW and woke commie.
I intend to state that the demographics of this game have changed. People who come from backgrounds WAY different than my own now enjoy this game and this hobby in numbers that have not previously been seen. Elements of this game and this hobby may be perceived by players who have different experiences and backgrounds than I, differently than I. What I may find fine may be offensive from someone from a different background. Who am I to just say to another person what should or should not offend them?
Are they wrong to want a game that appeals to them? Is D&D something that is owned by a specific demographic? Do you own D&D? Do you have sole dictate on what D&D should be? If people want to play the game differently than how you would play it, should they be met with this hostility?
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 03, 2021, 09:27:27 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 03, 2021, 03:32:20 AMIts funny that you are on this campaign against an edition you actually helped build (you're a consultant on 5e right?) But I guess you eat your own and you turncoat when needed. As you are a part of the outrage brigade. Like OMG they use 'they/them' pronouns... its the END OF THE WORLD... omg.
While I think 5e is hot garbage, and that the Pundits consultation is him hyping himself up for an achievement of nothing (for all his hate of 4e, 5e is largely just 4e repackaged), this is a moronic comparison.
If you make something, and then later down the line other people involved make it worse: of course your gonna be upset!
This is one of those 'Getting people fired for calling somebody gay when they where 13 is totally comprable to discussing how much you don't like a new release' false equivalencies
And like OMG are you really like like OMG doing that?
Nice strawman.
Its not about anything you stated. I guess it is a certain incredulity in that I fail to see the significance of any of this and there has been no real conclusive and factual arguments that make this thread anything more than a bunch of old grognards getting mad that 'game they don't even like' is supporting 'people they hate'.
I'm ok with you hating anyone you want, but why make a big deal out of it? Just enjoy hating others in the privacy of your own homes and let everyone else continue with their lives in peace.
Rubber stamp concern troll. LOL
I am curious about one thing, though. As I hear the future of D&D Evolved being reveled in/reviled (in my area, much more praised than anything else), is it a coincidence that soybean futures are soaring right now?
Even 4E wasn't awful. It had flaws, but I think people wouldn't have recoiled from it if it had been branded and marketed as 'D&D Tactics' with an emphasis on squad strategy rather than being an RPG. Kind of like 40k's Kill Team.
Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 03:51:10 AM
Who am I to just say to another person what should or should not offend them?
Exactly.
Why do SJWs think they need to speak for "the minorities"? Is it guilt? Lack of self-esteem? Whatever the reason it's horribly condescending, and as far as I've heard none of the those "other people" appreciate it.
Though one or two would-be game designers have tried to leverage it in an obvious cash grab.
Because minorities are a cudgel used to beat you, and others that disagree with them, out of revenge and out of the hobby.
They don't give a flying fuck about minorities, unless those minorities also kow-tow to their definitions of reality.
Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:05:26 AM
Nice strawman.
Its not about anything you stated
Not to be a grammar nazi, but I cannot comprehend what your trying to say here. I don't even comprehend your point.
Something about strawmans, and the old adage 'shut up unless you have positive things to say'. Which is bullshit and can be applied to any principle but people only demand for things they like.
Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 03:51:10 AMWho am I to just say to another person what should or should not offend them?
I have one better: Who gives a shit? Why is somebodies offense people should care about outside of a personal desire to be nice (and as such free to not do if they thing that they don't deserve politeness).
The truth is that only the offense of certain groups gets any traction. Which is to say that they just have been branded morally right.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 29, 2021, 08:27:03 AM
Even 4E wasn't awful. It had flaws, but I think people wouldn't have recoiled from it if it had been branded and marketed as 'D&D Tactics' with an emphasis on squad strategy rather than being an RPG. Kind of like 40k's Kill Team.
Yup.
Quote from: Zalman on December 29, 2021, 09:41:29 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 03:51:10 AM
Who am I to just say to another person what should or should not offend them?
Exactly.
Why do SJWs think they need to speak for "the minorities"? Is it guilt? Lack of self-esteem? Whatever the reason it's horribly condescending, and as far as I've heard none of the those "other people" appreciate it.
Though one or two would-be game designers have tried to leverage it in an obvious cash grab.
Well it works both ways. Those who are so beholden to tradition and the past need to accept that the world is a different place. The demographics of who is interested in playing D&D are different now than then they were in the 70's and 80's.
I guess if you want to consider developing a game that appeals to people who are different than you a 'cash grab' then go ahead. That is your prerogative to contextualize things that way. I think it is a very privileged way of looking at things. So a game that suits you it is appropriate and right, but a game that makes an attempt to appeal to someone different than you is just a cash grab and has no merit.
Evolved doesn't sound like a "I want it" word to me. It sounds like something with all the corners beveled off.
(https://i.imgur.com/KeycvXI.png)
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 16, 2021, 04:42:27 PM
The same people that demand nupronouns and justify it as a insignificant thing you can ignore also demand removal of chainmail bikinis or other "problematic" stuff.
Its all about power and control. Can we make you wear a hat and jump on command?
Well the audience for fantasy has grown up. We aren't teenagers anymore who are drooling over chainmail bikinis. That nonsense is over. It's not about power or control its about growing up and being adults about this. It is about considering women equal in terms of marketing and maybe relegating women in game art to being nothing but sex objects is not a great way to go about that.
But you may be fine with it... good for you. I'm going to bring my daughter into the RPG fold but not if she's just going to be a sex object for some basement dwellers.
Quote from: Zalman on December 29, 2021, 09:41:29 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 03:51:10 AM
Who am I to just say to another person what should or should not offend them?
Exactly.
Why do SJWs think they need to speak for "the minorities"? Is it guilt? Lack of self-esteem? Whatever the reason it's horribly condescending, and as far as I've heard none of the those "other people" appreciate it.
Though one or two would-be game designers have tried to leverage it in an obvious cash grab.
Are you an expert and you can make those statements?
Sounds like you are mostly talking out of your ass. My point is that a group has no right to determine what is offensive for another. If a person whom you would label as woke is offended by something, they have every right to be offended. You don't get to state..."You are just a woke moron, stop being offended". You don't have authority over another person to tell them what they should believe or feel.
If a corporation decides to accommodate such is their business as well. Unless you are a board member of WoTC or whatever you don't really have much of a say. But WoTC is a corporation... their only goal is to make money. If they feel accomodating people who differ from you as a means of making money then that probably says something about the future of this hobby.
I guess you just have to accept that you are on the losing side of this. That's fine. You can continue what you believe (for better or worse). But if capitalism rules all, and profit is to be made then maybe there are conclusions to be made. That maybe what you call 'woke' is really what is valued in gaming and is the future of D&D.
Quote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:49:32 AMIt is about considering women equal in terms of marketing and maybe relegating women in game art to being nothing but sex objects is not a great way to go about that.
Time to stop being a colossal dumbfuck and pick up a copy of Vogue, or any other women's fashion magazine and learn how WOMEN MARKET TO WOMEN and how WOMEN respond to sexual marketing.
Hint: Women spend a HUGE portion of their income in the grand and mighty hope to be looked upon with lust by men.
Lust. Not respect. Not admiration. Pure animal lust is the goal.
Quote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:49:32 AMI'm going to bring my daughter into the RPG fold but not if she's just going to be a sex object for some basement dwellers.
THIS is pure comedy gold.
Do you not remember high school? Early 20s? Anytime past puberty?
ProTip: Boys like girls. And want to fuck them.
Advanced ProTip: Girls like boys. And want to fuck them.
Wow the asshole actually tried to use his own daughter as a club to beat his cartoonish stereotype of the bad-thinks with. That was supposed to be some moving powerful signal of his innate decency and right to set agendas for others when discussing rolling dice and killing orcs and opening chests. What a ridiculous fucking clown.
Quote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:49:32 AM
Well the audience for fantasy has grown up. We aren't teenagers anymore who are drooling over chainmail bikinis. That nonsense is over. It's not about power or control its about growing up and being adults about this. It is about considering women equal in terms of marketing and maybe relegating women in game art to being nothing but sex objects is not a great way to go about that.
Too old to enjoy chainmail bikinis?! Never!!!!
It's a game, not a fucking sociology paper. Plenty of women who play these games enjoy the titillating bits, too. Why do you think the chainmail bikini babe always has a well-oiled beefy dude nearby? Like, have you never seen the cover of a romance novel? "But one is objectification and the other is not!!!" LOL. That's an obvious double standard worthy of ridicule. You seem like the typical prude who thinks that women should suppress their sexuality, and therefore so should men.
Wasn't there a game that sold a female-only version where all the art was of women? Apparently it didn't sell well. Apparently women gamers don't just want to look at other women. Whoda thunk it!? (removed because I'm wrong about this)
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 30, 2021, 11:28:28 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:49:32 AM
Well the audience for fantasy has grown up. We aren't teenagers anymore who are drooling over chainmail bikinis. That nonsense is over. It's not about power or control its about growing up and being adults about this. It is about considering women equal in terms of marketing and maybe relegating women in game art to being nothing but sex objects is not a great way to go about that.
Too old to enjoy chainmail bikinis?! Never!!!!
It's a game, not a fucking sociology paper. Plenty of women who play these games enjoy the titillating bits, too. Why do you think the chainmail bikini babe always has a well-oiled beefy dude nearby? Like, have you never seen the cover of a romance novel? "But one is objectification and the other is not!!!" LOL. That's an obvious double standard worthy of ridicule. You seem like the typical prude who thinks that women should suppress their sexuality, and therefore so should men.
Wasn't there a game that sold a female-only version where all the art was of women? Apparently it didn't sell well. Apparently women gamers don't just want to look at other women. Whoda thunk it!?
I play mostly with women, and you are right, they like playing attractive characters.
Also it was Swords and Wizardry and iirc it wasnt all women in the book it was all the art inside was done by women.
Quote from: Slambo on December 30, 2021, 11:52:23 AM
Also it was Swords and Wizardry and iirc it wasnt all women in the book it was all the art inside was done by women.
Yup. Internally, the book layout and art is fine. Several of the internal pieces are better than the ones in the Otis cover. The whatever the hell that paint spew on the cover was supposed to be killed that printing.
My bad. I have not seen this product, just heard about it. Thanks for the correction.
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 30, 2021, 11:28:28 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:49:32 AM
Well the audience for fantasy has grown up. We aren't teenagers anymore who are drooling over chainmail bikinis. That nonsense is over. It's not about power or control its about growing up and being adults about this. It is about considering women equal in terms of marketing and maybe relegating women in game art to being nothing but sex objects is not a great way to go about that.
Too old to enjoy chainmail bikinis?! Never!!!!
It's a game, not a fucking sociology paper. Plenty of women who play these games enjoy the titillating bits, too.
People never think about how taking a shit on cheesecake is taking a shit on bisexual and lesbians in the hobby who happen to like that stuff as well as the straight dudes.
If a company doesn't want to put that stuff in, that's their perogative. But any time they flap their lips about how it's problematic, then I think they're fair game for a round of mockery.
Quote from: Palleon on December 30, 2021, 12:07:36 PM
Quote from: Slambo on December 30, 2021, 11:52:23 AM
Also it was Swords and Wizardry and iirc it wasnt all women in the book it was all the art inside was done by women.
Yup. Internally, the book layout and art is fine. Several of the internal pieces are better than the ones in the Otis cover. The whatever the hell that paint spew on the cover was supposed to be killed that printing.
Yeah it was an awful cover. The big blue Avatar Aang lookin' thing is one of my favorite covers for any game so i may be biased.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 30, 2021, 12:22:16 PM
People never think about how taking a shit on cheesecake is taking a shit on bisexual and lesbians in the hobby who happen to like that stuff as well as the straight dudes.
The women I know who like Red Sonja type art tend to be straight women who want to *be* Red Sonja, just like guys want to be Conan. I don't really recall any female bisexual or lesbian players who liked cheesecake, at least not as a lust object. All of them who liked that kind of stuff, wanted to *be* the depicted character, not shag her. But definite-lesbian players tend IME to like characters more like https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/pathfinder/images/2/24/Seelah.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20080602015933 - or Xena at the most.
The main difference I noticed between men and women is that women have no interest in 'damsel in distress' type characters, they like their NPC sidekicks/lovers like Gabrielle, or a male version of Gabrielle - spunky and not helpless. But men and women enjoy playing Red Sonja type PCs at roughly the same rate.
Quote from: fixable on December 03, 2021, 03:32:20 AM
Its funny that you are on this campaign against an edition you actually helped build (you're a consultant on 5e right?) But I guess you eat your own and you turncoat when needed. As you are a part of the outrage brigade. Like OMG they use 'they/them' pronouns... its the END OF THE WORLD... omg.
Year or 3 ago WOTC used Fox's smear campaign against Zack to remove all the consultants names from all future printings of 5e. Even the Basic PDFs no longer have them credited. WOTC fired the first shot in this case. This among the numerous other stunts WOTC has pulled with the IP along the way.
The prude patrol will never stop hallucinating new things to be offended about and then demand its removal.
If everyone were covered head to toe in featureless burlap sacks theyd STILL find it offensive, pornographic and so on ad nausium.
Quote from: Omega on December 31, 2021, 12:20:14 AM
The prude patrol will never stop hallucinating new things to be offended about and then demand its removal.
If everyone were covered head to toe in featureless burlap sacks theyd STILL find it offensive, pornographic and so on ad nausium.
It's hillarious to me that all the leftists who back in the day would have been bitching about the church moms burning their books are now the ones running around figuratively burning books. Even worse they try to blacklist folks because that's all communists are good for -- making blacklists.
Quote from: KingCheops on December 31, 2021, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Omega on December 31, 2021, 12:20:14 AM
The prude patrol will never stop hallucinating new things to be offended about and then demand its removal.
If everyone were covered head to toe in featureless burlap sacks theyd STILL find it offensive, pornographic and so on ad nausium.
It's hillarious to me that all the leftists who back in the day would have been bitching about the church moms burning their books are now the ones running around figuratively burning books. Even worse they try to blacklist folks because that's all communists are good for -- making blacklists.
I think its the other way actually, they'd be right with them burning books. They just want to hate whats socially acceptable to hate.
QuoteAre they wrong to want a game that appeals to them? Is D&D something that is owned by a specific demographic? Do you own D&D? Do you have sole dictate on what D&D should be? If people want to play the game differently than how you would play it, should they be met with this hostility?
QuoteIts not about anything you stated. I guess it is a certain incredulity in that I fail to see the significance of any of this and there has been no real conclusive and factual arguments that make this thread anything more than a bunch of old grognards getting mad that 'game they don't even like' is supporting 'people they hate'.
That's kinda terrible strawman. If it was just about OP or drama playstyles, or changes in mechanics, all would be matter of usual internet bickering.
But it is not, because it's Woke side that's trying to push all people not applying to their standards of progressiveness back out of hobby, and it influences life of people wanting to be engaged more than their 30-years old faithful basement group quite profoundly.
QuoteWell it works both ways. Those who are so beholden to tradition and the past need to accept that the world is a different place.
No not really.
QuoteThe demographics of who is interested in playing D&D are different now than then they were in the 70's and 80's.
Which is not really the point or problem.
QuoteWell the audience for fantasy has grown up. We aren't teenagers anymore who are drooling over chainmail bikinis. That nonsense is over. It's not about power or control its about growing up and being adults about this. It is about considering women equal in terms of marketing and maybe relegating women in game art to being nothing but sex objects is not a great way to go about that.
Only not becasue audience for fantasy is mostly still teenager and young adults, grognards if anything are nostalgic about chainmail bikinies (which honestly were more ocassional joke, than real fantasy trend). And this young audience is just as horny, only in less cis-het way, so be prerpared for even more insanity.
QuoteBut you may be fine with it... good for you. I'm going to bring my daughter into the RPG fold but not if she's just going to be a sex object for some basement dwellers.
You now in normal circumstances it's kids choosing with whatever bunch of asocial misfitis starts discovering RPGs, not their dads bringing them to RPG as long as it suits their preconcieved notions. For guy who talked all about new generation you seems to be more stuck into 50s.
QuoteSounds like you are mostly talking out of your ass. My point is that a group has no right to determine what is offensive for another. If a person whom you would label as woke is offended by something, they have every right to be offended. You don't get to state..."You are just a woke moron, stop being offended". You don't have authority over another person to tell them what they should believe or feel.
And they had not right to demand group shares or accepts this outrage/being offended. Which is what wokesters loudly demands on every step.
QuoteThe main difference I noticed between men and women is that women have no interest in 'damsel in distress' type characters, they like their NPC sidekicks/lovers like Gabrielle, or a male version of Gabrielle - spunky and not helpless. But men and women enjoy playing Red Sonja type PCs at roughly the same rate.
And guys in your experience does? I mean I played mostly with one group for most of my life, so I have little statistic knowledge, but definitely useful sidekicks were generally demanded by them... not damsels. From gameplay perspective damsel seems to be sort of unisexually - very very annoying type of NPC to interact on regular basis.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 04, 2022, 01:31:01 PMOnly not becasue audience for fantasy is mostly still teenager and young adults, grognards if anything are nostalgic about chainmail bikinies (which honestly were more ocassional joke, than real fantasy trend). And this young audience is just as horny, only in less cis-het way, so be prerpared for even more insanity.
Im reminded when going to my barnes & nobles that the manga section (which has overtaken comics ten fold) is filled with things like 'My roomate is a big boobed cat lady?'.
They will applaud 'maturity' in public, but in private buy 'My trip into town got me a harpy vampire girlfriend?'
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 04, 2022, 01:31:01 PM
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Could you at least properly quote the first selection from each post you're replying to? You're mixing up multiple posters and multiple posts without any attribution at all, which basically makes it impossible to follow the conversation.
Quote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:26:06 AM
need to accept that the world is a different place.
I'll accept nothing from a few woke scold gimps...
Games the same as it's always been as far as I'm concerned. Play what the fuck you want though. But I'm not going to do anything to appease a few inconsequential bed wetters.
Incidentally, you're more than welcome to Hasbro and Dragons. it's a load of pigswill...
Quote from: Spinachcat on December 30, 2021, 03:42:24 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:49:32 AMIt is about considering women equal in terms of marketing and maybe relegating women in game art to being nothing but sex objects is not a great way to go about that.
Time to stop being a colossal dumbfuck and pick up a copy of Vogue, or any other women's fashion magazine and learn how WOMEN MARKET TO WOMEN and how WOMEN respond to sexual marketing.
Hint: Women spend a HUGE portion of their income in the grand and mighty hope to be looked upon with lust by men.
Lust. Not respect. Not admiration. Pure animal lust is the goal.
wow, pure animal lust you say? Is that so?
Quote from: Spinachcat on December 30, 2021, 03:42:24 AMQuote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:49:32 AMI'm going to bring my daughter into the RPG fold but not if she's just going to be a sex object for some basement dwellers.
THIS is pure comedy gold.
Do you not remember high school? Early 20s? Anytime past puberty?
ProTip: Boys like girls. And want to fuck them.
Advanced ProTip: Girls like boys. And want to fuck them.
You know it is possible for boys and girls to have healthy sexual interactions without misogyny or objectifying each other, right? You also know that I'm ok with sexual interactions between boys and girls when it comes from a healthy mutual respect, right?
Are you like 12 or something? You have this very immature and naive opinion about women.
Quote from: Slambo on December 30, 2021, 11:52:23 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 30, 2021, 11:28:28 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:49:32 AM
Well the audience for fantasy has grown up. We aren't teenagers anymore who are drooling over chainmail bikinis. That nonsense is over. It's not about power or control its about growing up and being adults about this. It is about considering women equal in terms of marketing and maybe relegating women in game art to being nothing but sex objects is not a great way to go about that.
Too old to enjoy chainmail bikinis?! Never!!!!
It's a game, not a fucking sociology paper. Plenty of women who play these games enjoy the titillating bits, too. Why do you think the chainmail bikini babe always has a well-oiled beefy dude nearby? Like, have you never seen the cover of a romance novel? "But one is objectification and the other is not!!!" LOL. That's an obvious double standard worthy of ridicule. You seem like the typical prude who thinks that women should suppress their sexuality, and therefore so should men.
Wasn't there a game that sold a female-only version where all the art was of women? Apparently it didn't sell well. Apparently women gamers don't just want to look at other women. Whoda thunk it!?
I play mostly with women, and you are right, they like playing attractive characters.
Also it was Swords and Wizardry and iirc it wasnt all women in the book it was all the art inside was done by women.
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
That does not sound very realistic.
Quote from: Shasarak on January 05, 2022, 03:24:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
That does not sound very realistic.
Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AM
Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?
Truth is for these types... Most of the time they are either archaic religious fools, or woke scolds who actually want to censor gaming for others by trying to 'imprint' their morals or belief system on an elf game.
But I'm all for equal rights... I personally, don't care if women want to sexualize men in a game, and have them running around in chain mail thongs - good for them! Or maybe create a woke game with thirsty sword lesbians. I'm an adult, so I make the choice of what I play or consume. It's not to be dictated to by some conservative or extreme woke lefty oxygen thief.
We don't have to care about 'your kids' coming into the hobby, or anyone else's for that matter. There are plenty of 'safe' rpg games that can be enjoyed by any everyone. You decide what 'your' kids play... Not us, and it's not for us to cater to your PG tastes - You've got Ha$$$$$bro to do that.
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AMWhat do you know about the people I game with?
You where the one who came in here claiming that changes where required, saying #itsmaturenow.
The answer is most women don't care about D&D. Most PEOPLE don't care about D&D. If a niche wants sex appeal, they can get what they want. The truth is that the majority still want sex appeal. They just keep their mouth shut because you shame them and they buy something else.
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
Quote from: Slambo on December 30, 2021, 11:52:23 AM
Quote from: rytrasmi on December 30, 2021, 11:28:28 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 30, 2021, 02:49:32 AM
Well the audience for fantasy has grown up. We aren't teenagers anymore who are drooling over chainmail bikinis. That nonsense is over. It's not about power or control its about growing up and being adults about this. It is about considering women equal in terms of marketing and maybe relegating women in game art to being nothing but sex objects is not a great way to go about that.
Too old to enjoy chainmail bikinis?! Never!!!!
It's a game, not a fucking sociology paper. Plenty of women who play these games enjoy the titillating bits, too. Why do you think the chainmail bikini babe always has a well-oiled beefy dude nearby? Like, have you never seen the cover of a romance novel? "But one is objectification and the other is not!!!" LOL. That's an obvious double standard worthy of ridicule. You seem like the typical prude who thinks that women should suppress their sexuality, and therefore so should men.
Wasn't there a game that sold a female-only version where all the art was of women? Apparently it didn't sell well. Apparently women gamers don't just want to look at other women. Whoda thunk it!?
I play mostly with women, and you are right, they like playing attractive characters.
Also it was Swords and Wizardry and iirc it wasnt all women in the book it was all the art inside was done by women.
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
Well i guess i have to tell the players at my table they're doing it wrong. Two of the girls explicitly only play sexy characters
Quote from: GeekEclectic on September 30, 2021, 03:30:13 AM
"Get the **** out so everyone can play!" - ain't that just perfect the perfect motto for them, too. *chases everyone off* "Which -ism can we blame for our lack of players this time?" and *repeat*
How can they? Anyone can play whatever they want- or can they stop someone from buying something? These days, maybe they can.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 05, 2022, 01:46:13 PM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AMWhat do you know about the people I game with?
You where the one who came in here claiming that changes were required, saying #itsmaturenow.
The answer is most women don't care about D&D. Most PEOPLE don't care about D&D. If a niche wants sex appeal, they can get what they want. The truth is that the majority still want sex appeal. They just keep their mouth shut because you shame them and they buy something else.
WotC has been all about change as of late, and they don't seem very ashamed of who they want to "appeal to" with their latest art drops:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIVvYvqXwAYnbhv?format=jpg&name=medium)
(https://themagecollege.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/gallia.jpg?w=1200)
Oh those crazy Satyr's...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIFFLO-XsAMarLQ?format=jpg&name=medium)
#itsmaturenow.
Is that a woman cosplaying a satyr something? Because the essence of the satyr is male. It's a vital part of his "identity."
If it's a female satyr, then what the actual fuck? Imagine a male nymph. On second thought, don't. Imagine never buying anything from a company that shits on the mythology on which its products are founded.
Now I want to throw up.
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 05, 2022, 03:24:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
That does not sound very realistic.
Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?
I dont like to make specific claims about imaginary people.
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 05, 2022, 06:51:28 PM
Is that a woman cosplaying a satyr something? Because the essence of the satyr is male. It's a vital part of his "identity."
If it's a female satyr, then what the actual fuck? Imagine a male nymph. On second thought, don't. Imagine never buying anything from a company that shits on the mythology on which its products are founded.
I guess it's a trans satyr.
Quote from: Shrieking BansheeIm reminded when going to my barnes & nobles that the manga section (which has overtaken comics ten fold) is filled with things like 'My roomate is a big boobed cat lady?'.
They will applaud 'maturity' in public, but in private buy 'My trip into town got me a harpy vampire girlfriend?'
Welcome in Chuck-Tingle-verse.
QuoteIs that a woman cosplaying a satyr something? Because the essence of the satyr is male. It's a vital part of his "identity."
If it's a female satyr, then what the actual fuck? Imagine a male nymph. On second thought, don't. Imagine never buying anything from a company that shits on the mythology on which its products are founded.
Now TBH D&D is founded on being massive ludicrous kitchen sink, that never was really particularly faithful to mythos.
Making satyrs natural race of humanoids... is like least terrible thing you can do.
I mean I'm quite sure we had female centaurs for decades, and that's about as respectful to mythology as female-satyrs. Not that Olympians would care, they hate centaurs, and will bless any attempt to ridicule them :P And let's not start discussing ghouls, djinns
Quote from: Slambo on December 31, 2021, 04:36:45 PM
Quote from: KingCheops on December 31, 2021, 03:45:30 PM
Quote from: Omega on December 31, 2021, 12:20:14 AM
The prude patrol will never stop hallucinating new things to be offended about and then demand its removal.
If everyone were covered head to toe in featureless burlap sacks theyd STILL find it offensive, pornographic and so on ad nausium.
It's hillarious to me that all the leftists who back in the day would have been bitching about the church moms burning their books are now the ones running around figuratively burning books. Even worse they try to blacklist folks because that's all communists are good for -- making blacklists.
I think its the other way actually, they'd be right with them burning books. They just want to hate whats socially acceptable to hate.
A huge chunk are. They might have in the past been anything else, but being parasites they lock onto whatevers trendy till they have killed it. Then move on. They do this with everything. If they did not see D&D and RPGs as a viable platform for indoctrinating and brainwashing people. They would not be devoting a tenth the interest and more likely would be attacking RPGs for being morally wrong and "subversive" and whatever todays hallucinations are.
Toss in the cyclic purity death spirals and its full on loony land.
The 90s iteration Did the same, trying to sanitize and "make safe" everything. The opening salvo is always "Think of the children!"
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 05, 2022, 03:24:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
That does not sound very realistic.
Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?
My wife that has been playing since she was a teen has explicitly only ever wanted to play 'sexy' characters even going as far as to prefer to play non-armor clad ones so the art she can find for them can be sexier.
She prefers art that is more overtly stylized, sexualized, idealized and unrealistic. She likes bare chested Conan and barely-clad girl. She likes cleavage & skirt-armor.
She's been playing this game longer than the tourists infesting the space now demanding it be changed to their mercurial, impossible-to-please tastes so that they can then immediately move on to whatever pop culture tells them is popular...
...I value her opinion more.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 05, 2022, 09:52:14 PM
Quote from: Shrieking BansheeIm reminded when going to my barnes & nobles that the manga section (which has overtaken comics ten fold) is filled with things like 'My roomate is a big boobed cat lady?'.
They will applaud 'maturity' in public, but in private buy 'My trip into town got me a harpy vampire girlfriend?'
Welcome in Chuck-Tingle-verse.
QuoteIs that a woman cosplaying a satyr something? Because the essence of the satyr is male. It's a vital part of his "identity."
If it's a female satyr, then what the actual fuck? Imagine a male nymph. On second thought, don't. Imagine never buying anything from a company that shits on the mythology on which its products are founded.
Now TBH D&D is founded on being massive ludicrous kitchen sink, that never was really particularly faithful to mythos.
Making satyrs natural race of humanoids... is like least terrible thing you can do.
I mean I'm quite sure we had female centaurs for decades, and that's about as respectful to mythology as female-satyrs. Not that Olympians would care, they hate centaurs, and will bless any attempt to ridicule them :P And let's not start discussing ghouls, djinns
To be fair, female satyrs and centaurs have existed in art since at least the Renaissance. However, there's never been a male nymph before.
I'm not sure how a satyr and a centaur procreate, though. I do like the bow and the shield.
God, I hate centaurs.
They have two rib-cages and should be exterminated
QuoteTo be fair, female satyrs and centaurs have existed in art since at least the Renaissance. However, there's never been a male nymph before.
Wait so who was this famous nymphoman?
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 06:32:50 AM
QuoteTo be fair, female satyrs and centaurs have existed in art since at least the Renaissance. However, there's never been a male nymph before.
Wait so who was this famous nymphoman?
David Bowie, probably
Fixable is the self-righteous Normie SJW that makes my day so amusing
Women only like dressing like stereotypical prudes from 1800s clothing catalogs.
Some do and some like their characters to look sexy. It is up to the individual player and not Normie Prude SJWs, myself or anyone else to tell players how their characters should look like.
D&D art is so mature now. Gets shown how much 5E art is so " mature " nowhere to be seen. I guess he would have no problems showing those somewhat sex clips to his kids since the art has evolved.
As for allowing kids in the hobby I am all for it. Just don't expect to go to existing tables and tell them to change their styles of gaming at the table as they usually won't. With them telling him to look elsewhere. Or they find a tailor made game for a younger audience.
Quote from: Abraxus on January 06, 2022, 09:51:23 AM
As for allowing kids in the hobby I am all for it. Just don't expect to go to existing tables and tell them to change their styles of gaming at the table as they usually won't. With them telling him to look elsewhere. Or they find a tailor made game for a younger audience.
Exactly that...
All it takes is a little bit of common sense to solve 99.999999% of all the problems.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 06, 2022, 11:57:23 AM
Quote from: Abraxus on January 06, 2022, 09:51:23 AM
As for allowing kids in the hobby I am all for it. Just don't expect to go to existing tables and tell them to change their styles of gaming at the table as they usually won't. With them telling him to look elsewhere. Or they find a tailor made game for a younger audience.
Exactly that...
All it takes is a little bit of common sense to solve 99.999999% of all the problems.
Which is not as common as it once was.
I wonder if the majority of SJWs actually play the rpg or post outside of their circles. The way they come across they act like they are going to just waltz up to someone table and demand changes. As online they get the message that it will happen. For example Orc as POC is going to get someone booted from the table. Or get into a fight with a player who is a POC.
Quote from: Abraxus on January 06, 2022, 12:43:11 PM
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 06, 2022, 11:57:23 AM
Quote from: Abraxus on January 06, 2022, 09:51:23 AM
As for allowing kids in the hobby I am all for it. Just don't expect to go to existing tables and tell them to change their styles of gaming at the table as they usually won't. With them telling him to look elsewhere. Or they find a tailor made game for a younger audience.
Exactly that...
All it takes is a little bit of common sense to solve 99.999999% of all the problems.
Which is not as common as it once was.
I wonder if the majority of SJWs actually play the rpg or post outside of their circles. The way they come across they act like they are going to just waltz up to someone table and demand changes. As online they get the message that it will happen. For example Orc as POC is going to get someone booted from the table. Or get into a fight with a player who is a POC.
Indeed... Common sense is evaporating at an alarming rate these days, sadly.
Most people, who actually have a bit of common sense, are happy for others to play the way they want, and just stay away from shitty people. But the woke scolds cannot adopt a 'live and let live' mentality. It's not enough for them to play games the way they want but YOU must do the same and be super sensitive and be uber politically correct. And you must carry your white guilt around on a flag with you and then pay for the crimes of colonialism.
Fuck off says I... Even if I wasn't Irish, I bear no responsibility for the crimes of the past no matter how white my skin is. I treat everyone equally (or until they prove me wrong). And if the Woke Scolds don't like it, they can sit and rotate very slowly on a Vlad Tepes impaling pole.
No quarter given to, book burners or the American 'extreme' left woke scolds. They are ridiculous buffoons who should to be scorned and mocked openly whenever they try to censor art or media of any kind.
Quote from: Rhymer88 on January 06, 2022, 04:41:09 AM
To be fair, female satyrs and centaurs have existed in art since at least the Renaissance. However, there's never been a male nymph before.
That's a fair point. I'm still against the idea or watering down sources. The D&D satyr looks to be basically a crazy party animal. It dumbs down the source material to oblivion. They might as well call the race "Party-on Goat Folx" and be done with it.
I'd love to hear how the think-of-the-children crowd rationalizes a watered-down version of a creature who had a perma-boner and wasn't above a bit of rape.
It's not getting any better.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1118-free-d-d-adventure-work-at-strixhavens-firejolt
(Ghostmaker fails his saving throw and is now stunned)
...Why?
Hello, WotC? I WOULD LIKE TO FIGHT SOME FUCKING DRAGONS NOW PLEASE, NOT ROLEPLAY BEING A GODDAMN BARISTA YOU STUPID FUCKS.
I swear that is so cringeworthy Wotc should be embarrassed. Yes some might want to play that kind of scenario though I'm confident in saying 1% of the gaming population would imo. With that being overly generous.
Funny how members of the hobby like Fixable pretend to clutch their pearls in faux outrage when it is a publisher they despise. Yet not shrewd of outrage at the above examples of art. As per usual if they like something then their can be no wrong.
Holy hell. I would play that coffee shop adventure on one condition: My PC is a halfling farmer named Juan from wherever the fuck coffee (really?) is grown in that world. Only I'm not the typical bumpkin; I'm a deranged knife-fighter who's been stiffed on his coffee bean payments one time too many. I walk in, see my portrait hanging on the wall with all the other fair-trade hipster bullshit, and snap. I slaughter every living soul in the place and then set it on fire.
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 06, 2022, 03:18:29 PM
Holy hell. I would play that coffee shop adventure on one condition: My PC is a halfling farmer named Juan from wherever the fuck coffee (really?) is grown in that world. Only I'm not the typical bumpkin; I'm a deranged knife-fighter who's been stiffed on his coffee bean payments one time too many. I walk in, see my portrait hanging on the wall with all the other fair-trade hipster bullshit, and snap. I slaughter every living soul in the place and then set it on fire.
I have a single friend that I keep trying to convince to close the deal with the baristas that flirt with him. He is reticent, as he does not want a bad falling out to keep us from going to a given coffee shop. Now he can smash baristas with no impact on our coffee consumption.
You get what you pay for.
Huh.
In the "slavery" thread I was going to post something, mostly in jest, to the effect of:
"Apparently these people don't want fantasy worlds which call back ancient history, archaic times and whatnot. They want a 21st century Manhattan... except with orcs and elves, and instead of triumphantly cancelling people on Twitter, they triumphantly cancel people with swords or fireballs."
As I said, in jest. Mostly. But looking at this: I guess that's what they actually do want.
To me that's not adventure. It's not reaching for something visceral, primal, distant, unreachable. Just going through a mimickry of your own mundane Twitterati existence with a fantasy tinge, is that it? I think it's actually sad.
Quote from: Wulfhelm on January 06, 2022, 03:48:56 PM
Huh.
In the "slavery" thread I was going to post something, mostly in jest, to the effect of:
"Apparently these people don't want fantasy worlds which call back ancient history, archaic times and whatnot. They want a 21st century Manhattan... except with orcs and elves, and instead of triumphantly cancelling people on Twitter, they triumphantly cancel people with swords or fireballs."
As I said, in jest. Mostly. But looking at this: I guess that's what they actually do want.
To me that's not adventure. It's not reaching for something visceral, primal, distant, unreachable. Just going through a mimickry of your own mundane Twitterati existence with a fantasy tinge, is that it? I think it's actually sad.
I don't even think it's THAT good. It's like... playing Shadowrun, but you're not runners, or mercs, or freedom fighters. You're fucking working at the Stuffer Shack.
Why? Is there no wonder in their cold little shriveled hearts? No room for aspiration even in a fictional pretend-game?
I know. The answer is probably a resounding 'yes!', and that saddens me more than anything else.
It is sad. It's a complete failure of imagination.
QuoteI'd love to hear how the think-of-the-children crowd rationalizes a watered-down version of a creature who had a perma-boner and wasn't above a bit of rape.
The same way C.S.Lewis rationalised turning race of drunken rapist, into race of noble prophets and astrologers :P (And yeah his satyrs and fauns were PG-7 as well).
QuoteHello, WotC? I WOULD LIKE TO FIGHT SOME FUCKING DRAGONS NOW PLEASE, NOT ROLEPLAY BEING A GODDAMN BARISTA YOU STUPID FUCKS.
Then pick Tyranny of Dragons instead of barista adventure :P
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 06, 2022, 03:52:42 PM
It is sad. It's a complete failure of imagination.
I grant that we're not all super creative and imaginative. Sometimes we riff or even blatantly steal from other sources. I'm certainly guilty of that.
But they could at least borrow something awesome.
Gandalf, facing down the Balrog in Khazad-Dum. Akuma executing a loathed opponent with his Raging Demon technique. The Knights of the Round Table, sallying forth to find the Holy Grail (with accompanying coconut sound effects). John Wick killing three bad guys in a bar with a fucking pencil.
Sheesh.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 03:55:21 PM
Then pick Tyranny of Dragons instead of barista adventure :P
You take the blue pill, your story ends, you wake up in your bed, and go back to making coffee...
In a fantasy roleplaying game, you go back to making the coffee.
I suppose there's no wrong way to have fun, but damn is that not my idea of fun.
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 06, 2022, 04:22:08 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 03:55:21 PM
Then pick Tyranny of Dragons instead of barista adventure :P
You take the blue pill, your story ends, you wake up in your bed, and go back to making coffee...
In a fantasy roleplaying game, you go back to making the coffee.
I suppose there's no wrong way to have fun, but damn is that not my idea of fun.
It's OK, I feel that way about 90% of Traveller products.
Quote from: HappyDaze on January 06, 2022, 04:26:25 PMIt's OK, I feel that way about 90% of Traveller products.
I dunno.
It may sound a bit weird, but I don't think I could enjoy an epic fantasy adventure in a world where "magic school coffee shop" even exists. Fantasy worlds, to my mind, depend on
not being modern, on
not being easily navigated by 2020s mindsets.
In a wide tapestry type of SF setting like Traveller's I wouldn't bother if any one adventure introduced some out-of-place gonzo setting on a planet because it wouldn't define the entire setting. An equivalent would probably be if a Traveller adventure established that the entire OTU was just a simulation played on some 2050s nerd's computer.
The only way I could see enjoying something like that would be a farce - like, say, Monkey Island, with its 17th century piracy setting including vending machines, used
car ship salesmen and theme park rides. But as something serious (not in the "serious business" sense, but in the "a fully realized distant world to suspend my disbelief in")? Not so much, no.
QuoteYou take the blue pill, your story ends, you wake up in your bed, and go back to making coffee...
In a fantasy roleplaying game, you go back to making the coffee.
I suppose there's no wrong way to have fun, but damn is that not my idea of fun.
Depends what else there is. Maybe it's steampunk urban fantasy, and you're working double shifts to pay for your alchemy tutors :P
QuoteIt may sound a bit weird, but I don't think I could enjoy an epic fantasy adventure in a world where "magic school coffee shop" even exists. Fantasy worlds, to my mind, depend on not being modern, on not being easily navigated by 2020s mindsets.
That generally speaking I disagree. Fantasy worlds can be like anything - as long as it's magical reality and not modern Earth (because then it's urban fantasy, another pair of shoes).
Now of course not every kind of it should work for everyone.
But then I wonder how many of "no, no, not modern fantasy" would easily play game when it's assumed they are average civilised members of culture like Assyrians, Roman Republic, actual historical samurai or ancient Aztecs, and how long it would be fun for them.
QuoteThe only way I could see enjoying something like that would be a farce - like, say, Monkey Island, with its 17th century piracy setting including vending machines, used car ship salesmen and theme park rides. But as something serious (not in the "serious business" sense, but in the "a fully realized distant world to suspend my disbelief in")? Not so much, no.
Now srsly you had inns and simmilar businesses for a long long time. In fact inns are standard staple of fantasy.
So as long as whatever fantasy land you live in has access to local equivalent of tea, coffee, chocoa... it would be not that different that at least in bigger cities you could find place selling it.
I mean take medieval-reneissance level with advanced oceanic travel, and voilla. Without Seattle.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 06, 2022, 02:18:45 PM
It's not getting any better.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1118-free-d-d-adventure-work-at-strixhavens-firejolt
(Ghostmaker fails his saving throw and is now stunned)
...Why?
Hello, WotC? I WOULD LIKE TO FIGHT SOME FUCKING DRAGONS NOW PLEASE, NOT ROLEPLAY BEING A GODDAMN BARISTA YOU STUPID FUCKS.
It sounds utterly riveting.
I heard the insult that SJWs just want all their characters sitting around in Cafes sipping coffee. I thought it was in jest, but I guess its true.
I think most SJWs wants to punch Republicans in their games tbh
I find WotC's current approach fascinating in the light of some infamous quotes from the 4E promo book
Wizards Presents: Races and Classes:
Quote
"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people."
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 06:49:06 PM
I think most SJWs wants to punch Republicans in their games tbh
They should make that game. I wouldn't buy it but a lot of lefties would even if it were totally unplayable.
Why would they do it - if WOTC is selling them that, with extra cool fursuits?
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 08:04:40 PM
Why would they do it - if WOTC is selling them that, with extra cool fursuits?
I Should have been clearer, I don't mean Wizards so much as SJW in general.
They can't even do that right, to be honest.
A while back, someone pointed out a bit of trash to me called 'Extreme Meatpunks Forever', which started out as a shitty video game and then of course became a shitty PbtA tabletop game. But what was notable was that the 'villains' the PCs fight (the 'fash') were... I would call them cardboard cut outs but that would be insulting to cardboard.
SJW games, at the deep end, need villains that are simultaneously completely irredeemable yet also (somehow) completely unthreatening. It's bizarre.
I get it - I mean why SJWs would do it, when they already have it - called D&D.
Someone should make an ironic rpg where the narrative of the setting is based in uncomfortable seeming jargon and EXTREMELY unreliable to the point where a reader cannot honestly conclude that anything in the game apart from raw mechanics is on the level or based in any verifiable reality. Everything is a distortion or willful misunderstanding and the conglomeration of this shows MANY troubling inconsistencies.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 06, 2022, 08:27:11 PM
SJW games, at the deep end, need villains that are simultaneously completely irredeemable yet also (somehow) completely unthreatening. It's bizarre.
It's grotesquely fascinating and truly cringe worthy at the same time...
Quote from: Abraxus on January 06, 2022, 09:51:23 AM
Fixable is the self-righteous Normie SJW that makes my day so amusing
Women only like dressing like stereotypical prudes from 1800s clothing catalogs.
Some do and some like their characters to look sexy. It is up to the individual player and not Normie Prude SJWs, myself or anyone else to tell players how their characters should look like.
D&D art is so mature now. Gets shown how much 5E art is so " mature " nowhere to be seen. I guess he would have no problems showing those somewhat sex clips to his kids since the art has evolved.
As for allowing kids in the hobby I am all for it. Just don't expect to go to existing tables and tell them to change their styles of gaming at the table as they usually won't. With them telling him to look elsewhere. Or they find a tailor made game for a younger audience.
Well, I prefer my D&D game books to feature art that is evocative of the setting. I mostly prefer old school anyway and there isn't a lot of forgiveness for running around in dungeons wearing nothing but a loincloth or metal nipple tassels in most old school games. AC 8 or 9 isn't doing anyone any favors if you can get plate and shield, instead.
There is an excluded middle that you are missing between wanting realistic portrayals of female adventurers in D&D art and prudish 1800s clothings.
But yeah, in my personal opinion, I prefer D&D books that have art that is more about fantasy adventure and less about soft-core porn.
I really dig the art showcased here: https://www.pinterest.com/shortstuff13/realistic-female-armor/ (https://www.pinterest.com/shortstuff13/realistic-female-armor/)
If you want chainmail bikini there is a place for it in certain style games... I can see superhero games or games like Exalted having it. But it doesn't belong in D&D, it is more grounded and there's more verisimilitude needed. In D&D you want the best armor you can get whether your character is male or female.
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 06, 2022, 01:05:20 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 05, 2022, 03:24:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
That does not sound very realistic.
Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?
My wife that has been playing since she was a teen has explicitly only ever wanted to play 'sexy' characters even going as far as to prefer to play non-armor clad ones so the art she can find for them can be sexier.
She prefers art that is more overtly stylized, sexualized, idealized and unrealistic. She likes bare chested Conan and barely-clad girl. She likes cleavage & skirt-armor.
She's been playing this game longer than the tourists infesting the space now demanding it be changed to their mercurial, impossible-to-please tastes so that they can then immediately move on to whatever pop culture tells them is popular...
...I value her opinion more.
Ok fair enough. But that's a personal taste that is not necessarily shared by others.
Its cool that your wife prefers that style, but why would she or you be offended if the art style changes for those who don't prefer it? You value her opinion more and of course that should be without question. But there are other people who have different opinions.
I value my friends' opinions over yours; and none of my friends, male or female, are cool with oversexualiztion of women in the game. Why is your opinion more important than mine or my own friends?
Edit: again it is cool you and yours dig chain mail bikini's but why are there aspersions cast against those who don't?
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 06:49:06 PM
I think most SJWs wants to punch Republicans in their games tbh
Well that's political. What are you even talking about?
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 05, 2021, 01:29:13 AM
Quote from: fixable on December 03, 2021, 03:32:20 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on November 25, 2021, 02:53:20 PM
Quote from: Tubesock Army on November 24, 2021, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 05, 2021, 02:12:03 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on October 04, 2021, 08:37:48 AM
This is the first edition of DnD to be helmed by total mediocrities. Every other edition has something the designs can point to as their masterpiece. What does Perkins, Crawford et al have?
Nothing.
Aside from the most popular edition of the world's most popular RPG lmao
They were not the creators of that RPG, though. They "have" the Good Name of that edition on their side, which is an advantage to be sure. But 4e's designers had the Good Name of 3e to bank on, and then completely tanked when they put out a Shit Edition anyways.
And just like with 4e, look for D&D CRT Edition to SHIT ALL OVER 5e, in this case talking about how bigoted and transphobic and White-male-oriented and Colonialist it was and how anyone who ever like it (or maybe even played it) was a Literal Nazi.
Its funny that you are on this campaign against an edition you actually helped build (you're a consultant on 5e right?) But I guess you eat your own and you turncoat when needed. As you are a part of the outrage brigade. Like OMG they use 'they/them' pronouns... its the END OF THE WORLD... omg.
That's one hell of a take. I'm defending the current edition, against people who want to change it not to make it more gameable, but to suit an ideological agenda. Who is 'eating their own' here?
Ok I get it. I went back and re-watched your video. I apologize for being so super aggressive. But I obviously have some pretty strong opinions. As an aside affogato's are awesome. And I respect your wrangling of your cats while taping ( I have two of my own and they always show up on my online games).
But D&D isn't necessarily the same game it was in the origins of the hobby compared to now. D&D is 40+ years old. It is that old because it has always catered to the times. It was born out of the wargaming scene, then adapted to compete with World of Darkness, then changed again to represent video gamers (like Diablo or World of Warcraft). 5e has come and it seems to have adapted to Twitch streaming via Critical Role.
But I feel like you are tilting at windmills.
D&D 5e has to be considered (for better or worse) to be a default D&D. I would claim that the D&D now is a product of its time in the same way it has been in the past.
The thing is that the people you call Social Justice Warriors are really people who have different belief systems than you and you just choose to consider any action that helps them to be a defacto 'act of war'. Which is completely bonkers to me.
You say you are defending the game to prevent it from becoming ideologized but from whom's point of view? Yours? Like your point of view is the only correct point of view? Its not. But fair enough... you can say whatever you want on your YouTube and your followers can believe you if they want to.
You also get all bent out of shape about alignment, but Basic Fantasy RPG (one of the first OSR D&D clones) had no alignment. Basic Fantasy is one of my favorite OSR clones created by an icon in the OSR world and I don't miss alignment. So who cares about alignment?
As far as forcing magic items onto us (like the wheel chair)... how old is the "Deck of Many Things"? How many DM's have banned that item because it would ruin their campaign. DM's have always had the right to allow magic items or disallow them. If a DM allows magic wheelchairs, then just don't play with that DM.
Who cares about what WoTC has to say? Unless you are worried about new players coming in being informed by that. Well, what can you do? Just create a compelling competing product and see if you can attract players away from WoTC? If people new to the hobby aren't into hard core conservative realistic medieval role playing they just aren't.
You create a role-playing game that would probably only appeal to hard core medieval scholars and complain that modern players are too woke to play it? That's on you.
QuoteIts cool that your wife prefers that style, but why would she or you be offended if the art style changes for those who don't prefer it? You value her opinion more and of course that should be without question. But there are other people who have different opinions.
Because generally speaking it's not enemies of realistic armour that try to ban, remove, cancel people for using bikini armours in their games, but enemies of bikini armours that make such campaign in name of fighting sexism, and what not.
QuoteWell that's political. What are you even talking about?
About preference of enemies in SJW gaming culture.
Quote from: fixable on January 07, 2022, 03:23:34 AM
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 06, 2022, 01:05:20 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 05, 2022, 03:24:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
That does not sound very realistic.
Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?
My wife that has been playing since she was a teen has explicitly only ever wanted to play 'sexy' characters even going as far as to prefer to play non-armor clad ones so the art she can find for them can be sexier.
She prefers art that is more overtly stylized, sexualized, idealized and unrealistic. She likes bare chested Conan and barely-clad girl. She likes cleavage & skirt-armor.
She's been playing this game longer than the tourists infesting the space now demanding it be changed to their mercurial, impossible-to-please tastes so that they can then immediately move on to whatever pop culture tells them is popular...
...I value her opinion more.
Ok fair enough. But that's a personal taste that is not necessarily shared by others.
Its cool that your wife prefers that style, but why would she or you be offended if the art style changes for those who don't prefer it? You value her opinion more and of course that should be without question. But there are other people who have different opinions.
I value my friends' opinions over yours; and none of my friends, male or female, are cool with oversexualiztion of women in the game. Why is your opinion more important than mine or my own friends?
Edit: again it is cool you and yours dig chain mail bikini's but why are there aspersions cast against those who don't?
Do you not even see the moralizing attached to your terms?
"oversexualization"
How absolutely puritanical.
Your entire method of approaching the situation is to cast a moral judgment on HER tastes. You came into a hobby she was into BEFORE you were with styles that drew HER to it and then say "I don't like this and I deem it to be MORALLY BAD and it should be changed"
I do not care if YOU create or take part in things to your taste but I DO dislike when people come into a hobby and start saying things are badwrong and must be changed to fit THEIR preferences. Those people will NOT ask for coexistence of, for example, my wife's preferences and yours...no...they will demand ONLY their preference be allowed and her preferences be damned. It is not even allowed for the two things to co-exist and fight it out in the realm of capitalist competition...why? Because I think we both know YOURS would lose because sex sells.
People hate moral busybodies because they're condescending bores that make demands of others to lessen their fun.
It's gross and tiresome and eventually really REALLY pisses people off.
If this was decades earlier you and your friends would be demanding the devils and demons be removed.
That is the kind of person you are at heart.
Create competing ideas and see if they win or lose...stop trying to morally impugn others ideas so that you don't have to do that (because, again, I think we both know your ideas would lose)
EDIT:
Also your nonsense about "softcore porn" is an absolute strawman...
We have puritans railing against CLEAVAGE and skirts and its absolutely absurd. This isn't about damned nipple tassels so put the strawman back in the field, dude
Quote from: fixable on January 07, 2022, 03:06:48 AM
Quote from: Abraxus on January 06, 2022, 09:51:23 AM
Fixable is the self-righteous Normie SJW that makes my day so amusing
Women only like dressing like stereotypical prudes from 1800s clothing catalogs.
Some do and some like their characters to look sexy. It is up to the individual player and not Normie Prude SJWs, myself or anyone else to tell players how their characters should look like.
D&D art is so mature now. Gets shown how much 5E art is so " mature " nowhere to be seen. I guess he would have no problems showing those somewhat sex clips to his kids since the art has evolved.
As for allowing kids in the hobby I am all for it. Just don't expect to go to existing tables and tell them to change their styles of gaming at the table as they usually won't. With them telling him to look elsewhere. Or they find a tailor made game for a younger audience.
Well, I prefer my D&D game books to feature art that is evocative of the setting. I mostly prefer old school anyway and there isn't a lot of forgiveness for running around in dungeons wearing nothing but a loincloth or metal nipple tassels in most old school games. AC 8 or 9 isn't doing anyone any favors if you can get plate and shield, instead.
There is an excluded middle that you are missing between wanting realistic portrayals of female adventurers in D&D art and prudish 1800s clothings.
But yeah, in my personal opinion, I prefer D&D books that have art that is more about fantasy adventure and less about soft-core porn.
I really dig the art showcased here: https://www.pinterest.com/shortstuff13/realistic-female-armor/ (https://www.pinterest.com/shortstuff13/realistic-female-armor/)
If you want chainmail bikini there is a place for it in certain style games... I can see superhero games or games like Exalted having it. But it doesn't belong in D&D, it is more grounded and there's more verisimilitude needed. In D&D you want the best armor you can get whether your character is male or female.
"Realistic potrayals" is bullshit and you will IMMEDIATELY abandon that stance as SOON as it becomes inconvenient to your sensibilities.
I'd bet a hundred dollars on it.
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 07, 2022, 07:17:39 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 07, 2022, 03:06:48 AM
Quote from: Abraxus on January 06, 2022, 09:51:23 AM
Fixable is the self-righteous Normie SJW that makes my day so amusing
Women only like dressing like stereotypical prudes from 1800s clothing catalogs.
Some do and some like their characters to look sexy. It is up to the individual player and not Normie Prude SJWs, myself or anyone else to tell players how their characters should look like.
D&D art is so mature now. Gets shown how much 5E art is so " mature " nowhere to be seen. I guess he would have no problems showing those somewhat sex clips to his kids since the art has evolved.
As for allowing kids in the hobby I am all for it. Just don't expect to go to existing tables and tell them to change their styles of gaming at the table as they usually won't. With them telling him to look elsewhere. Or they find a tailor made game for a younger audience.
Well, I prefer my D&D game books to feature art that is evocative of the setting. I mostly prefer old school anyway and there isn't a lot of forgiveness for running around in dungeons wearing nothing but a loincloth or metal nipple tassels in most old school games. AC 8 or 9 isn't doing anyone any favors if you can get plate and shield, instead.
There is an excluded middle that you are missing between wanting realistic portrayals of female adventurers in D&D art and prudish 1800s clothings.
But yeah, in my personal opinion, I prefer D&D books that have art that is more about fantasy adventure and less about soft-core porn.
I really dig the art showcased here: https://www.pinterest.com/shortstuff13/realistic-female-armor/ (https://www.pinterest.com/shortstuff13/realistic-female-armor/)
If you want chainmail bikini there is a place for it in certain style games... I can see superhero games or games like Exalted having it. But it doesn't belong in D&D, it is more grounded and there's more verisimilitude needed. In D&D you want the best armor you can get whether your character is male or female.
"Realistic potrayals" is bullshit and you will IMMEDIATELY abandon that stance as SOON as it becomes inconvenient to your sensibilities.
I'd bet a hundred dollars on it.
Proof's in the pudding, too. Look at the reception Kingdom Come: Deliverance got for being a reasonably realistic depiction of medieval Bohemia.
No, 'realism' is just one more club for the proggy vermin to swing.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 06, 2022, 08:03:56 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 06:49:06 PM
I think most SJWs wants to punch Republicans in their games tbh
They should make that game. I wouldn't buy it but a lot of lefties would even if it were totally unplayable.
Go look up the description of Rebel Scum for exactly that.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 07, 2022, 08:00:00 AM
Proof's in the pudding, too. Look at the reception Kingdom Come: Deliverance got for being a reasonably realistic depiction of medieval Bohemia.
No, 'realism' is just one more club for the proggy vermin to swing.
That's what irks me so much.
"Oh but much realism..."
"Okay so you're suddenly going to say a blind swordsman shouldn't be viable? And of course you're railing against the wheel-chair adventurer because 'muh realism'... Oh and all the stylized clothing HAS to go, right? And leather armor? LEATHER? That's not realistic. Jettison it. All that crazy hair color and improbable adventures these adventurers are having? THAT doesn't seem too realistic either... Oh speaking of armor why not speak of weaponry? Those oversized swords with accoutrements or fighting unarmed against armed & armored opponents? SO LONG TO ALL THAT! Right??"
And, naturally, no no no...that can all stay because "vague fantasy reasons that allow that to happen because I want it in but that thing you want that is straight-out because muh realism"
It's just such transparent bullshit.
I do not care about "realism" of my D&D setting when it comes to style and fashion in a general sense...nor do I care what someone else chooses to have at their table. What I DO care about is ethical & moral consistency and pushing back against the refrains of "Oh your little hobby would be PERFECT for me if you only changed this laundry list of things that YOU like that I don't"
No. Newcomer meet gate. I'm the gatekeeper. Patronize stuff you like, create stuff you like...do not DEMAND others change what they
already have because your new age puritanical beliefs cannot suffer the THOUGHT of it even existing...
Because watch how fast that conversation about "oversexualization" CRUMBLES when my Muslim buddy jumps onto the board just to have a chat with them about how improper it is for the women on their D&D covers to be showing their faces. All of a sudden their argument about "oversexualization" folds faster than Superman on laundry day with no HINT of a discernible, coherent, consistent reason why. "Oh that's just different...because reasons"
Why is it that the progressives friends and entourage always portrayed as agreeing with how they feel about a topic 1000% of the time.
What utter bullshit, 99% of the time those around them have different opinions on the topic as well as siding with the other side.
I game with gay person and a hardcore liberal and guess what they and myself like sexy tasteful art on rpg products and out. When we debate we rarely if ever agree. I had the hardcore liberal friend turn on a Wokescold and defend me from a personal attack. Simply because he had enough of the Wokescold attacking and insulting everyone who disagreed with him
Agreed and seconded Gog to Magog post.
Quote from: fixable on January 07, 2022, 03:23:34 AM
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 06, 2022, 01:05:20 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 05, 2022, 03:24:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
That does not sound very realistic.
Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?
My wife that has been playing since she was a teen has explicitly only ever wanted to play 'sexy' characters even going as far as to prefer to play non-armor clad ones so the art she can find for them can be sexier.
She prefers art that is more overtly stylized, sexualized, idealized and unrealistic. She likes bare chested Conan and barely-clad girl. She likes cleavage & skirt-armor.
She's been playing this game longer than the tourists infesting the space now demanding it be changed to their mercurial, impossible-to-please tastes so that they can then immediately move on to whatever pop culture tells them is popular...
...I value her opinion more.
Ok fair enough. But that's a personal taste that is not necessarily shared by others.
Its cool that your wife prefers that style, but why would she or you be offended if the art style changes for those who don't prefer it? You value her opinion more and of course that should be without question. But there are other people who have different opinions.
I value my friends' opinions over yours; and none of my friends, male or female, are cool with oversexualiztion of women in the game. Why is your opinion more important than mine or my own friends?
Edit: again it is cool you and yours dig chain mail bikini's but why are there aspersions cast against those who don't?
Are you stupid? You came in here cssting aspersions at people who like chainmail bikinis.
And tbh i doubt you have friends.
You keep asking like your personal choice is right then when anyone contradicts you you go "well thats just your opinion"
Seriously im scared if you do have a daughter considering most of you male feminist tyoes end up being sexual predators.
Quote from: fixable on January 07, 2022, 03:06:48 AMThere is an excluded middle that you are missing between wanting realistic portrayals of female adventurers in D&D art and prudish 1800s clothings.
So you mean females absent from adventuring? Because female armor didn't exist because females didn't go onto the battlefield historically? Thats rather sexist, but I can apreciate the historical realism.
Just say it how it is: some women don't feel comfortable with sexualized imagery. Alright. Some people don't like violent imagery. You don't get to make the calls.
Its the equivalent of a person with a peanut allergy demanding they stop being used in all products, especially in peanut butter, and that its behind the times and backwards for having them.
I also really like your choice of wording: 'Excluded middle'. That by having groups have something you don't like, you are being excluded, instead of the correct term of 'not catered towards'.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 05:36:27 PM
Now srsly you had inns and simmilar businesses for a long long time. In fact inns are standard staple of fantasy.
A fantasy inn or tavern is one thing.
A fantasy café with a coffee machine, a newsstand and all the other features that make it a copy of a modern Starbuck's is quite another.
To be precise, one is a genre staple which at least conceptually fits a pre-modern universe. And the other is a Flintstones-like farce.
Quote from: Wulfhelm on January 07, 2022, 10:40:09 AM
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 06, 2022, 05:36:27 PM
Now srsly you had inns and simmilar businesses for a long long time. In fact inns are standard staple of fantasy.
A fantasy inn or tavern is one thing.
A fantasy café with a coffee machine, a newsstand and all the other features that make it a copy of a modern Starbuck's is quite another.
To be precise, one is a genre staple which at least conceptually fits a pre-modern universe. And the other is a Flintstones-like farce.
Except the Flintstones were funny and entertaining. The farce is not.
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 07, 2022, 07:15:32 AM
Also your nonsense about "softcore porn" is an absolute strawman...
That's what I thought... This 'man-child' isn't worth pissing on. All his arguments are the typical sludge put forward by the same woke scold crew and are always bereft of logic.
And when those paper thin arguments don't work they will try and emotionally black mail you into self-censorship. It's laughable...
Quote from: RandyB on January 07, 2022, 11:26:17 AMExcept the Flintstones were funny and entertaining. The farce is not.
Well, yeah. Because it's a cartoon sitcom and the setting is appropriate for the kind if tone you want in such a show.
It would not be appropriate for a heroic adventure.
The other example I thought about using, the Monkey Island games, was similar. Mixing 17th-century Caribbean pirates with vending machines, used
car ship salesmen, life insurance and a gazillion other anachronistic things worked for those too. It would not have worked for something like "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" or "The Witcher". Generally, the intentionally absurd insertion of anachronistic elements works for comedic genres, not so much for others.
Quote from: Wulfhelm on January 07, 2022, 11:40:32 AM
Quote from: RandyB on January 07, 2022, 11:26:17 AMExcept the Flintstones were funny and entertaining. The farce is not.
Well, yeah. Because it's a cartoon sitcom and the setting is appropriate for the kind if tone you want in such a show.
It would not be appropriate for a heroic adventure.
The other example I thought about using, the Monkey Island games, was similar. Mixing 17th-century Caribbean pirates with vending machines, used car ship salesmen, life insurance and a gazillion other anachronistic things worked for those too. It would not have worked for something like "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" or "The Witcher". Generally, the intentionally absurd insertion of anachronistic elements works for comedic genres, not so much for others.
Completely agree.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 07, 2022, 11:28:44 AMThat's what I thought... This 'man-child' isn't worth pissing on. All his arguments are the typical sludge put forward by the same woke scold crew and are always bereft of logic.
Well, what I thought is that you people lack a bit of class.
Not a lot of folks feel any reason to value some newb rando rolling in and whining about "class" because someone won't kowtow and salute what some twerp tried to run up the flagpole.
as they used to say in smarter times, " in the bin it goes, *PLONK* "
Quote from: Wulfhelm on January 07, 2022, 04:17:42 PM
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 07, 2022, 11:28:44 AMThat's what I thought... This 'man-child' isn't worth pissing on. All his arguments are the typical sludge put forward by the same woke scold crew and are always bereft of logic.
Well, what I thought is that you people lack a bit of class.
No, it's only me that has absolutely no class.
So, you can just suck my dick.
" You aren't sufficiently polite when I throw shit at you and knock your stuff off the table and proclaim myself your liberator. Also, I can't seem to find the door out of this blighted hellscape that I condemn unreservedly. Reeee" LOL
QuoteDo you not even see the moralizing attached to your terms?
"oversexualization"
How absolutely puritanical.
You say moralizing, like morality is not crucial thing for social order and basic for any society :P
Everyone is moralizing - including you with your libertarian morality pushed in this response. Duh.
QuoteCreate competing ideas and see if they win or lose...
Political violence against opponents is also "competing idea"? You say it's not fair game one. Well fair game is also idea, and you can reject it. :P
QuoteProof's in the pudding, too. Look at the reception Kingdom Come: Deliverance got for being a reasonably realistic depiction of medieval Bohemia.
No, 'realism' is just one more club for the proggy vermin to swing.
Indeed. Luckily progressive ideologists quite often, though not always fail apart and reveal themselves as raging hypocrites, when they themselves love to spin lewd colourful fantasies, just, pardon my french, not cishet ones with standard beauty.
QuoteIt would not have worked for something like "Kingdom Come: Deliverance" or "The Witcher". Generally, the intentionally absurd insertion of anachronistic elements works for comedic genres, not so much for others.
Considering how postmodern Witcher is in general attitude (like all this very XX-century talk about genetics, recessive genes and so on... and considering how advanced is dwarven bank system there, I'd say at least life insurances are totally possible in Witcher world.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 07, 2022, 06:42:48 PM
You say moralizing, like morality is not crucial thing for social order and basic for any society :P
Everyone is moralizing - including you with your libertarian morality pushed in this response. Duh.
Yes the oh'so libertarian 'morality' of "Don't come into a space and demand everything change". Yes this is a RADICAL moral stance. Give me a break. Honestly. "Everything is moralizing, you guys! Plz ignore that this utterly invalidates the weight of the entire concept"
If "everything" is "something" then "something" loses actual relevance.
His entire argument was coached in terms of "This is bad and you are bad for liking it. Change it to my morally superior choice"
It's absurd. MY argument is "I want both people to be able to have what they want if someone wants something different"
If you think the latter is more heavily crowded in moral arguments, well I'd suggest taking up some BASIC education on how philosophical discussion and general argumentation works. I did not say "YOU ARE BAD for wanting this thing". In fact, the ONLY thing I said was bad was trying to TAKE something from other people.
Also you don't seem to understand the difference between 'morality' and 'moralizing'. I'd suggest you do a simple dictionary search for what MORALIZING is because it has some baked in meaning.
Quote
Political violence against opponents is also "competing idea"? You say it's not fair game one. Well fair game is also idea, and you can reject it. :P
"Guys guys guys! I JUST discovered moral relativism and worthless circular rhetoric! Look at me! Look at me!"
Congrats, you've managed to reach the level of pre-middle school debate class.
Good for you?
Let me know when you reach the level of "Yeah but like an idea is just the idea of an idea, man".
The notion that you spin "Let two products compete in the market" to "Hurr hurr but like murdering people or not murdering people are competing ideas too" in a way totally divorced from basic economic principles is...that's something, man. I'm not sure what the diagnosis would be...but it's something
Quote
Indeed. Luckily progressive ideologists quite often, though not always fail apart and reveal themselves as raging hypocrites, when they themselves love to spin lewd colourful fantasies, just, pardon my french, not cishet ones with standard beauty.
Of course, because their entire world-view is wrapped up in hypocrisy and double-think (like most self-destructive cult-think).
Quote from: Wulfhelm on January 07, 2022, 04:17:42 PM
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 07, 2022, 11:28:44 AMThat's what I thought... This 'man-child' isn't worth pissing on. All his arguments are the typical sludge put forward by the same woke scold crew and are always bereft of logic.
Well, what I thought is that you people lack a bit of class.
Prince Andrew, is that you?
Quote from: Gog to MagogLots of angry rambling
And...? I don't have a problem with your stance per se. I have a problem with throwing accussation of moralising, like it's something per se bad, and like it's something you're not doing. Plot twist: you are. Just because your vision of morality is way more liberal does not change it. And it's ok. As great nihilist once said: "Look, as sentient meat, however illusory our identities are, we craft those identities by making value judgments: everybody judges, all the time. Now, you got a problem with that... You're livin' wrong."
Just tell this philistine his believes about clothes are dumb, and not accuse him about something... everybody does.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 07, 2022, 09:59:23 PM
Quote from: Gog to MagogLots of angry rambling
And...? I don't have a problem with your stance per se. I have a problem with throwing accussation of moralising, like it's something per se bad, and like it's something you're not doing. Plot twist: you are. Just because your vision of morality is way more liberal does not change it. And it's ok. As great nihilist once said: "Look, as sentient meat, however illusory our identities are, we craft those identities by making value judgments: everybody judges, all the time. Now, you got a problem with that... You're livin' wrong."
Just tell this philistine his believes about clothes are dumb, and not accuse him about something... everybody does.
Here I'll help you out...
Moralizing - the action of commenting on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority.
There's a difference in speaking in moral terms and "moralizing". I chose my words for a reason and even pointed this out.
He COULD have said "Hey I'd also like there to be this thing" or "I think this will attract more customers" or any number of other options but INSTEAD he opted to moralize and state someone else's tastes were "oversexualizing" (thereby attaching moral stigma to it) in a way that is totally without merit since he himself would not be willing to accept the same argument of "oversexualization" for his own tastes from someone with a stronger stance on such things.
Ergo he is speaking on moral matters with unearned, inconsistent superiority. Moralizing.
That is markedly different from someone saying "Here is my consistent moral outlook on the matter where I do not demonize nor chastise someone and instead encourage multiple viewpoints to co-exist if possible"
Or, by all means, explain how someone saying "Change this thing you have because it is bad and I want it to be different" is identical to "I don't want anyone to change anything but encourage people to support what they like or even create what they like" on the grounds of moralizing (which has now been defined for you since you don't seem to have bothered to look it up)
Quote from: Abraxus on January 06, 2022, 09:51:23 AM
As for allowing kids in the hobby I am all for it. Just don't expect to go to existing tables and tell them to change their styles of gaming at the table as they usually won't. With them telling him to look elsewhere. Or they find a tailor made game for a younger audience.
You missed here a few years back when some of the resident SJW nuts on this fora were advocating that all GMs should be required to pass a
background check... Because... "Think of the Children!!!"
Others calling for RPGs to be cleaned up so... "People will respect us!!!" which is the age old excuse the prude patrol uses to try and enforce rampant censorship. Oft in tandem with "Think of the Children!!!"
Quote from: dkabq on January 06, 2022, 03:21:57 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 06, 2022, 03:18:29 PM
Holy hell. I would play that coffee shop adventure on one condition: My PC is a halfling farmer named Juan from wherever the fuck coffee (really?) is grown in that world. Only I'm not the typical bumpkin; I'm a deranged knife-fighter who's been stiffed on his coffee bean payments one time too many. I walk in, see my portrait hanging on the wall with all the other fair-trade hipster bullshit, and snap. I slaughter every living soul in the place and then set it on fire.
I have a single friend that I keep trying to convince to close the deal with the baristas that flirt with him. He is reticent, as he does not want a bad falling out to keep us from going to a given coffee shop. Now he can smash baristas with no impact on our coffee consumption.
But according to the SJWs and BGG nuts.
Burning down the barista in a game is promoting REAL murder.
You Monster! 8)
Quote from: Thornhammer on January 06, 2022, 04:22:08 PM
I suppose there's no wrong way to have fun, but damn is that not my idea of fun.
This is sadly not anything new really. Just an outgrowth of the sort of session disruption that starts off with some jackass player in the group upon their level 1 character inheriting a magic sword at the start of a campaign smugly declares "I sell the sword, buy a farm, and retire."
This coffee shop thing smacks of Acquisitions Incorporated which is supposedly "funny" but succeeds in being anything but.
Running a business in a game can be fun. Yet now-a-days we see products that are not. Because the goal is to suck every drop of fun out of RPGs.
This is not like "Rat on a Stick" where the PCs can open up a fantasy fast food franchise for monsters. And yes that is a real module from way the hell back by Judges Guild.
Quote from: palaeomerus on January 06, 2022, 08:46:24 PM
Someone should make an ironic rpg where the narrative of the setting is based in uncomfortable seeming jargon and EXTREMELY unreliable to the point where a reader cannot honestly conclude that anything in the game apart from raw mechanics is on the level or based in any verifiable reality. Everything is a distortion or willful misunderstanding and the conglomeration of this shows MANY troubling inconsistencies.
Katalyka 8)
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 07, 2022, 09:14:28 AM
"Oh but much realism..."
"Okay so you're suddenly going to say a blind swordsman shouldn't be viable? And of course you're railing against the wheel-chair adventurer because 'muh realism'... Oh and all the stylized clothing HAS to go, right? And leather armor? LEATHER? That's not realistic. Jettison it. All that crazy hair color and improbable adventures these adventurers are having? THAT doesn't seem too realistic either... Oh speaking of armor why not speak of weaponry? Those oversized swords with accoutrements or fighting unarmed against armed & armored opponents? SO LONG TO ALL THAT! Right??"
And, naturally, no no no...that can all stay because "vague fantasy reasons that allow that to happen because I want it in but that thing you want that is straight-out because muh realism"
It's just such transparent bullshit.
Exactly all this for a time was infesting LARPs with the "Thoku" movement.
Handicapped players? Nope. Verboten as Glasses are unrealistic. Only the pretty people can play.
Clothing? Most colours are verboten as that is unrealistic. Except for those special people that can.
Armour? ditto.
and on down the line to the point that they got their realism and real blood and injuries. Which was really the goal. "Its not real till you bleed!!!"
All the while spitting on any other style or concerns of safety.
Quote from: Omega on January 08, 2022, 12:39:18 AM
Exactly all this for a time was infesting LARPs with the "Thoku" movement.
Handicapped players? Nope. Verboten as Glasses are unrealistic. Only the pretty people can play.
Clothing? Most colours are verboten as that is unrealistic. Except for those special people that can.
Armour? ditto.
and on down the line to the point that they got their realism and real blood and injuries. Which was really the goal. "Its not real till you bleed!!!"
All the while spitting on any other style or concerns of safety.
Wow that is some legit insanity. I had never heard of that before. I've only ever been to LARP once and it was a VtM LARP I was tangentially invited to which was just a bunch of awkward people around an inner clique of game runners that just wanted everything to basically revolve around them. I spent the night just getting people to argue by rumor-mongering because they were all really credulous and bad at social interactions. So at least that was kind of funny
What you're describing sounds...crazy to a whole other level. I will have to look that up
Quote from: Slambo on January 07, 2022, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 07, 2022, 03:23:34 AM
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 06, 2022, 01:05:20 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 05, 2022, 03:24:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
That does not sound very realistic.
Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?
My wife that has been playing since she was a teen has explicitly only ever wanted to play 'sexy' characters even going as far as to prefer to play non-armor clad ones so the art she can find for them can be sexier.
She prefers art that is more overtly stylized, sexualized, idealized and unrealistic. She likes bare chested Conan and barely-clad girl. She likes cleavage & skirt-armor.
She's been playing this game longer than the tourists infesting the space now demanding it be changed to their mercurial, impossible-to-please tastes so that they can then immediately move on to whatever pop culture tells them is popular...
...I value her opinion more.
Ok fair enough. But that's a personal taste that is not necessarily shared by others.
Its cool that your wife prefers that style, but why would she or you be offended if the art style changes for those who don't prefer it? You value her opinion more and of course that should be without question. But there are other people who have different opinions.
I value my friends' opinions over yours; and none of my friends, male or female, are cool with oversexualiztion of women in the game. Why is your opinion more important than mine or my own friends?
Edit: again it is cool you and yours dig chain mail bikini's but why are there aspersions cast against those who don't?
Are you stupid? You came in here cssting aspersions at people who like chainmail bikinis.
And tbh i doubt you have friends.
You keep asking like your personal choice is right then when anyone contradicts you you go "well thats just your opinion"
Seriously im scared if you do have a daughter considering most of you male feminist tyoes end up being sexual predators.
wow. good one. you are pretty much irredeemable at this point. I mean you are calling me a sexual predator based on nothing more that you don't like what I have to say. Ok cool good one. I'd report you but I got the feeling that admins of this message board would champion you on for that. But I will take that as a win. I win the argument since you have to resort to ad hominem attacks against me.
So there you go. You lost and you also revealed how deplorable you are at the same time. Why can't you actually engage me with logic instead of these attacks? I mean it can't be that hard, right?
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 03:24:05 AMI win the argument since you have to resort to ad hominem attacks against me.
And you came in arms swinging in terms of your own box of logical phalacies. If you didn't start off making demands and insinuations, maybe people wouldn't throw insults your way.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 08, 2022, 03:41:54 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 03:24:05 AMI win the argument since you have to resort to ad hominem attacks against me.
And you came in arms swinging in terms of your own box of logical phalacies. If you didn't start off making demands and insinuations, maybe people wouldn't throw insults your way.
I'm not the one calling me a sexual predator. Lol. It is spelled 'fallacies' by the way. What demands did I make? Like to demand to treat people equally? I guess if that is such an egregious act here then yeah I guess I'll be willing to take the consequences.
But what do I do. Run away and hide? Would you do the same if someone challenged your beliefs? I'm not going anywhere. You think you are right, I think you are wrong. Short of banning me I won't back down.
Got some real Kung Pow vibes here: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor."
Quote from: Hzilong on January 08, 2022, 04:11:09 AM
Got some real Kung Pow vibes here: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor."
Honestly engage instead of the usual claim someone is a sexual predator.
Quote
Here I'll help you out...
Moralizing - the action of commenting on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority.
There's a difference in speaking in moral terms and "moralizing". I chose my words for a reason and even pointed this out.
Yes, and I also accused you of moralizing knowing this definition :P
QuoteHe COULD have said "Hey I'd also like there to be this thing" or "I think this will attract more customers" or any number of other options but INSTEAD he opted to moralize and state someone else's tastes were "oversexualizing" (thereby attaching moral stigma to it) in a way that is totally without merit since he himself would not be willing to accept the same argument of "oversexualization" for his own tastes from someone with a stronger stance on such things.
Ergo he is speaking on moral matters with unearned, inconsistent superiority. Moralizing.
That is markedly different from someone saying "Here is my consistent moral outlook on the matter where I do not demonize nor chastise someone and instead encourage multiple viewpoints to co-exist if possible"
Main public purpose of morality is to enforce social order - which you get by enforcing given morality on society.
I do not see why morality of mine should encourage multiple viewpoints to co-exist. Co-existence of good and evil is not a value in my book.
Fact that states had any laws is generally expression of underlying morality. There's no going around it.
Argument from inconsistency is of course valid, but that's like utterly different pair of shoes.
You just want to paint your lassez-fair stance not as specific morality, but some OBVIOUS natural stance, all particular moral systems should submit too. Plot twist: it's not. It's just your moral stance about borders of personal freedom.
QuoteOr, by all means, explain how someone saying "Change this thing you have because it is bad and I want it to be different" is identical to "I don't want anyone to change anything but encourage people to support what they like or even create what they like" on the grounds of moralizing (which has now been defined for you since you don't seem to have bothered to look it up)
Both are judgements about value and role of culture/entertainment and what rules should apply to practicing it. Just because you're are much more pro-freedom does not make them not a moral stance.
QuoteWhat demands did I make? Like to demand to treat people equally? I guess if that is such an egregious act here then yeah I guess I'll be willing to take the consequences.
You cannot really use fact that Gog went down to your level of logical fallacies, as an argument to defend yourself.
And removing bikini chainmails, or barechested beefcake barbarians because of oversexualising hold little merit as example of "treating people equally".
(https://i.imgflip.com/60heft.jpg)
Y'know what I wrote some stuff...and it ain't worth it
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 04:08:22 AM
I'm not the one calling me a sexual predator. Lol. It is spelled 'fallacies' by the way. What demands did I make? Like to demand to treat people equally? I guess if that is such an egregious act here then yeah I guess I'll be willing to take the consequences.
But what do I do. Run away and hide? Would you do the same if someone challenged your beliefs? I'm not going anywhere. You think you are right, I think you are wrong. Short of banning me I won't back down.
Your support for your arguments are simply bad.
You don't want women 'oversexualized' but cannot qualify this in a meaningful way other than arbitrary tastes as if you are the moral arbiter of this somehow.
If someone of a different cultural background comes up to you and says your preferred RPG art is "oversexualized" because women are showing any amount of skin and the shape of their bodies, how quickly will your 'oversexualized' argument utterly fall apart and be walked back because YOU do not think it is oversexualized and refuse to accept someone else's standards of that term?
"No no no. That video game is too violent. I demand you make it less violent" the person said about Mortal Kombat before becoming so very upset that someone tried to censor their favorite 1st person shooter series by banning all guns from video games due to them being 'too violent'
Quote from: Hzilong on January 08, 2022, 04:11:09 AM
Got some real Kung Pow vibes here: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor."
And now you've reminded me it's been too long since I've seen that movie
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 05:30:05 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 04:08:22 AM
I'm not the one calling me a sexual predator. Lol. It is spelled 'fallacies' by the way. What demands did I make? Like to demand to treat people equally? I guess if that is such an egregious act here then yeah I guess I'll be willing to take the consequences.
But what do I do. Run away and hide? Would you do the same if someone challenged your beliefs? I'm not going anywhere. You think you are right, I think you are wrong. Short of banning me I won't back down.
Your support for your arguments are simply bad.
You don't want women 'oversexualized' but cannot qualify this in a meaningful way other than arbitrary tastes as if you are the moral arbiter of this somehow.
If someone of a different cultural background comes up to you and says your preferred RPG art is "oversexualized" because women are showing any amount of skin and the shape of their bodies, how quickly will your 'oversexualized' argument utterly fall apart and be walked back because YOU do not think it is oversexualized and refuse to accept someone else's standards of that term?
"No no no. That video game is too violent. I demand you make it less violent" the person said about Mortal Kombat before becoming so very upset that someone tried to censor their favorite 1st person shooter series by banning all guns from video games due to them being 'too violent'
I've made it clear.
In terms of D&D. What armor class would you assign a chainmail bikini? Unarmored AC is 9 in B/X. Chain is 5, Plate is 2. What do you think sexualized armor rates? The actual rules of the game literally shoot down your argument.
If you want better AC you wear better armor. That applies for male and female characters. How does chainmail bikinis grant better armor than full plate? Any female adventurer would wear full plate if they could afford it. So, just accept that. The most bad-ass female warrior would be wearing full plate armor covering every inch of their body in the same way full plate protects male characters.
Do you believe in some mystical ability for bikini clad women to have full AC just because you like looking at cleavage in rpg art. Just admit that you like looking at sexy women in rpg art because it turns you on and just move on and be mature about things. Stop making it anymore than that.
Now the dweeb is trying to call in a sexualized armor rate.
Well... if you want to go into the minutia now, and go into RAW rules. That's fine...
Then, lets look at just how ineffective a combat wheel chair would be. Then lets also look at the reduction women would have in their strength (and size) stat compared to men. Which would lower their HP also.
By all means... Get as technical as you want. Personally, I couldn't give a fuck what a player wants their armor too look like, as far as I'm concerned it has got the AC of the armor they are wearing.
But lets get some beefy men wearing Conan style loin cloths swinging their big swords about for the women to leer at. Who gives a fuck.
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 06:00:36 AM
I've made it clear.
In terms of D&D. What armor class would you assign a chainmail bikini? Unarmored AC is 9 in B/X. Chain is 5, Plate is 2. What do you think sexualized armor rates? The actual rules of the game literally shoot down your argument.
Sure, let's abolish all non-realistic armor design from all of the games. You better get on the horn to WotC and pretty much every artist on the planet though or start getting ready to start penalizing the AC of ALL of your players based on the art they find for their characters because I'll bet dollars to donuts it AIN'T realistic and is full of all sorts of design elements that would be directly detrimental.
BTW, don't think people haven't noticed that you've now moved goalposts from a matter of 'oversexualization', an out of game conceit, to arguing RULES which is entirely in-game. A valiant (but cowardly) attempt...but not a particularly smooth nor subtle one.
QuoteIf you want better AC you wear better armor. That applies for male and female characters. How does chainmail bikinis grant better armor than full plate? Any female adventurer would wear full plate if they could afford it. So, just accept that. The most bad-ass female warrior would be wearing full plate armor covering every inch of their body in the same way full plate protects male characters.
So OBVIOUSLY you reduce all players armor to nothing when they use "leather" since that wasn't actually a useful armor AND if someone gives you a picture of a character whose armor does not EXACTLY match what they are wearing you tell them "no you can't look like that and have the AC assigned to that type of armor"
...right?
Oh no wait. Of course you don't. You're just being totally disingenuous because you have zero consistent ground for your argument. In fact, I never said ANYTHING about armor class prior to you conjuring the specter of it out of the blue. I merely stated my wife likes to play characters that are 'sexy' and seeks out art to make that representative of her character. In fact, I EXPLICITLY stated that she's even adverse to wearing big armor for her characters cuz she likes the magic using squishies that get to wear dresses and such because (shocker) she's a girl that thinks dresses are pretty
How
utterly convenient for you and this fresh (and bad) angle of argumentation you've adopted to totally disregard what was actually said.
QuoteDo you believe in some mystical ability for bikini clad women to have full AC just because you like looking at cleavage in rpg art. Just admit that you like looking at sexy women in rpg art because it turns you on and just move on and be mature about things. Stop making it anymore than that.
Have suffered some kind of brain impairment?
Most women think sexy women look good and, when given the choice of character, tend to pick one that is good looking. It's wish fulfillment.
You are arguing things NO ONE said because your argumentation is bad and emotionally driven because you DESPERATELY want to be validated by your peer circle and be seen as virtuous. "Oh no no I do not think women should be oversexualized. I am pure and good. Accept me and talk about my virtuousness!"
How about you try and stick to the discussion and the things ACTUALLY said?
Oh no wait...that would totally destroy your argument because it's built on a foundation of sand...
So, once again, you are a defender of women against the specter of oversexualization...
So,
once again, obviously you will agree that women showing any amount of skin is oversexualizing the so women should be covered up in art from head to toe and their curves should not be shown.
Correct?
Or is THAT cultural standard for what is 'oversexualization' magically incorrect? I'm guessing somehow, as if by magic, YOUR definition of 'oversexualization' is perfectly correct?
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 08, 2022, 06:14:41 AM
Now the dweeb is trying to call in a sexualized armor rate.
Well... if you want to go into the minutia now, and go into RAW rules. That's fine...
Then, lets look at just how ineffective a combat wheel chair would be. Then lets also look at the reduction women would have in their strength (and size) stat compared to men. Which would lower their HP also.
"No no no! Not like that!" - he will desperately cry out as if it were in any way different. 'Muh realism' suddenly collapses...as if it was never the REAL basis for his argumentation at all. How curious.
QuoteBy all means... Get as technical as you want. Personally, I couldn't give a fuck what a player wants their armor too look like, as far as I'm concerned it has got the AC of the armor they are wearing.
But lets get some beefy men wearing Conan style loin cloths swinging their big swords about for the women to leer at. Who gives a fuck.
Entirely agreed on both counts. I rarely care what someone says their armor looks like and I often give out totally improbable looking sets of spiky, blocky or otherwise unrealistic armor.
As for the other points, that's why I always make sure to include some beefy warriors and dangerously seductive vampire dudes in tabletop for the two female players to enjoy playing up some of the fantasy tropes of that sort. Then again, the very first session with the new female player saw her trying to seduce a female performer at a tavern because "I'm a shapeshifter. Guy? Girl? Whatever" because OF COURSE the new player immediately has to fulfill the 'hit on the first girl you see' trope ;D
I'd say the one bi guy in my play group might enjoy the beefy warriors and vampires too but he tends to play fairly asexual characters since he's more into heroic adventure hooks...so no chance for drama there.
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 06:43:09 AM
As for the other points, that's why I always make sure to include some beefy warriors and dangerously seductive vampire dudes in tabletop for the two female players to enjoy playing up some of the fantasy tropes of that sort.
Yes, IME many female players want some NPC beefcake to hit on. Paizo APs tend to be very poor at including attractive male NPCs among the mounds of cheesecake. WoTC tend to make every NPC asexual, even worse. I have one D&D group with more adult female than adult male players, all straight, and the women want the sexy NPCs at least as much as the men do. Greeba the half-orc barbarian tends to hit on any big muscly guy she can find for a one-night stand, while Nathia the Goliath Fighter is in a possibly-doomed romance with Arnor the 9' tall Shadowfey Guardian. I didn't originally see Arnor as a potential love interest, but Nathia's first line on meeting him was
"Why hello, you tall drink of water!" - and it went from there. ;D
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/1~sAAOSwWv5aS5kq/s-l400.jpg)
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 06:43:09 AM
"No no no! Not like that!" - he will desperately cry out as if it were in any way different. 'Muh realism' suddenly collapses...as if it was never the REAL basis for his argumentation at all. How curious.
Indeed! ;D Reality appears highly malleable when he needs to make squares fit into round holes.
The most common question I got asked whenever a new NPC was introduced, male or female, was "how hot are they". This has continued on with a new player into a new campaign where I'm taking a break from GM. Both the people who ask this question are women. The older player pursued an explicitly lesbian relationship with an NPC in a sci-if game I ran.
Yes, women like their characters and NPCs to be sexualized just as much as men.
My experience has been that the female players I've had (save 1) have been vastly more interested in the attractiveness of NPCs but for reasons that vary from general 'lets hit on the NPC' to developing romantic character drama potentially long-term for their characters.
And all of them have chosen art that is 'impractical' because they thought it looked cool and/or sexy (though honestly that I've never seen those two things divorced from each other for female players...not that such a thing is impossible, mind you).
Now with resources like Hero Forge, that has held ENTIRELY true so it can't be chalked up to "well that's the only kind of art out there"...which would be a blatant lie but I just know that some people are not afraid to prop up blatant lies to support their narratives so might as well cut it off at the pass.
Quote from: Hzilong on January 08, 2022, 07:20:30 AM
Yes, women like their characters and NPCs to be sexualized just as much as men.
But not in RPGs 'apparently'.
And yet, if you look at the size of the 'erotic romance' market for women on Amazon it's fooking huge! Are they all fapping to bald overweight middle aged men. I think not! Look at the covers, they are all 'roided' up bear chested men (or werewolves). Not to mention the 'explicit' content in the pages too.
Again, it seems that people are not treated 'equally' in media.
Why doesn't our new resident oxygen thief go after their market on a forum and complain about male partial nudity and explicit content? Because they would crucify him in a nano second.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 08, 2022, 07:37:14 AM
And yet, if you look at the size of the 'erotic romance' market for women on Amazon it's fooking huge! Are they all fapping to bald overweight middle aged men. I think not! Look at the covers, they are all 'roided' up bear chested men (or werewolves). Not to mention the 'explicit' content in the pages too.
No no no! It's different when it's powerful, bare-chested barbarians because somethingsomethingpowerfantasy! Ignore that the men on the covers of the romance novels look functionally identical! Questioning similarities like that is sexist! Also viking god Chris Hemsworth Thor appears shirtless in every movie ONLY for PURELY narrative reasons!
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 07:52:34 AM
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 08, 2022, 07:37:14 AM
And yet, if you look at the size of the 'erotic romance' market for women on Amazon it's fooking huge! Are they all fapping to bald overweight middle aged men. I think not! Look at the covers, they are all 'roided' up bear chested men (or werewolves). Not to mention the 'explicit' content in the pages too.
No no no! It's different when it's powerful, bare-chested barbarians because somethingsomethingpowerfantasy! Ignore that the men on the covers of the romance novels look functionally identical! Questioning similarities like that is sexist! Also viking god Chris Hemsworth Thor appears shirtless in every movie ONLY for PURELY narrative reasons!
Brilliant! :D
Quote from: Omega on January 08, 2022, 12:39:18 AM
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 07, 2022, 09:14:28 AM
"Oh but much realism..."
"Okay so you're suddenly going to say a blind swordsman shouldn't be viable? And of course you're railing against the wheel-chair adventurer because 'muh realism'... Oh and all the stylized clothing HAS to go, right? And leather armor? LEATHER? That's not realistic. Jettison it. All that crazy hair color and improbable adventures these adventurers are having? THAT doesn't seem too realistic either... Oh speaking of armor why not speak of weaponry? Those oversized swords with accoutrements or fighting unarmed against armed & armored opponents? SO LONG TO ALL THAT! Right??"
And, naturally, no no no...that can all stay because "vague fantasy reasons that allow that to happen because I want it in but that thing you want that is straight-out because muh realism"
It's just such transparent bullshit.
Exactly all this for a time was infesting LARPs with the "Thoku" movement.
Handicapped players? Nope. Verboten as Glasses are unrealistic. Only the pretty people can play.
Clothing? Most colours are verboten as that is unrealistic. Except for those special people that can.
Armour? ditto.
and on down the line to the point that they got their realism and real blood and injuries. Which was really the goal. "Its not real till you bleed!!!"
All the while spitting on any other style or concerns of safety.
Don't confuse characters with the players.
Nobody has a problem with meeting a handicapped player halfway. But a handicapped character needs to bring something serious to the table or it breaks realism.
(There's a reason why oracle curses in PF are double-edged swords, and even then some curses are a fucking pain to deal with)
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 08, 2022, 08:02:43 AM
Don't confuse characters with the players.
Nobody has a problem with meeting a handicapped player halfway. But a handicapped character needs to bring something serious to the table or it breaks realism.
(There's a reason why oracle curses in PF are double-edged swords, and even then some curses are a fucking pain to deal with)
Too blanket of a statement. It largely depends.
Zatoichi, for example, is quite blind which is a severe handicap...but the concept of a 'blind swordsman' doesn't necessarily 'break realism'. For some this MIGHT break realism...but in general fantasy adventure, it likely doesn't. A character could also be missing an entire limb and not necessarily be onerously mechanically penalized.
Similarly, depending on the setting, many other maladies or handicaps might be compensated for via other means
So it depends on quite a bit. 'Realism' is inherent on the internal consistency of the milieu
EDIT:
Also, funny it should be mentioned, because my wife's longest running character is a PF oracle dark elf
QuoteDo you believe in some mystical ability for bikini clad women to have full AC just because you like looking at cleavage in rpg art. Just admit that you like looking at sexy women in rpg art because it turns you on and just move on and be mature about things. Stop making it anymore than that.
Actually there is official setting to D&D where being sexy gives you better AC than plate armour. Ironically enough it's probably one of wokest settings.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 08, 2022, 08:32:00 AM
QuoteDo you believe in some mystical ability for bikini clad women to have full AC just because you like looking at cleavage in rpg art. Just admit that you like looking at sexy women in rpg art because it turns you on and just move on and be mature about things. Stop making it anymore than that.
Actually there is official setting to D&D where being sexy gives you better AC than plate armour. Ironically enough it's probably one of wokest settings.
Which setting is that?
Blue Rose.
Quite a few classes have a Cha bonus added to AC ability...so that is something to consider too
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 03:24:05 AM
Quote from: Slambo on January 07, 2022, 09:35:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 07, 2022, 03:23:34 AM
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 06, 2022, 01:05:20 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AM
Quote from: Shasarak on January 05, 2022, 03:24:42 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.
That does not sound very realistic.
Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?
My wife that has been playing since she was a teen has explicitly only ever wanted to play 'sexy' characters even going as far as to prefer to play non-armor clad ones so the art she can find for them can be sexier.
She prefers art that is more overtly stylized, sexualized, idealized and unrealistic. She likes bare chested Conan and barely-clad girl. She likes cleavage & skirt-armor.
She's been playing this game longer than the tourists infesting the space now demanding it be changed to their mercurial, impossible-to-please tastes so that they can then immediately move on to whatever pop culture tells them is popular...
...I value her opinion more.
Ok fair enough. But that's a personal taste that is not necessarily shared by others.
Its cool that your wife prefers that style, but why would she or you be offended if the art style changes for those who don't prefer it? You value her opinion more and of course that should be without question. But there are other people who have different opinions.
I value my friends' opinions over yours; and none of my friends, male or female, are cool with oversexualiztion of women in the game. Why is your opinion more important than mine or my own friends?
Edit: again it is cool you and yours dig chain mail bikini's but why are there aspersions cast against those who don't?
Are you stupid? You came in here cssting aspersions at people who like chainmail bikinis.
And tbh i doubt you have friends.
You keep asking like your personal choice is right then when anyone contradicts you you go "well thats just your opinion"
Seriously im scared if you do have a daughter considering most of you male feminist tyoes end up being sexual predators.
wow. good one. you are pretty much irredeemable at this point. I mean you are calling me a sexual predator based on nothing more that you don't like what I have to say. Ok cool good one. I'd report you but I got the feeling that admins of this message board would champion you on for that. But I will take that as a win. I win the argument since you have to resort to ad hominem attacks against me.
So there you go. You lost and you also revealed how deplorable you are at the same time. Why can't you actually engage me with logic instead of these attacks? I mean it can't be that hard, right?
Thats actually called the fallacy fallacy, a fallcy that ifnyour opponent uses a fallacy that you win the argument. So yeah
Also you came in swinging with ad homeinems that people were stuck in the past and all that bullshit
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 08, 2022, 08:45:56 AM
Blue Rose.
Are you sure that is an official setting? It does not show up in any of the official settings lists that I found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings
https://www.enworld.org/wiki/dnd_settings/
It is listed as a third-party campaign setting in the EN World list.
That said, it could be that I am just not finding the correct information. Can you point me to the information you have seen that denotes Blue Rose as an official D&D setting.
Thanks.
True. My mistake.
Nymph's in 3.5 explicitly add their Charisma to their AC (and saves!). They're so sexy they get better defense from it.
I'll add that in 5E, the Swashbuckler NPC has "Suave Defense" where Charisma is added to AC...
So that's explicitly hotness to Armor Class in both 3.5 and the current edition
I am endlessly amused that after opening up this can of worms with a stupid strawman, things have gone exactly opposite to the desired result ;D
RAW sexiness added to AC. Hilarious
EDIT:
LMAO I actually just realized the Swashbuckler example even has the provision that they HAVE to be wearing LESS. Light or no armor otherwise they don't get the bonus. Amazing.
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 04:16:37 AM
Quote from: Hzilong on January 08, 2022, 04:11:09 AM
Got some real Kung Pow vibes here: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor."
Honestly engage instead of the usual claim someone is a sexual predator.
I actually do want to apologize for that particular comment.
I do think you're arguing in bad faith just assuming the majority of people agree with you. But i do think i went a little too far.
Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2022, 08:54:49 AM
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 08, 2022, 08:45:56 AM
Blue Rose.
Are you sure that is an official setting? It does not show up in any of the official settings lists that I found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings
https://www.enworld.org/wiki/dnd_settings/
It is listed as a third-party campaign setting in the EN World list.
That said, it could be that I am just not finding the correct information. Can you point me to the information you have seen that denotes Blue Rose as an official D&D setting.
Thanks.
Nah. Blue Rose isn't, and has never been, an official WoTC or TSR setting. It's been third party since day one, back in the 3.x days where it started.
Confession: despite it's explicit SJWism, I still find Blue Rose strangely interesting. So far I've resisted the temptation to buy it. And I have enough on my "to buy" list that isn't SJW-infested that there's no danger of me giving in.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 07, 2022, 06:35:29 PMNo, it's only me that has absolutely no class.
I was going to write something to the effect that subsequent postings proved you wrong on that. But that would not be entirely correct since even the posting immediately preceding yours did. ;D
In any case, suit yourself, but I don't think you're accomplishing much with the triple approach of being deliberately a.) uncivil , b.) obtuse and c.) irritable. That is beside the fact I personally find it rather off-putting.
Quote from: Wulfhelm on January 08, 2022, 12:43:44 PM
being deliberately a.) uncivil , b.) obtuse and c.) irritable. That is beside the fact I personally find it rather off-putting.
Uncivil - Agreed! Absolutely... There's no reason to pander or even communicate with woke scolds, book burners or highly religious zealots. They should be openly mocked, insulted and steamrolled out of the way (metaphorically speaking).
Anyone that is against free speech, pro-censorship and therefore 'anti-art' are pure scum, and should be treated as so. Although I'm perfectly civil to people I like.
Obtuse - Hm.. If you find what I say 'obtuse' then I think you lack either intelligence or critical thinking skills.
Irritable - It depends... Are you saying that I'm irritable, or you find me irritating? Actually, don't bother answering that, because I couldn't give a fuck.
First off, I'm deeelighted you find me off putting. The only goal I have here, in this particular conversation, is to piss on woke scold oxygen thieves, and trolls who engage in sea-lioning. Incidentally, it was TBH who first taught me about that phrase.
There's no need to have a constructive argument with you, or that other bed wetter. As you are both here under disingenuous circumstances.
I actually have no problem with people who are woke per se. And I have no problem with people playing games anyway they want. But I do highly object, to woke scold bullying while telling others what they should and shouldn't do in their games, or when they try to stymie other creators because their games, books or whatever are not 'woke' enough for the uber politically correct.
Simply put, treat others, as they treat you...
So quoting the immortal words of the late Peter Steel They can all "S.M.D."
Fixable is now the victim lol.
Of course. He can come and make ad homeins against others without knowing a person, don't you dare do the same to him because of " reasons and feelings"
Typical SJW Wokescolds rules for thee and not for me.
"wow. good one. you are pretty much irredeemable at this point."
Oh right you are a force of redemption out to save the sinners from their wickedness by erasing their interests and folkways. How COLONIAL of you. Tame those savages and push their idol over and evict the snakes. U GO! SALAAAAy!
" I mean you are calling me a sexual predator based on nothing more that you don't like what I have to say. Ok cool good one. "
I've been called a rapist, and a nazi by stupid little intolerant shits who sound VERY much like you, both in person and online for far less obnoxious presumptuous capricious interactions than you have attempted to sell as "the way forward" on this board.
WAAAAAAH you little baby.
You don't like being dismissed and ridiculed and your message pulled apart and used against you via methods borrowed from nervous entrail readers on the temple steps seeking portents that will please the king as his guards glare spitefully at them.
WAAAAAH.
You were playing on easy mode! You were supposed to win! Nobody is crying for your tragedy and inviting you to bring witch trials and havoc to their gaming table!
Waaaaaaah! Irredeemable! Waaaaaah!
" I'd report you but I got the feeling that admins of this message board would champion you on for that. "
Oh and you're a being of vast influence and power to boot. WOW! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM PEASANT? Use the 'report a dissident app on your phone' Karen because these like...these dirty vulgar main street creatures just aren't showing the respect the space requires of them and someone needs to adjust policy at the community level. (sips mocca drink) Disgusting. Where's the "win" button? Someone should push it for you.
" But I will take that as a win. I win the argument since you have to resort to ad hominem attacks against me."
Tiger Blood! Vatican Assassins from Mars! Winning! 'Moo' said the lolcow. I reject your perceptions of reality and substitute my own! Abra Cadabra!
" So there you go. You lost and you also revealed how deplorable you are at the same time. Why can't you actually engage me with logic instead of these attacks? I mean it can't be that hard, right?"
Logic doesn't let you alter the direction of art in someone's basement gaming table because you claim your daughter is harmed by it.
You farted out someone else's manipulative dogma and failed to achieve any control apart from getting some responses which led you into these absurd misfit hysterics. Your copy pasta wasn't sufficiently upvoted or boosted by allies.
Go sneak past the angry carnival pipe clown and have big funTM at your 75% bisexual magic college prom, in your battle wheelchair, in your purple tieflingTM /half-orqueTM (orc is racist) bonusless heritageTM costume, and throw reams of X cardsTM at your DMTM until they make magic middle ages Seattle feel safe for you, and have fun! If you can't do that, then go watch some out of work, bit part, CW actors do it for you on youtube. Wooo!
Winning!
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 06:00:36 AM
Do you believe in some mystical ability for bikini clad women to have full AC just because you like looking at cleavage in rpg art. Just admit that you like looking at sexy women in rpg art because it turns you on and just move on and be mature about things. Stop making it anymore than that.
I like cheesecake for cheesecake's sake. Lots of people do. The regressive prudes want everyone in RPGs to be desexualized potato people. Fuck 'em.
The problem with the realism argument being used to address one's preferences for expressing sexuality through clothing is realism distorts constrains and breaks everything that is fantasy. No leather armor. No tunnels full of monster inhabited trapped treasure rooms with a big fight at the far end and doodads to maybe make the fight easier like a bridge over lava with ropes that can be cut and the bad guy being super happy about being out on that bridge yo...
Pretty soon you have a lot of ad hoc changes that are necessary just because and you have something that is not real, not your fantasy but only the wreckage of someone else's fantasy and this is described falsely as part of some wider program of societally beneficial socialization intended to change the human by changing what they are allowed to like and desire.
Then people want nothing to do with it because they can't enjoy it and it tries to make them feel bad about what they like and hide it. It's a cop giving you side eye when you want to enjoy yourself and the cop is driven by whiners and fads and screwy ideologues. And you are supposed to BUY THIS and merch to show how much you like this and invite others to share in it?
Meh.
Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 08, 2022, 01:24:18 PMAs you are both here under disingenuous circumstances.
That is the one amusing part of this posting, chiming along with the earlier "newb" slur by someone else. (The rest is just "case in point" material for my previous assessment.) I've been registered, and reading, here far longer than I think any of the people dogpiling on fixable here.
I just usually don't bother posting precisely because pushing through the hailstorm of frothing-at-the-mouth, paranoia-fueled hostility that the unfettered discussion environment around here frequently generates would be no more worth it than navigating the dense minefield of Orwellian moderation at, say, TBP.
It's just a bit frustrating to watch. Personally I'm strictly opposed to the enforced woke-ification of the hobby, but I can see why its proponents have a rather easy time dismissing opposition to its continuing advance as that of hate-filled, hysterical man-children. It's also frustrating that apparently we can't have nice things, i.e. an online discussion environment that is both free and civil.
Quote from: Slambo on January 08, 2022, 09:15:48 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 04:16:37 AM
Quote from: Hzilong on January 08, 2022, 04:11:09 AM
Got some real Kung Pow vibes here: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor."
Honestly engage instead of the usual claim someone is a sexual predator.
I actually do want to apologize for that particular comment.
I do think you're arguing in bad faith just assuming the majority of people agree with you. But i do think i went a little too far.
Ok I accept your apology and apologize myself for getting a little too hot.
I still disagree with the general consensus here. But this place just pretty much sticks their fingers in their ears and screams SJW at anything that doesn't follow their own narrative. My problem was that I take it personally which drives my responses more aggressive as a result.
I mean you get posts like this on this site: https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/hasbro-crt-whistleblower-and-wotc-wokism-exposed!/msg1180226/#msg1180226 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/hasbro-crt-whistleblower-and-wotc-wokism-exposed!/msg1180226/#msg1180226)
This is from the primary owner/mod of this forum, I won't comment on it any further than this.
Quote from: fixable on January 09, 2022, 04:19:30 AM
I still disagree with the general consensus here.
And that's ok. ;D
Quote from: S'mon on January 09, 2022, 04:37:16 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 09, 2022, 04:19:30 AM
I still disagree with the general consensus here.
And that's ok. ;D
Yeah people are allowed to disagree...just try not to do so by immediately vilifying the thing you disagree with or saying it should be removed.
That's a sure way to get people to fucking hate you. I don't think most people here like authoritarianism much
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 06:00:36 AM
In terms of D&D. What armor class would you assign a chainmail bikini? Unarmored AC is 9 in B/X. Chain is 5, Plate is 2. What do you think sexualized armor rates? The actual rules of the game literally shoot down your argument.
Chainmail bikini gives you a +5 Armour Bonus.
Quote from: Shasarak on January 09, 2022, 06:04:25 AM
Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 06:00:36 AM
In terms of D&D. What armor class would you assign a chainmail bikini? Unarmored AC is 9 in B/X. Chain is 5, Plate is 2. What do you think sexualized armor rates? The actual rules of the game literally shoot down your argument.
Chainmail bikini gives you a +5 Armour Bonus.
Makes sense. Says 'chainmail' right in the name
How much ac should chainmale give?
Quote from: Wulfhelm on January 09, 2022, 04:12:06 AM
I've been registered, and reading, here far longer than I think any of the people dogpiling on fixable here.
Blah... blah... No one cares.
Ah yes dogpiling. Multiple negative responses are wrong because reasons until they suddenly are not also because reasons.
It's almost as if they come to this site and expect to get the same responses on more progressives sites.
It's funny because if or someone else would go to those sites all they would need do is yell " Mom! ....I mean Mods! " and we I or others get banned. As for dog piling BS if your coming to a less progressive site and post guns a blazing expect a negative response. Amazing how posters don't like SJW Wokescolds telling them how to think and act.
What gets me is the faux clueless reaction as to why they are treated that way. If your going to act like an asshole and come out swinging expect others to swing back. You can't have it both ways claim to be the victim while also being the aggressor.
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 09:15:08 AM
RAW sexiness added to AC. Hilarious
One of the Lone Wolf and Cub movies had a female assassin with tattoo on her breast that she'd flash to confuse/distract her target. So there is something of a precedent in movies as well as Game mechanics. Just thought I'd add that bit of trivia in case anyone else has another example.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 09, 2022, 07:34:17 PM
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 09:15:08 AM
RAW sexiness added to AC. Hilarious
One of the Lone Wolf and Cub movies had a female assassin with tattoo on her breast that she'd flash to confuse/distract her target. So there is something of a precedent in movies as well as Game mechanics. Just thought I'd add that bit of trivia in case anyone else has another example.
That's directly from the manga as well which goes out of its way to highlight how incredibly painful such tattoos would be and that she endured that pain as part of her revenge.
I cannot recommend the Lone Wolf & Cub manga enough. It is amazingly good and presents a genuinely complex look at various attitudes & cultural practices during the time. Ogami Itto is in a rare class of all-time great fictional characters especially in comic form.
Quote from: fixable on January 09, 2022, 04:19:30 AM
Ok I accept your apology and apologize myself for getting a little too hot.
I still disagree with the general consensus here. But this place just pretty much sticks their fingers in their ears and screams SJW at anything that doesn't follow their own narrative. My problem was that I take it personally which drives my responses more aggressive as a result.
Yeah, this site can raise your blood pressure if you take things personally. Some posters can be very confrontational. But the "wild west" nature can lead to some interesting discussions.
As far as chainmail bikinis go - I've never liked strictly "chainmail bikini" illustrations, but I am fine with some revealing outfits. I think revealing outfits *can be* a sign of unequal treatment of women, but they aren't necessarily. I wouldn't put either realism or lack of revealing outfits as something I look for -- but having female figures be heroic and varied is something I do look for.
Who suffers from depicting women in chainmail bikinis exactly?
Fat girls?
I've seen fat girls wearing chainmail bikinis - but this is anecdotal evidence. I'm looking for serious answers here. SERIOUS. ANSWERS.
Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:03:19 PM
Who suffers from depicting women in chainmail bikinis exactly?
The Wokerati. So by all means we need more chainmail bikinis. ;)
Quote from: fixable on January 09, 2022, 04:19:30 AM
I still disagree with the general consensus here. But this place just pretty much sticks their fingers in their ears and screams SJW at anything that doesn't follow their own narrative. My problem was that I take it personally which drives my responses more aggressive as a result.
There's nothing wrong with disagreement. Really, let that sink in (not talking down to you; this was something that took me a long time to learn). Disagreement is an acceptable outcome. Disagreement does not need to end, not by winning an argument or by death by downvote or bans. Disagreement can be let to exist and even grow and shape things. The sun will rise tomorrow.
There is no "narrative" here, as far as I can tell. We don't like people telling us what we can and cannot think about or talk about. Maybe that's a narrative. You want to judge people for liking chainmail bikinis? That's your right. But don't expect people to stay silent and don't expect some deus ex machina to arrive and smite them.
I don't agree with dogpiling either and I get into fights on this forum sometimes as well. But fixable did come in with arms swinging. Not 'I dislike chainmail bikinis. Its 'Evolve grognards! D&D is #Adult'.
After that you followed it up with a host of really weak excuses and never came back to your original point of '#adulting, this is also totally excluding me by not catering to me'.
You at least stuck around, so that gives you some backbone. And thats good.
Wild West? This place ain't the Wild West. It's Mos Eisely. Which I guess if you think about it really is a town like the Old West...
Point being: here you won't get bushwhacked by some woke scolds, here folks simply use both barrels at you and blast away.
Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:03:19 PM
Who suffers from depicting women in chainmail bikinis exactly?
Fat girls?
I've seen fat girls wearing chainmail bikinis - but this is anecdotal evidence. I'm looking for serious answers here. SERIOUS. ANSWERS.
A combination. Fat girls in chain mail bikinis hurt me quite a lot. Still haven't fully recovered sight in my left eye after that last incident.
If you want to make the argument that chainmail bikinis are impractical and uncomfortable, that's a reasonable tack to take.
(remember, typically you wore a quilted garment under the chainmail to prevent chafing)
Heck, there's a minor gag in the Azure Bonds novels about Alias's chain shirt, which has a ridiculous amount of cleavage. But it's also heavily enchanted and that bare spot is NOT vulnerable. Dragonbait actually disapproves of the shirt (well, he IS a paladin). Good times and fun lampshading.
But complaining about cheesecake is pretty damned hypocritical if you don't complain about beefcake as well.
Well that is the hypocrisy of the SJW Wokescolds it's only bad if the art is female cheesecake art. Me. Who cares it's only men.
Before the Paizo forums become woke their was a thread about Seoni their Iconic Sorcerer wore too revealing clothes and the Wokescolds predictability clutched their pearls. When it was pointed out that Sajan their Iconic Monk went about bare chested the equally predictable response was it's not the same thing.
So it's ok for a male character to be topless yet give a female character some sexy attire and it suddenly becomes problematic.
Quote from: Abraxus on January 11, 2022, 09:16:19 AM
Well that is the hypocrisy of the SJW Wokescolds it's only bad if the art is female cheesecake art. Me. Who cares it's only men.
Before the Paizo forums become woke their was a thread about Seoni their Iconic Sorcerer wore too revealing clothes and the Wokescolds predictability clutched their pearls. When it was pointed out that Sajan their Iconic Monk went about bare chested the equally predictable response was it's not the same thing.
So it's ok for a male character to be topless yet give a female character some sexy attire and it suddenly becomes problematic.
Oh, well, dontcha know, that's not hypocrisy, that's the power gradient. Anyone having privilege is to be attacked and never defended. Anyone lacking privilege must be defended at all costs. Degree of privilege, labels, identities, it's how they divide people. Oh, yeah, and nobody knows what side of a privilege boundary anyone falls on until the woke-scold mob declares it.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 11, 2022, 09:07:39 AM
If you want to make the argument that chainmail bikinis are impractical and uncomfortable, that's a reasonable tack to take.
(remember, typically you wore a quilted garment under the chainmail to prevent chafing)
As far as I am aware neither chaffing nor being uncomfortable gives your character any kind of mechanical penalties.
Quote from: jhkim on January 10, 2022, 03:36:33 AM
...
As far as chainmail bikinis go - I've never liked strictly "chainmail bikini" illustrations, but I am fine with some revealing outfits. I think revealing outfits *can be* a sign of unequal treatment of women, but they aren't necessarily....
And this is an inherently false idea.
Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:03:19 PM
Who suffers from depicting women in chainmail bikinis exactly?
Absolutely nobody.
The "chainmail bikini" concept predates RPG's seeing as how Red Sonja was created in 1973.
And "chainmail bikini's" as a thing in RPG's have pretty much been just a sideshow in RPG art since the beginning.
The "pushback" against chainmail bikini type of art is just one of those things in retrospect that shows the wokescolds have always been around, and things have just gotten to a point where they think they can finally impose their views on everyone else...
Quote from: Abraxus on January 11, 2022, 09:16:19 AM
Well that is the hypocrisy of the SJW Wokescolds it's only bad if the art is female cheesecake art. Me. Who cares it's only men.
Before the Paizo forums become woke their was a thread about Seoni their Iconic Sorcerer wore too revealing clothes and the Wokescolds predictability clutched their pearls. When it was pointed out that Sajan their Iconic Monk went about bare chested the equally predictable response was it's not the same thing.
...
The only standard SJW's have is that they have no standards. a.k.a. Rules for thee, and not for me.
It is all about power. Getting you to kow-tow to their dictates.
Brad Walker does a good summary:https://bradfordcwalker.blogspot.com/2022/01/narrative-warfare-how-bad-actors.html
Quote"They want to humiliate their enemies--who are the audiences for the things they converged--and force them to accept their version as the real thing, including (routinely) planning to remove all memory of the previous versions.
... They don't do it out of weakness; as the ones in control, they're doing to flex--to show off--their position of power over the audience. "There are five lights, Jean-Luc" they say, and they aim to punish you if you do not agree."
"Chainmail bikini" art hurts no one.
Certainly not the 61% of D&D players that are males, according to WotC's own survey results.
"But, but, the same WotC survey shows that 39% of D&D players are women! What about them you sexist pig!?"To that, all I shall say is that this is the cover of a Red Sonja comic from 1975:
(https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/905501.jpg)
And this is the most recent cover of ELLE magazine
*; readily available in grocery stores everywhere in the US. In plain view, to be seen by all and sundry:
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0934/3824/articles/Elle_Colette_Credit_December_January_2021-2022_1_400x.jpg?v=1638980106)
* FYI: Elle
is the world's largest women's fashion magazine. As in a magazine made by women for women, to appeal to as wide an audience of women as possible...
Quote from: Jaeger on January 14, 2022, 01:18:02 AM
Certainly not the 61% of D&D players that are males, according to WotC's own survey results.
"But, but, the same WotC survey shows that 39% of D&D players are women!
So WotC is claiming with those statistics that there are
only two genders? Not very "evolved" after all, eh?
(Unless of course limiting percentages to "100" is racist now.)
It's actually pretty badass to go into battle half naked. It's a statement: Here's my flesh to cut, if you dare.
Gauls/Celts fought naked, at least we think some of them did.
Quote from: Zalman on January 14, 2022, 10:48:52 AM
Quote from: Jaeger on January 14, 2022, 01:18:02 AM
Certainly not the 61% of D&D players that are males, according to WotC's own survey results.
"But, but, the same WotC survey shows that 39% of D&D players are women!
So WotC is claiming with those statistics that there are only two genders? Not very "evolved" after all, eh?
(Unless of course limiting percentages to "100" is racist now.)
No, my understanding of the WOTC stats is that "Other/Non-Binary" were indeed broken out as another category, but amounted to <1%
QuoteIt's actually pretty badass to go into battle half naked. It's a statement: Here's my flesh to cut, if you dare.
Gauls/Celts fought naked, at least we think some of them did.
So by pretty badass we mean utterly slaughered and almost extinct?
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 14, 2022, 03:13:41 PM
QuoteIt's actually pretty badass to go into battle half naked. It's a statement: Here's my flesh to cut, if you dare.
Gauls/Celts fought naked, at least we think some of them did.
So by pretty badass we mean utterly slaughered and almost extinct?
It did work a little bit. If I remember there are Roman accounts that say they were freaked out by those celts with their dongs out. Granted, they did lose that war of conquest eventually, but they did make the legions bleed pretty badly.
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 14, 2022, 03:13:41 PM
QuoteIt's actually pretty badass to go into battle half naked. It's a statement: Here's my flesh to cut, if you dare.
Gauls/Celts fought naked, at least we think some of them did.
So by pretty badass we mean utterly slaughered and almost extinct?
Ah yes, always the contrarian, my friend.
The Romans feared the Gauls for centuries. From the first sack of Rome until Caesar.
Asterix and Obelisk gave those Roman bastids what for!!
(Some of you are old enough to get the reference...) ;)
QuoteThe Romans feared the Gauls for centuries. From the first sack of Rome until Caesar.
Ah yes Gallic Celts indeed were formidable foes for Rome for long time, I agree.
But IIRC fighting nakes was Britton custom, and attitude towards Britton was vastly different in Roman chronicles than towards their continental cousins, am I wrong?
Quote from: Jaeger on January 14, 2022, 01:18:02 AM
Quote from: jhkim on January 10, 2022, 03:36:33 AM
As far as chainmail bikinis go - I've never liked strictly "chainmail bikini" illustrations, but I am fine with some revealing outfits. I think revealing outfits *can be* a sign of unequal treatment of women, but they aren't necessarily. I wouldn't put either realism or lack of revealing outfits as something I look for -- but having female figures be heroic and varied is something I do look for.
And this is an inherently false idea.
To explain more of what I'm saying -- my most common issue is when women in revealing outfits are portrayed as helpless victims more than men in revealing outfits, and less often as powerful heroes. Beefcake like shirtless Conan typically shows him in a heroic fighting stance as he tears into his foes. At least in 1970s comics and fantasy, women are far more likely to be shown as victims when they are cheesecake.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 14, 2022, 01:18:02 AM
"Chainmail bikini" art hurts no one.
Certainly not the 61% of D&D players that are males, according to WotC's own survey results.
"But, but, the same WotC survey shows that 39% of D&D players are women! What about them you sexist pig!?"
To that, all I shall say is that this is the cover of a Red Sonja comic from 1975:
(https://d1466nnw0ex81e.cloudfront.net/n_iv/600/905501.jpg)
And this is the most recent cover of ELLE magazine*; readily available in grocery stores everywhere in the US. In plain view, to be seen by all and sundry:
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0934/3824/articles/Elle_Colette_Credit_December_January_2021-2022_1_400x.jpg?v=1638980106)
* FYI: Elle is the world's largest women's fashion magazine. As in a magazine made by women for women, to appeal to as wide an audience of women as possible...
I have no issue with either of those covers. The Red Sonja cover shows her defeating a horde of enemies, and the Elle cover is of someone who isn't a fantasy hero - just a woman intentionally looking sexy. My point is ​that Red Sonja is more often portrayed like this:
(https://iwt.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/cbr-covers/f7cfa8780f43a33e8c7cb304363bbe08_l.jpg)
And Conan isn't portrayed the same way in his covers. Specifically in the case of D&D, the original 1e DMG shows an adventurer in a metal bikini clutched in the arms of the giant efreet. There are very few other illustrations of women adventurers in the original books, and there are no corresponding pictures of beefcake men in such a position.
There's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:01:44 AM
There's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.
And yet women do not desire to see men in weak positions but do identify and empathize with women in 'victim' positions while feeling greater sense of accomplishment when they recover from that
BTW, if you read classic Conan, he was victimized CONSTANTLY and put in shackles, stripped, etc. It was SUPER common to the point where it was a normal thing.
Neither women nor men want to see Conan in 'peril' like Sonja is on that cover, however.
Meanwhile, psychologically, largely speaking both men and women are fine with women being shown like that.
Crazy but it seems like men and women might have differently wired brains both for how they perceive things AND how they perceive the two sexes
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:01:44 AMThere's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.
An excuse? In the case of something like Sonya, its more an excuse to portray a compitent adventurer incompitently for more sexiness on the cover.
And even if it where the case, what is the actual problem? Plenty of women love to roleplay as victims, and being defined by victimhood.
'Men Telling a story the way they like - SHUT IT DOWN"
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 01:06:58 AM
Quote from: Omega on January 08, 2022, 12:39:18 AM
Exactly all this for a time was infesting LARPs with the "Thoku" movement.
Handicapped players? Nope. Verboten as Glasses are unrealistic. Only the pretty people can play.
Clothing? Most colours are verboten as that is unrealistic. Except for those special people that can.
Armour? ditto.
and on down the line to the point that they got their realism and real blood and injuries. Which was really the goal. "Its not real till you bleed!!!"
All the while spitting on any other style or concerns of safety.
Wow that is some legit insanity. I had never heard of that before. I've only ever been to LARP once and it was a VtM LARP I was tangentially invited to which was just a bunch of awkward people around an inner clique of game runners that just wanted everything to basically revolve around them. I spent the night just getting people to argue by rumor-mongering because they were all really credulous and bad at social interactions. So at least that was kind of funny
What you're describing sounds...crazy to a whole other level. I will have to look that up
Thoku tried gain control over LARPing around the same time the Storygamer cult was doing the same to RPGs. Oft with the same battle cry of "muh immershun!" And I kid you not. The leaders of this faction were advocating that when a player got injured in a session that they keep RPing as if it happened in the session... for "muh immershun!". Boffer arrows? Dont be daft. You have to use REAL arrows. Real swords. and of course Real injuries were happening. While a spin off faction was pushing for non-combat "emotional" LARPs. Pushing to get the players into real emotions. And often not the good ones. Fear, Dread, Despair, Anger, etc. Oft referred to as Nordic LARP as that and Thoku originated in the nordic lands. Sweeden and such where there were before this sometimes hosted enormous and elabourate LARPs with some pretty impressive props and locations.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 08, 2022, 08:02:43 AM
Quote from: Omega on January 08, 2022, 12:39:18 AM
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 07, 2022, 09:14:28 AM
"Oh but much realism..."
"Okay so you're suddenly going to say a blind swordsman shouldn't be viable? And of course you're railing against the wheel-chair adventurer because 'muh realism'... Oh and all the stylized clothing HAS to go, right? And leather armor? LEATHER? That's not realistic. Jettison it. All that crazy hair color and improbable adventures these adventurers are having? THAT doesn't seem too realistic either... Oh speaking of armor why not speak of weaponry? Those oversized swords with accoutrements or fighting unarmed against armed & armored opponents? SO LONG TO ALL THAT! Right??"
And, naturally, no no no...that can all stay because "vague fantasy reasons that allow that to happen because I want it in but that thing you want that is straight-out because muh realism"
It's just such transparent bullshit.
Exactly all this for a time was infesting LARPs with the "Thoku" movement.
Handicapped players? Nope. Verboten as Glasses are unrealistic. Only the pretty people can play.
Clothing? Most colours are verboten as that is unrealistic. Except for those special people that can.
Armour? ditto.
and on down the line to the point that they got their realism and real blood and injuries. Which was really the goal. "Its not real till you bleed!!!"
All the while spitting on any other style or concerns of safety.
Don't confuse characters with the players.
Nobody has a problem with meeting a handicapped player halfway. But a handicapped character needs to bring something serious to the table or it breaks realism.
(There's a reason why oracle curses in PF are double-edged swords, and even then some curses are a fucking pain to deal with)
No. This was a call to disallow handicapped Players and their characters. Thoku was on another level of elitist fuckery and they got lambasted for it as they deserved.
Quote from: jmarso on January 10, 2022, 12:46:07 PM
Quote from: tenbones on January 10, 2022, 12:03:19 PM
Who suffers from depicting women in chainmail bikinis exactly?
The Wokerati. So by all means we need more chainmail bikinis. ;)
un-Hilariiusly, the SJW creep who attacked a guy at Gencon and other cons, tried to cash in on this at one point. It failed to fund or failed to deliver as of last check a year or three back.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 11, 2022, 09:07:39 AM
If you want to make the argument that chainmail bikinis are impractical and uncomfortable, that's a reasonable tack to take.
(remember, typically you wore a quilted garment under the chainmail to prevent chafing)
Heck, there's a minor gag in the Azure Bonds novels about Alias's chain shirt, which has a ridiculous amount of cleavage. But it's also heavily enchanted and that bare spot is NOT vulnerable. Dragonbait actually disapproves of the shirt (well, he IS a paladin). Good times and fun lampshading.
But complaining about cheesecake is pretty damned hypocritical if you don't complain about beefcake as well.
The prude patrol has been on this kick since well before RPGs.
Quote from: rytrasmi on January 14, 2022, 11:24:58 AM
It's actually pretty badass to go into battle half naked. It's a statement: Here's my flesh to cut, if you dare.
Gauls/Celts fought naked, at least we think some of them did.
That and its not really armor in the D&D sense but all the prudes here and elsewhere are singlminded in their stupid.
Sonja for example is an agility fighter type. More armour would slow her down and she'd lose that edge. This and in the early comics she payed the price often and got dinged up quite a bit, even soundly defeated if someone could land a telling blow. She lives and (nearly) dies by her DEX score.
And its a scale mail bikini you morons. 8)
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:01:44 AM
(https://iwt.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/cbr-covers/f7cfa8780f43a33e8c7cb304363bbe08_l.jpg)
And Conan isn't portrayed the same way in his covers. Specifically in the case of D&D, the original 1e DMG shows an adventurer in a metal bikini clutched in the arms of the giant efreet. There are very few other illustrations of women adventurers in the original books, and there are no corresponding pictures of beefcake men in such a position.
There's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.
You copy-pasted this screed from the woke bitchbook.
It was false then. Its false now.
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 17, 2022, 04:06:57 AMNeither women nor men want to see Conan in 'peril' like Sonja is on that cover, however.
I used to collect the Conan comics and at least in the early issues more oft than not he was shown in a position of peril.
(https://i2.wp.com/comicbookinvest.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/30636-2471-34090-1-conan-the-barbarian.jpg)
(https://files1.comics.org//img/gcd/covers_by_id/20/w400/20020.jpg?411850985689460195)
(https://comicspriceguide.com/image/souv/ukrpn)
(https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/scale_small/0/4/12997-2471-14572-1-conan-the-barbarian.jpg)
(https://www.rarecomicbooks.fashionablewebs.com/Conan%20the%20Barbarian/Conan%20the%20Barbarian%20107.jpg)
And many many more.
And speaking of Red Sonja. Here she is in a chainmail shirt. Cry your eyes out you prudes.
And god I miss the days when comics were 20c or 25c!
(https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/scale_medium/8/84205/4028638-conan24vf7m053.jpg)
Quote from: Omega on January 17, 2022, 10:49:53 AM
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 17, 2022, 04:06:57 AM
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:01:44 AM
My point is ​that Red Sonja is more often portrayed like this:
(https://iwt.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/cbr-covers/f7cfa8780f43a33e8c7cb304363bbe08_l.jpg)
And Conan isn't portrayed the same way in his covers. Specifically in the case of D&D, the original 1e DMG shows an adventurer in a metal bikini clutched in the arms of the giant efreet. There are very few other illustrations of women adventurers in the original books, and there are no corresponding pictures of beefcake men in such a position.
There's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.
And yet women do not desire to see men in weak positions but do identify and empathize with women in 'victim' positions while feeling greater sense of accomplishment when they recover from that
BTW, if you read classic Conan, he was victimized CONSTANTLY and put in shackles, stripped, etc. It was SUPER common to the point where it was a normal thing.
Neither women nor men want to see Conan in 'peril' like Sonja is on that cover, however.
Meanwhile, psychologically, largely speaking both men and women are fine with women being shown like that.
Crazy but it seems like men and women might have differently wired brains both for how they perceive things AND how they perceive the two sexes
I used to collect the Conan comics and at least in the early issues more oft than not he was shown in a position of peril.
To Omega -- Gog to Magog distinguishes that between being "victimized" versus being "in peril" (bolded above), saying that it's normal for Conan to be "victimized" but no one wants him "in peril". I dunno about the specific wording, but I agree that there is a clear visual difference. Even though Conan is threatened, he isn't illustrated in the same manner as the Red Sonja example. When Conan is in peril, he is illustrated as angrily fighting back - with a focus on his grimacing face or his reaching arms. When Red Sonja is "in peril" as in my example, she has a very different pose and focus and look compared to Conan.
To Gog to Magog -- You claim that both men and women prefer women to be shown more "in peril" and that it is hard-wired into their brains. However, I see major shifts in what is popular in American fantasy illustrations from the 1930s to the 1970s to today. It seems to me that chainmail bikini illustrations are much less popular today with either men or women than they were in the 1970s. I would agree that women have been instrumental in how illustrations work in the past - i.e. it was the culture of both men and women, not just something imposed on women by men. But I don't think it is purely hardwired. Majority taste doesn't mean that it's right either way, but in this case, the majority seem to no longer prefer those tropes - at least to the degree that they did in the 1970s.
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:01:44 AM
My point is ​that Red Sonja is more often portrayed like this:
(https://iwt.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/cbr-covers/f7cfa8780f43a33e8c7cb304363bbe08_l.jpg)
And Conan isn't portrayed the same way in his covers. Specifically in the case of D&D, the original 1e DMG shows an adventurer in a metal bikini clutched in the arms of the giant efreet. There are very few other illustrations of women adventurers in the original books, and there are no corresponding pictures of beefcake men in such a position.
There's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.
That's just a flat out fucking lie. Here are the first 15 covers from that run of Red Sonja:
https://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/red-sonja
Literally one (the one you cherry picked) has her in a traditional woman in peril pose. And if you actually look at the picture, you'll notice it's being subverted in that cover, because she's about to stab the flying demon thing with a knife. All the others show her in dynamic action poses. They're clearly sexualized, because she is showing a lot of skin and the poses don't shy away from highlighting her attributes, but if you think she's being portrayed as a victim that's you imposing your own views of women on the pictures.
/shrug
https://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/red-sonja
I dunno - this is pretty Conan<>Sonja in terms of depiction to me. That people actually project that 1) *Red Sonja* is a victim in depiction is highly debatable 2) that *Red Sonja* is an actual victim seems obtuse in the extreme. Anyone that knows Sonja and has read those comics knows she is a card carrying badass that literally could kill 95% of the men she runs into.
That she is "sexual" is a genre conceit of S&S. She is supposed to be super-attractive, that's part of the schtick - because she won't fuck anyone that can't beat her in a fight. Modern feminists should love her - they hate her because she's ACTUALLY feminine in appearance and doesn't deny it.
Edit: LOL beat me to it Pat! /shakes fist!
Quote from: Pat on January 17, 2022, 05:11:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:01:44 AM
My point is ​that Red Sonja is more often portrayed like this:
(https://iwt.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/cbr-covers/f7cfa8780f43a33e8c7cb304363bbe08_l.jpg)
And Conan isn't portrayed the same way in his covers. Specifically in the case of D&D, the original 1e DMG shows an adventurer in a metal bikini clutched in the arms of the giant efreet. There are very few other illustrations of women adventurers in the original books, and there are no corresponding pictures of beefcake men in such a position.
There's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.
That's just a flat out fucking lie. Here are the first 15 covers from that run of Red Sonja:
https://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/red-sonja
Literally one (the one you cherry picked) has her in a traditional woman in peril pose. And if you actually look at the picture, you'll notice it's being subverted in that cover, because she's about to stab the flying demon thing with a knife. All the others show her in dynamic action poses. They're clearly sexualized, because she is showing a lot of skin and the poses don't shy away from highlighting her attributes, but if you think she's being portrayed as a victim that's you imposing your own views of women on the pictures.
I never claimed that Red Sonja was always or typically portrayed this way. What I said is that she was portrayed this way more often than Conan was. You yourself claim that her poses "highlight her attributes" (bolded above). If she is posed looking like she is showing off her attributes, that pose looks less like a fighting hero and more like a supermodel. Taking some of the 14 images that you claim are opposite of the one I cherry-picked, I still see ones like:
(https://d29xot63vimef3.cloudfront.net/image/red-sonja/5-1.jpg)
(https://d29xot63vimef3.cloudfront.net/image/red-sonja/9-1.jpg)
Again, while Conan is often portrayed as being in danger, he doesn't look like he is posing this way. I have no problem with Red Sonja as a character, but broadly, outside of the single character of Red Sonja -- illustrations of women in fantasy have often been biased. I like women looking both powerful and sexy. For example, I'm a fan of the original Macho Women With Guns, and have run several one-shots of it. Here's my page on it with some game notes:
https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/machowomenwithguns/
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 08:45:49 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 17, 2022, 05:11:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:01:44 AM
My point is ​that Red Sonja is more often portrayed like this:
(https://iwt.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/cbr-covers/f7cfa8780f43a33e8c7cb304363bbe08_l.jpg)
And Conan isn't portrayed the same way in his covers. Specifically in the case of D&D, the original 1e DMG shows an adventurer in a metal bikini clutched in the arms of the giant efreet. There are very few other illustrations of women adventurers in the original books, and there are no corresponding pictures of beefcake men in such a position.
There's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.
That's just a flat out fucking lie. Here are the first 15 covers from that run of Red Sonja:
https://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/red-sonja
Literally one (the one you cherry picked) has her in a traditional woman in peril pose. And if you actually look at the picture, you'll notice it's being subverted in that cover, because she's about to stab the flying demon thing with a knife. All the others show her in dynamic action poses. They're clearly sexualized, because she is showing a lot of skin and the poses don't shy away from highlighting her attributes, but if you think she's being portrayed as a victim that's you imposing your own views of women on the pictures.
I never claimed that Red Sonja was always or typically portrayed this way. What I said is that she was portrayed this way more often than Conan was. You yourself claim that her poses "highlight her attributes" (bolded above). If she is posed looking like she is showing off her attributes, that pose looks less like a fighting hero and more like a supermodel. Taking some of the 14 images that you claim are opposite of the one I cherry-picked, I still see ones like:
(https://d29xot63vimef3.cloudfront.net/image/red-sonja/5-1.jpg)
(https://d29xot63vimef3.cloudfront.net/image/red-sonja/9-1.jpg)
Again, while Conan is often portrayed as being in danger, he doesn't look like he is posing this way. I have no problem with Red Sonja as a character, but broadly, outside of the single character of Red Sonja -- illustrations of women in fantasy have often been biased. I like women looking both powerful and sexy. For example, I'm a fan of the original Macho Women With Guns, and have run several one-shots of it. Here's my page on it with some game notes:
https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/machowomenwithguns/
O RLY
(https://d29xot63vimef3.cloudfront.net/image/conan-the-barbarian/2-1.jpg)
(https://d29xot63vimef3.cloudfront.net/image/conan-the-barbarian/9-1.jpg)
(https://d29xot63vimef3.cloudfront.net/image/conan-the-barbarian/15-1.jpg)
(https://d29xot63vimef3.cloudfront.net/image/conan-the-barbarian/32-18.jpg)
From: https://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/conan-the-barbarian
Lots of highlighting his physical attributes. Lots of the typical man in peril poses.
Turns out it's just your sexism in play.
Quote from: tenbones on January 17, 2022, 05:13:12 PM
/shrug
https://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/red-sonja
I dunno - this is pretty Conan<>Sonja in terms of depiction to me. That people actually project that 1) *Red Sonja* is a victim in depiction is highly debatable 2) that *Red Sonja* is an actual victim seems obtuse in the extreme. Anyone that knows Sonja and has read those comics knows she is a card carrying badass that literally could kill 95% of the men she runs into.
That she is "sexual" is a genre conceit of S&S. She is supposed to be super-attractive, that's part of the schtick - because she won't fuck anyone that can't beat her in a fight. Modern feminists should love her - they hate her because she's ACTUALLY feminine in appearance and doesn't deny it.
Edit: LOL beat me to it Pat! /shakes fist!
That site must pop up easily in searches. But you phrased it well. The hero (she or he) in pulp fiction is frequently shown in dire straights, and the sword & sorcery visual motifs are heavily biased toward sexually attractive men and women with exaggerated characteristics, wearing very little. There are some differences in how the genders are portrayed -- men tend to be more ripply, and there are a hell of a lot more Conan covers featuring a (genuinely) helpless female than than are Red Sonja covers. But that's because the strong man protecting an attractive woman is an archetype. Red Sonja's archetype is more independent. But this idea that Red Sonja herself is portrayed as helpless more than Conan is simply not there in the pictures. The only place it exists in the minds of people with some serious pre-existing biases.
The thread title says that Wizards announces a new "Evolved" D&D revision.
The word evolved, denotes an improvement over what has come before. Let me be the first to call BS, on that. They want to destroy the past. Destroy the roots of the game. That sounds like de-evolution, or demolition, to me.
Quote from: Pat on January 17, 2022, 09:18:42 PM
But this idea that Red Sonja herself is portrayed as helpless more than Conan is simply not there in the pictures.
There are some 'heroine' characters who are frequently portrayed as helpless for purposes of titillation, but Red Sonja was a really bad example to pick!
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:53:27 PMTo Omega -- Gog to Magog distinguishes that between being "victimized" versus being "in peril" (bolded above), saying that it's normal for Conan to be "victimized" but no one wants him "in peril". I dunno about the specific wording, but I agree that there is a clear visual difference. Even though Conan is threatened, he isn't illustrated in the same manner as the Red Sonja example. When Conan is in peril, he is illustrated as angrily fighting back - with a focus on his grimacing face or his reaching arms. When Red Sonja is "in peril" as in my example, she has a very different pose and focus and look compared to Conan.
Yes exactly. Thank you for that :) Exactly right.
QuoteTo Gog to Magog -- You claim that both men and women prefer women to be shown more "in peril" and that it is hard-wired into their brains. However, I see major shifts in what is popular in American fantasy illustrations from the 1930s to the 1970s to today.
Not monolithic in that preference, but generally speaking yes. That is brain-wiring. What is 'popular' is entirely manufactured in many ways nowadays. Hollywood just released a "GO GIRL!" super uber awesome bad ass woman spy movie about how they're the REAL cool ass-kickers and the men need their help...
It utterly bombed.
Is it "popular" because Hollywood put millions of dollars into it and released it into the zeitgeist? Or is its utter failure proof of my contention?
Rey is fairly reviled as a main character but Kylo Ren is shipped HEAVILY with her because of (surprise surprise) the threat & peril he presents to Rey including intruding on her mind. The "bad boy" that imperils the heroine is FAR MORE popular than the heroine in her own story. Hilarious.
Loki was arguably the most popular male character with female viewers of the MCU...and yet there's been A LOT of negativity around the Loki series from women because Loki is portrayed as constantly emasculated, in peril and in need of help from strong-female-Loki that women seem to dislike. Quite literally every woman I know that is into the MCU has stated outright disdain for the Loki show exactly because of how it reverses Loki into a 'weak' male. Of course, prior to this Loki was a perpetual loser in the MCU that got his ass handed to him...but he sneered and took it with gusto, always ready to fight back. As soon as the Loki show made him a sniveling crybaby begging for forgiveness and fawning over a woman, women seem to have really turned against him.
"Pop-culture" and "popular" can seem VERY similar...but are quite different.
QuoteIt seems to me that chainmail bikini illustrations are much less popular today with either men or women than they were in the 1970s. I would agree that women have been instrumental in how illustrations work in the past - i.e. it was the culture of both men and women, not just something imposed on women by men. But I don't think it is purely hardwired. Majority taste doesn't mean that it's right either way, but in this case, the majority seem to no longer prefer those tropes - at least to the degree that they did in the 1970s.
Or a bunch of these things have been hijacked by ideologues that have made certain portrayals verboten and it is actually doing damage to those brands.
If that were true though we'd see big profit loses in media where this has taken place overtly and openly...
Like comic books
And Star Wars
...hmm
Yet when I look over at romance novels and magazines made for women and by women...
No change.
Fancy that.
Yeah I'm going to keep thinking that human nature developed over millions of years of evolution hasn't changed in the last couple decades and that, instead, a bunch of niche fandoms and hobbies that were vulnerable due to little social power and respect have instead been hijacked by people that act in every way identically to cultists
I don't think anyone would argue that an ideological minority with some amount of power can attempt to suppress popular preferences in the name of "progress".
With varying degrees of success... ;D
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 18, 2022, 02:00:30 AM
I don't think anyone would argue that an ideological minority with some amount of power can attempt to suppress popular preferences in the name of "progress".
With varying degrees of success... ;D
Well the thing that really irks me is how much of the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. It taints ALL the efforts with ideology and makes people knee-jerk WAY too fast against ANY kind of change that comes in official works while also sometimes making people WAY too quick to embrace anything that comes from a neutral or opposite direction.
The nuance of quality of changes gets lost
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 18, 2022, 05:03:40 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 18, 2022, 02:00:30 AM
I don't think anyone would argue that an ideological minority with some amount of power can attempt to suppress popular preferences in the name of "progress".
With varying degrees of success... ;D
Well the thing that really irks me is how much of the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater. It taints ALL the efforts with ideology and makes people knee-jerk WAY too fast against ANY kind of change that comes in official works while also sometimes making people WAY too quick to embrace anything that comes from a neutral or opposite direction.
The nuance of quality of changes gets lost
Agree with that. There are certainly differences in the way men and women have been portrayed in art and sword & sorcery, for instance. Those differences have been discussed for decades, but these days it's very hard to talk about them because of the a priori assumption that everything in the past was horrible and sexist (or racist) and no positive examples exist, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. What it amounts to is the erasure of the entire history of progress (real progress, not progressivism) and its replacement with the idea that the only steps forward have been made in the last 5 minutes, by the latest pundit of outrage. Conversely, the people reacting against the new brigade of hate and historical denial sometimes reflexively defend things they like from legitimate criticism, because it can be hard to distinguish a few grains of wheat from a cultural mountain of chaff.
Quote from: Jam The MF on January 17, 2022, 10:53:19 PM
The thread title says that Wizards announces a new "Evolved" D&D revision.
The word evolved, denotes an improvement over what has come before. Let me be the first to call BS, on that. They want to destroy the past. Destroy the roots of the game. That sounds like de-evolution, or demolition, to me.
That is because it is really just a typo.
They meant it will be DEvolved D&D. >:(
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:53:27 PM
...
I would agree that women have been instrumental in how illustrations work in the past - i.e. it was the culture of both men and women, not just something imposed on women by men. But I don't think it is purely hardwired. Majority taste doesn't mean that it's right either way, but in this case, the majority seem to no longer prefer those tropes - at least to the degree that they did in the 1970s.
Except that is simply not true at all.
In the case of comics or RPG's it is Just a small subset of "women", who got into positions where they could shame-scold companies from serving their customers and into reducing the amount of what they perceive as "problematic" art.
But when you actually look at what
mainstream women still buy...
If I posted some of the European or Asian covers of Elle or Vouge fashion magazines; I would violate the forum policies against nudity.
And these are fashion magazine's made by women, for women; competing with each other for mainstream women's readership.
For kicks you can go to the romance novel section of your local B&N bookstore, and start reading the back cover blurbs: Lots of ladies in peril being saved by masculine bad-boys...
Still?
Still.
"The majority" of women in places where the wokeoso's have not gotten strong footholds somehow still seem to want the same things that they did 60 years ago...
Funny that.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 18, 2022, 08:04:32 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:53:27 PM
I would agree that women have been instrumental in how illustrations work in the past - i.e. it was the culture of both men and women, not just something imposed on women by men. But I don't think it is purely hardwired. Majority taste doesn't mean that it's right either way, but in this case, the majority seem to no longer prefer those tropes - at least to the degree that they did in the 1970s.
Except that is simply not true at all.
In the case of comics or RPG's it is Just a small subset of "women", who got into positions where they could shame-scold companies from serving their customers and into reducing the amount of what they perceive as "problematic" art.
But when you actually look at what mainstream women still buy...
If I posted some of the European or Asian covers of Elle or Vouge fashion magazines; I would violate the forum policies against nudity.
And these are fashion magazine's made by women, for women; competing with each other for mainstream women's readership.
These aren't contradictory tastes. The exact same people can enjoy seeing women look sexy when they want to be sexy (i.e. when at a club or fashion show), and at the same time, want to see women look powerful and heroic when they are fighting (i.e. when fighting monsters with a sword). It's a consistent and reasonable stance. Also, as far as women's magazines, from what I can see the sales of women's magazines have plummeted over the past decade.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/322544/women-s-lifestyle-magazines--print-sales-revenue-uk/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/womens-magazines-are-dying-will-we-miss-them-when-theyre-gone/2018/12/31/a3bbe3ac-f729-11e8-863c-9e2f864d47e7_story.html
Romance novels are doing well, but the content of romance novels has changed since the 1970s. I've only read about a dozen or so romance novels in my lifetime, so I'm not an expert - but the modern ones have seemed distinct from the older ones. There are still some similar themes - but there are also a lot of differences, like more women with successful careers and other tropes. This hasn't upended the genre, but it has shifted it - just as I'm sure that 1970s romance novels were different from 1920s romance novels.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:44:45 AM
These aren't contradictory tastes. The exact same people can enjoy seeing women look sexy when they want to be sexy (i.e. when at a club or fashion show), and at the same time, want to see women look powerful and heroic when they are fighting (i.e. when fighting monsters with a sword). It's a consistent and reasonable stance.
Also, as far as women's magazines, from what I can see the sales of women's magazines have plummeted over the past decade.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/322544/women-s-lifestyle-magazines--print-sales-revenue-uk/
The sale of
all magazines have dwindled in the digital age:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184055/estimated-revenue-of-us-periodical-publishers-since-2005/
https://natwestbusinesshub.com/articles/magazines-turning-the-page-in-the-age-of-digital
In other news: Water is Wet...
My point still stands.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:44:45 AM
Romance novels are doing well, but the content of romance novels has changed since the 1970s. I've only read about a dozen or so romance novels in my lifetime, so I'm not an expert - but the modern ones have seemed distinct from the older ones. There are still some similar themes - but there are also a lot of differences, like more women with successful careers and other tropes. This hasn't upended the genre, but it has shifted it - just as I'm sure that 1970s romance novels were different from 1920s romance novels.
Which means that the answer is
no then. You haven't been to a bookstore even remotely recently and looked at the subject matter of the
overwhelming majority of romance titles.
Pointing out exceptions does not invalidate any of my points about the general attitudes of the mainstream normies that make up the majority of the population.
Look, I get it.
We both live in the same liberal Bay Area bubble. And unless you are actively mindful of seeing through the post-modern feminist, critical theory ideological BS, its amazing how much you just absorb through sheer osmosis via continued exposure.
But it's all lies bro.
Always has been.
The liberal freak-show minority we live around are just that;
a minority. They are not representative
at all of the attitudes, tastes, or social outlook of the majority normie population of men and women.
If they were then Marvel and DC comics wouldn't be in the gutter. Dr. Who wouldn't have one foot in the grave, and people would still be watching Star Trek on tv.
But now they are all shit because they had been "evolved" to reflect "modern sensibilities". And WotC is in the process of slowly doing the same to D&D.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:44:45 AM
Romance novels are doing well, but the content of romance novels has changed since the 1970s. I've only read about a dozen or so romance novels in my lifetime, so I'm not an expert - but the modern ones have seemed distinct from the older ones. There are still some similar themes - but there are also a lot of differences, like more women with successful careers and other tropes. This hasn't upended the genre, but it has shifted it - just as I'm sure that 1970s romance novels were different from 1920s romance novels.
Yes, the women now have jobs. But they still get 'saved' by the dominant male.
Anyway Red Sonja and other Action Girls are aimed at men, not women. And Red Sonja types are aimed at nerdier men like most of us, who enjoy dominant butt-kicking action heroines. Most Hollywood writers are nerds too, so they tend to like this kind of character, perhaps a bit too obsessively.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 19, 2022, 02:18:23 AM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:44:45 AM
Also, as far as women's magazines, from what I can see the sales of women's magazines have plummeted over the past decade.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/322544/women-s-lifestyle-magazines--print-sales-revenue-uk/
The sale of all magazines have dwindled in the digital age:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184055/estimated-revenue-of-us-periodical-publishers-since-2005/
https://natwestbusinesshub.com/articles/magazines-turning-the-page-in-the-age-of-digital
Quote from: Jaeger on January 19, 2022, 02:18:23 AM
The liberal freak-show minority we live around are just that; a minority. They are not representative at all of the attitudes, tastes, or social outlook of the majority normie population of men and women.
If they were then Marvel and DC comics wouldn't be in the gutter. Dr. Who wouldn't have one foot in the grave, and people would still be watching Star Trek on tv.
But now they are all shit because they had been "evolved" to reflect "modern sensibilities". And WotC is in the process of slowly doing the same to D&D.
So, if women's magazines have plummeting sales, it's because of other trends -- but if Marvel and DC are failing, it's because they're liberal, and if only they published exactly the same material they did in the 1970s they'd be successful?
I don't think my tastes aren't the same as the majority -- but the majority has, in fact, changed in their tastes from the majority in the 1970s. While Marvel and DC comics are failing, there are very successful franchises like Harry Potter and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. When I look at the popular franchises and brands, they look quite different from what was successful the 1970s. The mainstream is not the same as the liberal fringe, but they're also quite different than the 1970s mainstream.
Show me the evidence that the majority today really are into chainmail bikinis.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 02:52:03 AM
So, if women's magazines have plummeting sales, it's because of other trends -- but if Marvel and DC are failing, it's because they're liberal, and if only they published exactly the same material they did in the 1970s they'd be successful?
My son was just getting into Marvel comics - actual comics - when they fell off a cliff. This was not a gradual trend; the material clearly abandoned him. One month it was KAPOW!, the next it was talks-about-feelings for 60+ pages - he/we bought the anthologies at Forbidden Planet. I think this was around 2012-13, he would have been 5 in mid 2012, and I recall he had been enjoying the comics for a year or so when they went bad.
I bet sales would be lower than in the 1980s whatever the content, but comics that have not aggressively pursued 'get woke-go broke' are still readable. I also bet Forbidden Planet sales of eg 2000 AD have held up a lot better than Marvel.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 02:52:03 AM
Show me the evidence that the majority today really are into chainmail bikinis.
So, chainmail bikinis are always a nerd thing. Mostly male nerds, plus female cosplayers - and you need to be pretty confident in your looks to want to strut around a convention in a Red Sonja bikini.
My impression is that 'sexy cosplay' is a much bigger thing now than at the height of Red Sonja in the 1970s. I think this derives from the rise of gym culture and the rise of showing off on social media as socially acceptable. But OTOH nerd culture has become much more puritanical - arguably you John are evidence of this ;D - but my 14 year old son is quite similar, so I think there is a general cultural shift too (I think possibly connected to the Internet & hardcore porn showing everywhere on search engines, asked for or not - anyway, the shift is real).
So I think the result is there is much less sexy fantasy art in mainstream nerd sources (like D&D or comics) but at the same time there is a lot more dressing up in sexy costumes. Often Anime stuff now.
The overwhelmingly crushingly incredible popularity of manga and anime over western produced 'heroic fiction' puts the proof to the lie of the woke.
That's it.
That's the entirety of the argument.
Manga is absolutely obliterating American comics and they do so by following the same typical traditions and tropes...and do so while tending to do so with far less restraint than the popular comics and fantasy work of the 70's and 80's and 90's.
So yeah. When one manga about a typical hero's journey of an unlikely boy hero having to engage in demon-decapitating action outsells literally the entirety of modern-day awful western comics it annihilates this nonsense about how tastes have somehow radically changed in the last decade or so.
Tastes haven't changed.
In fact, nothing has really changed...except the Puritans have managed to weasel their way in charge of a lot of media by playing on peoples better natures.
That time, however, is dwindling and I don't think they understand the whirlwind reaping they're courting...
EDIT:
Daki alone in Demon Slayer would give modern comics "creators" (destroys would be more apt) a conniption fit...
Quote from: S'mon on January 19, 2022, 04:40:43 AM
My impression is that 'sexy cosplay' is a much bigger thing now than at the height of Red Sonja in the 1970s. I think this derives from the rise of gym culture and the rise of showing off on social media as socially acceptable. But OTOH nerd culture has become much more puritanical - arguably you John are evidence of this ;D - but my 14 year old son is quite similar, so I think there is a general cultural shift too (I think possibly connected to the Internet & hardcore porn showing everywhere on search engines, asked for or not - anyway, the shift is real).
So I think the result is there is much less sexy fantasy art in mainstream nerd sources (like D&D or comics) but at the same time there is a lot more dressing up in sexy costumes. Often Anime stuff now.
Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 19, 2022, 04:50:04 AM
Manga is absolutely obliterating American comics and they do so by following the same typical traditions and tropes...and do so while tending to do so with far less restraint than the popular comics and fantasy work of the 70's and 80's and 90's.
So yeah. When one manga about a typical hero's journey of an unlikely boy hero having to engage in demon-decapitating action outsells literally the entirety of modern-day awful western comics it annihilates this nonsense about how tastes have somehow radically changed in the last decade or so.
I disagree that modern manga tastes are the same as 1970s Western comics. Notably, both modern manga (Gog to Magog's point) and sexy cosplay (S'mon's point) are popular with women, while 1970s American comics and chainmail bikinis generally were not. I think that fits with my point.
I would say that tastes *have* changed -- and manga has successfully bridged between 1970s tastes and modern tastes -- as have some other modern successful brands like the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) -- while DC and Marvel print comics have not. Also, I'd say that modern D&D art is more influenced by modern manga (i.e. what is popular now) than anything else.
For my tastes, I like the MCU - though I don't like either modern manga or modern DC/Marvel. My son is 21 now, and he grew up on a lot of classic DC/Marvel. I was never a comic book fan growing up - and only got into indie comics as an adult, but he was. We never followed the latest issues of any comic line, though, so the shift of comics in recent years wasn't visible to us. I've also been clear that I'm a fan of Macho Women With Guns - so I'm mystified that I'm being classified as "puritanical".
Quote from: S'mon on January 18, 2022, 12:53:18 AM
Quote from: Pat on January 17, 2022, 09:18:42 PM
But this idea that Red Sonja herself is portrayed as helpless more than Conan is simply not there in the pictures.
There are some 'heroine' characters who are frequently portrayed as helpless for purposes of titillation, but Red Sonja was a really bad example to pick!
Red Sonja wasn't my choice of example - it was picked by Jaegar, and I simply used the same source to discuss his broader claims. I'm fine to concede on that character. I never intended this to be about Red Sonja in particular.
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/img/dsg12.png) | .................... | (https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/img/dsg10.png) |
The women here don't convey actiony adventurers to me. The left one is obviously panicked. The right one isn't as obvious, but it's still pointed that while others are brandishing weapons and shield, the woman is putting her hand to her chest.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:47:17 PMI disagree that modern manga tastes are the same as 1970s Western comics. Notably, both modern manga (Gog to Magog's point) and sexy cosplay (S'mon's point) are popular with women, while 1970s American comics and chainmail bikinis generally were not. I think that fits with my point.
Your point doesn't deserve an answer really. Which is why I also disagree with points of refutation or justfication. Some women won't like chainmail bikinis, and some men had more men engaged in action then women in images. Tough. End of story.
Its so presumptious that this demands somesort of refutation. A man barges into your house, starts eating your cake and starts complaining about how its got peanuts and he has allergies. Everybody shouldn't be explaining how 'no these are faux peanuts', it should be 'get the fuck out of my house'.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 02:52:03 AM
So, if women's magazines have plummeting sales, it's because of other trends -- but if Marvel and DC are failing, it's because they're liberal, and if only they published exactly the same material they did in the 1970s they'd be successful?
These aren't contradictory takes. Just one look at the covers and inside of the largest fashion magazines will show you that the wokescolds have yet to get a real foothold. Because the fashionistas that run those rags can care less about some femanazi blue hairs opinion about body positivity. And we've gone over what Marvel and DC have done enough in threads you've been in that you should know the difference. It's a consistent and reasonable stance.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 02:52:03 AM
... While Marvel and DC comics are failing, there are very successful franchises like Harry Potter and the Marvel Cinematic Universe. ...
And they are successful because they followed the traditional heroic tropes that Marvel and DC have abandoned.
Updated visuals are just that. When it comes to characters and storytelling...
Tastes from the 70's have obviously not changed as much as you imply.
Successful 70's THOR:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Q5mCJrZBL._SX335_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Failed THOR Marvel tried to push:
"This is not She-Thor. This is not Lady Thor. This is not Thorita. This is Thor. This is the Thor of the Marvel Universe. But it's unlike any Thor we've ever seen before."(https://pm1.narvii.com/6674/82e1b784a209ae61045984b28f02067d1f6cf171_00.jpg)
Successful Cinematic Universe THOR:
(https://http2.mlstatic.com/D_NQ_NP_898700-MLB26717770833_012018-O.jpg)
This is not hard.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 02:52:03 AM
Show me the evidence that the majority today really are into chainmail bikinis.
Chainmail bikini's have
always been a sideshow.
The fact that there have been people speaking out against the "chainmail bikini" sideshow since early in the hobby, making out like the "chainmail bikini" was some widespread symbol of misogyny just shows that the wokeoso's have always been around.
S'MON is correct when he stated:
"But OTOH nerd culture has become much more puritanical ..."Which is true, but largely IMHO as a result of an enforced puritanism due to the rise of wokeoso's within the hobby.
Still making big deals out of art that
no one else trips out over. Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 02:52:03 AM
I simply used the same source to discuss his broader claims.
My "broader Claims": From my Reply #342 on: January 13, 2022, 10:18:02 PM
1: Chainmail bikini art hurts no-one.
2: Revealing outfits
are not a sign of unequal treatment of women
Only the wokoso's in the hobby, people that have drunk the Kool-Aid, and the young who have been propagandized care about either...
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 02:52:03 AM
The women here don't convey actiony adventurers to me. The left one is obviously panicked. The right one isn't as obvious, but it's still pointed that while others are brandishing weapons and shield, the woman is putting her hand to her chest.
The Left one: The guy to the right of the woman is not holding an obvious weapon and raising his hand in alarm. At least the woman had a blade!
The Right one: The guy to her left has a shield, but no weapon in his free hand. Not exactly showing a willingness to fight compared to his fellow men is he?
In each pic there is a man being equally useless in the situation.
We can cherry pick D&D art all day:
Yes, she ran - But all those Cowardly men ran first!
(Same female adventurer from jhkim's "example"...)
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/5c6c56d3f542d88f429d0783f798472e/a73445f0de191068-0f/s400x600/8876010fc70a1320a148b9d70d02acabe4696cc9.jpg)
She seems to be getting after it...
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/ef/6b/07/ef6b077e3d8ef75ca2fad368c759aacc--old-school-tabletop.jpg)
Just look at those cowardly men hiding behind the women adventurers...
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b8/f7/ec/b8f7ec884821a76f4110efac88caa809.jpg)
Female Elf Front and Center!
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/56/4e/0b/564e0b615ddf5c957eb60c22c26c2ead--fantasy-rpg-fantasy-artwork.jpg)
No Fear showing in her face here...
(http://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/dnd/isa/graphics/art_bargle.jpg)
She's not exactly running away from that vampire...
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/7b/95/fa/7b95fabb64849037e34cae820a0c810b.jpg)
Early D&D "Iconic" Characters:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lpL870wV2A4/Ra1JUC1EncI/AAAAAAAAASM/GoHWxajBeiE/s400/morganironwolf.jpg)
(https://learningdm.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/cleric_redbox.jpg)
The halfling is just slow...
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3bZpCp0-RJI/TrG_SY8uDBI/AAAAAAAAAVo/ZqtqnTmVCkg/s320/20+-+demi-human+Races+%28D%26D%29.gif)
All this is classic D&D art from the bad old days when the wokeoso's tell us that D&D "lacked representation"...
#DON'TDRINKTHEKOOLAID
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 19, 2022, 01:22:42 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:47:17 PMI disagree that modern manga tastes are the same as 1970s Western comics. Notably, both modern manga (Gog to Magog's point) and sexy cosplay (S'mon's point) are popular with women, while 1970s American comics and chainmail bikinis generally were not. I think that fits with my point.
Your point doesn't deserve an answer really. Which is why I also disagree with points of refutation or justfication. Some women won't like chainmail bikinis, and some men had more men engaged in action then women in images. Tough. End of story.
Its so presumptious that this demands somesort of refutation. A man barges into your house, starts eating your cake and starts complaining about how its got peanuts and he has allergies. Everybody shouldn't be explaining how 'no these are faux peanuts', it should be 'get the fuck out of my house'.
How is this *your* house and I'm the outsider?
I've been a member on this site for ten years longer than you, Shrieking Banshee. I've been playing RPGs since the 1970s. What exactly makes me the intruder and you the owner?
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 02:43:20 PMHow is this *your* house and I'm the outsider?
It was a metaphor.
Its about demanding accomedations for a outside group of people. On the assumption it goes against somebodies preferences or tastes and as such they need to be supplicated.
The demand itself is immensly presumptious. It stands from the position that some people just deserve things, and if they don't like it therefore its wrong.
Its similar to the point that demands diversity. That diversity is a uniquely good thing and that its owed. Instead of being a 100% neutral thing not uniquely worthy of praise and completly fine with being ignored.
The philosophical principle behind demanding removal of whatever style of dress you dislike (or demanding representation of dress types you see as 'good') is the exact same as the kind that demanded demons and devils be removed. Its not about prudishness, its about a completly unearned sense of self importance over others.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 19, 2022, 02:57:01 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 02:43:20 PMHow is this *your* house and I'm the outsider?
It was a metaphor.
Its about demanding accomedations for a outside group of people. On the assumption it goes against somebodies preferences or tastes and as such they need to be supplicated.
The demand itself is immensly presumptious. It stands from the position that some people just deserve things, and if they don't like it therefore its wrong.
Its similar to the point that demands diversity. That diversity is a uniquely good thing and that its owed. Instead of being a 100% neutral thing not uniquely worthy of praise and completly fine with being ignored.
The philosophical principle behind demanding removal of whatever style of dress you dislike (or demanding representation of dress types you see as 'good') is the exact same as the kind that demanded demons and devils be removed. Its not about prudishness, its about a completly unearned sense of self importance over others.
It seems to me that you're the one who is claiming unearned ownership, and making demands. By analogy, you are the one claiming to be the house owner, when I've never claimed such.
In reality, neither you nor I own D&D. Wizards of the Coast does. I don't claim to own the house, nor do I expect WotC to cater to my tastes. I'll express my opinion, but I have no expectation that anyone is going to follow it - either at WotC or here at theRPGsite.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 03:58:01 PMIt seems to me that you're the one who is claiming unearned ownership, and making demands. By analogy, you are the one claiming to be the house owner, when I've never claimed such.
I will admit I am mixing you and Fixable together. You are mostly stating your personal preference, as opposed to demands like Fixable did.
I will take back your point about claims of ownership, and apologize.
I will say that I don't see emperiled women illustrations being a problem in need of fixing, and there are times when it gets on my nerves as well, but mostly in manga.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 19, 2022, 04:07:24 PM
I will admit I am mixing you and Fixable together. You are mostly stating your personal preference, as opposed to demands like Fixable did.
I will take back your point about claims of ownership, and apologize.
I will say that I don't see emperiled women illustrations being a problem in need of fixing, and there are times when it gets on my nerves as well, but mostly in manga.
Thanks, Shrieking Banshee. That's cool. I've mixed up posters before too.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 18, 2022, 12:53:18 AM
Quote from: Pat on January 17, 2022, 09:18:42 PM
But this idea that Red Sonja herself is portrayed as helpless more than Conan is simply not there in the pictures.
There are some 'heroine' characters who are frequently portrayed as helpless for purposes of titillation, but Red Sonja was a really bad example to pick!
Red Sonja wasn't my choice of example - it was picked by Jaegar, and I simply used the same source to discuss his broader claims. I'm fine to concede on that character. I never intended this to be about Red Sonja in particular.
You were wrong about the character because you came with in a pre-existing expectation, and imposed it on the art. Instead of looking at the art itself.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:
Don't disagree. There are differences in how men and women are portrayed. There were also fewer women in those pictures. And you'll find very few black men.
But your methodology is crap. You're trying to prove a point by randomly picking a few examples you think help illustrate your point. That doesn't prove anything, because the examples you picked could easily be unrepresentative. It would require a more rigorous survey to draw any real conclusions.
And in case, parity is a ridiculous goal. You end up with crap like all the commercials that used to show three smiling faces, one black, one white, and one asian. It was pure tokenism, and really highlighted how superficial and racist most claims of "diversity" really are.
What we should do is recognize that art isn't and doesn't have to match some arbitrary standard of "representation". Above all, it should match the subject material. If you're writing about Song era China, then Inuit and 1950s era white men don't belong. Secondly, it's nice to give shout outs. The 1970s and 1980s RPG community was very heavily biased toward boys and men, though not to the the same degree as the wargaming communities. It wasn't until the 1990s and Vampire that some degree of parity was reached in a large section of the market. So naturally, there will be more things in the RPGs that appeal to boys, or men. That includes a lot of male characters in the art, maybe some sexiness (depending on your audience, family friendliness, and the image you want to convey; most of the time it's just inappropriate). But unlike the trenches of WW1 where women would be scarcer than cockatrice's teeth, fantasy has a lot of female heroes, from Jirel of Joiry to Red Sonja to Eowyn. So there will naturally be female characters. And it's good to give shout outs to an audience as well. Women and girls did play, and deliberately putting in a few things that show that they're welcome is a good thing (see the art above the how the create a section in B/X, for instance). It doesn't have to be 50/50, just as there don't have to be 50% men in a knitting circle. It's just nice if it's there.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 18, 2022, 08:04:32 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:53:27 PM
...
I would agree that women have been instrumental in how illustrations work in the past - i.e. it was the culture of both men and women, not just something imposed on women by men. But I don't think it is purely hardwired. Majority taste doesn't mean that it's right either way, but in this case, the majority seem to no longer prefer those tropes - at least to the degree that they did in the 1970s.
Except that is simply not true at all.
In the case of comics or RPG's it is Just a small subset of "women", who got into positions where they could shame-scold companies from serving their customers and into reducing the amount of what they perceive as "problematic" art.
It gets even better. This is women shame scolding other women. Because a fair majority of D&D artists were women. And alot of the non mainstream adult artists are women.
Quote from: S'mon on January 19, 2022, 02:21:56 AM
Anyway Red Sonja and other Action Girls are aimed at men, not women. And Red Sonja types are aimed at nerdier men like most of us, who enjoy dominant butt-kicking action heroines. Most Hollywood writers are nerds too, so they tend to like this kind of character, perhaps a bit too obsessively.
Actually they are aimed at attracting a female reader base. Not men.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The women here don't convey actiony adventurers to me. The left one is obviously panicked. The right one isn't as obvious, but it's still pointed that while others are brandishing weapons and shield, the woman is putting her hand to her chest.
You are just parroting the screed of the worst of the feminists now.
Quote from: Jaeger on January 19, 2022, 02:35:53 PM
All this is classic D&D art from the bad old days when the wokeoso's tell us that D&D "lacked representation"...
#DON'TDRINKTHEKOOLAID
No no no! Don't you see? ALL those women are in peril and are really weak and helpless because... PATRIARCY!
Its not representation either because theres more men than women or more maybe whites than non-whites. Or the non-whites arent non-white enough. Or the really-non-whites arent really-non-white enough. And then of course when you appease that. They are TOO-really-non-white and thats just terribled!
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:00:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:
Don't disagree. There are differences in how men and women are portrayed. There were also fewer women in those pictures. And you'll find very few black men.
But your methodology is crap. You're trying to prove a point by randomly picking a few examples you think help illustrate your point. That doesn't prove anything, because the examples you picked could easily be unrepresentative. It would require a more rigorous survey to draw any real conclusions.
And in case, parity is a ridiculous goal. You end up with crap like all the commercials that used to show three smiling faces, one black, one white, and one asian. It was pure tokenism, and really highlighted how superficial and racist most claims of "diversity" really are.
I'm not trying to rigorously prove this - I'm just expressing my opinion. I did flip completely through my DMG, PH, and DSG to look at all the cases - which is a cross-check since it's all material I'm familiar with from years of experience. Even if I did a rigorous survey (as I did once with women in text examples), I doubt posters here would find it any more convincing. Trying to rigorously prove anything about art is difficult even in good circumstances - and essentially impossible with a hostile audience.
I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.
Still, having some numbers is a nice-to-have for a few occasions. I remember back in 2007 running D&D for a group of six girls and one boy at an 11-year-old's birthday party. It took some effort to procure good selection of female miniatures, and I was using the Basic Set which had only 4 pregenerated characters - three male and one female.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
Still, having some numbers is a nice-to-have for a few occasions. I remember back in 2007 running D&D for a group of six girls and one boy at an 11-year-old's birthday party. It took some effort to procure good selection of female miniatures, and I was using the Basic Set which had only 4 pregenerated characters - three male and one female.
How do you define a female miniature? Because a lot of figures can go either way, but are typically assumed to be male, unless there's one of a short list of stereotypical female characteristics to signal it's not. But that's less a problem with the figures than the people who need to be disabused of their assumptions. To give a simple example, consider the stick figure. Two sticks for arms, two for legs, maybe a stick for a body, and a circle for a head. Male or female? There's nothing about a stick figure that dictates it must be male or female. But typically, the default stick figure is considered male, and to be recognized as female must had something like a skirt or a pony tail added. The problem isn't the stick figure, it's the viewer's assumptions.
And if you're not the typical audience, it can be hard to find perfect fits. For instance, if you want to play a chunky super hero and there's only a 1 template for the chunky hero in an online hero builder, and a dozen for more fit types. That's because you're playing a less common type. There's an argument for reaching out to new audiences even if they are only a small minority, but it's not an entitlement. You don't
deserve equal numbers of pregenerated characters. It's not some right that's being violated. The idea that everything needs to revolve around you and your specific characteristics is incredibly entitled thinking.
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 07:40:02 PM
There's an argument for reaching out to new audiences even if they are only a small minority, but it's not an entitlement. You don't deserve equal numbers of pregenerated characters. It's not some right that's being violated. The idea that everything needs to revolve around you and your specific characteristics is incredibly entitled thinking.
Agreed. I don't
deserve to get what I want in D&D, and equally, you don't
deserve to get what you want in D&D either.
It's up to the owners of the IP to produce what they want, which currently is Wizards of the Coast. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to buy it - but they're not
entitled to demand change.
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 08:03:07 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 07:40:02 PM
There's an argument for reaching out to new audiences even if they are only a small minority, but it's not an entitlement. You don't deserve equal numbers of pregenerated characters. It's not some right that's being violated. The idea that everything needs to revolve around you and your specific characteristics is incredibly entitled thinking.
Agreed. I don't deserve to get what I want in D&D, and equally, you don't deserve to get what you want in D&D either.
It's up to the owners of the IP to produce what they want, which currently is Wizards of the Coast. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to buy it - but they're not entitled to demand change.
And yet change is demanded of them all the time by "progressives" claiming the game is sexist, racist and exclusionary.
Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:01:44 AM
There's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.
Imagine portraying the weaker sex as victims who need rescuing. Who'd have thought it?
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The women here don't convey actiony adventurers to me. The left one is obviously panicked. The right one isn't as obvious, but it's still pointed that while others are brandishing weapons and shield, the woman is putting her hand to her chest.
Well of course they are panicked.
A woman has got to know her limitations.
Clearly they are waiting for the man to kill the spider, mouse or whatever thing it is.
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a
timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:00:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:
Don't disagree. There are differences in how men and women are portrayed. There were also fewer women in those pictures. And you'll find very few black men.
But your methodology is crap. You're trying to prove a point by randomly picking a few examples you think help illustrate your point. That doesn't prove anything, because the examples you picked could easily be unrepresentative. It would require a more rigorous survey to draw any real conclusions.
And in case, parity is a ridiculous goal. You end up with crap like all the commercials that used to show three smiling faces, one black, one white, and one asian. It was pure tokenism, and really highlighted how superficial and racist most claims of "diversity" really are.
I'm not trying to rigorously prove this - I'm just expressing my opinion. I did flip completely through my DMG, PH, and DSG to look at all the cases - which is a cross-check since it's all material I'm familiar with from years of experience. Even if I did a rigorous survey (as I did once with women in text examples), I doubt posters here would find it any more convincing. Trying to rigorously prove anything about art is difficult even in good circumstances - and essentially impossible with a hostile audience.
I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.
Still, having some numbers is a nice-to-have for a few occasions. I remember back in 2007 running D&D for a group of six girls and one boy at an 11-year-old's birthday party. It took some effort to procure good selection of female miniatures, and I was using the Basic Set which had only 4 pregenerated characters - three male and one female.
Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.
QuoteImagine portraying the weaker sex as victims who need rescuing. Who'd have thought it?
I mean sure you can have damsels in distress, though tbh against dangers of average OSR world, I guess 88% of male board members here would also fall under DiD label, alas probably showing actions heroines as DiD is some strong incoherence of theme and message.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:00:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:
Don't disagree. There are differences in how men and women are portrayed. There were also fewer women in those pictures. And you'll find very few black men.
But your methodology is crap. You're trying to prove a point by randomly picking a few examples you think help illustrate your point. That doesn't prove anything, because the examples you picked could easily be unrepresentative. It would require a more rigorous survey to draw any real conclusions.
And in case, parity is a ridiculous goal. You end up with crap like all the commercials that used to show three smiling faces, one black, one white, and one asian. It was pure tokenism, and really highlighted how superficial and racist most claims of "diversity" really are.
I'm not trying to rigorously prove this - I'm just expressing my opinion. I did flip completely through my DMG, PH, and DSG to look at all the cases - which is a cross-check since it's all material I'm familiar with from years of experience. Even if I did a rigorous survey (as I did once with women in text examples), I doubt posters here would find it any more convincing. Trying to rigorously prove anything about art is difficult even in good circumstances - and essentially impossible with a hostile audience.
I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.
Still, having some numbers is a nice-to-have for a few occasions. I remember back in 2007 running D&D for a group of six girls and one boy at an 11-year-old's birthday party. It took some effort to procure good selection of female miniatures, and I was using the Basic Set which had only 4 pregenerated characters - three male and one female.
Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.
Greetings!
Hey Hermano! *Landwhales*!!!!! *laughing*
That's right. More bloated landwhales shown in the artwork. Beauty at any size, right? *Laughing*
Our culture has gone fucking insane. It celebrates the freaks, the ugly, and the obese.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Wrath of God on January 21, 2022, 09:23:33 AM
QuoteImagine portraying the weaker sex as victims who need rescuing. Who'd have thought it?
I mean sure you can have damsels in distress, though tbh against dangers of average OSR world, I guess 88% of male board members here would also fall under DiD label, alas probably showing actions heroines as DiD is some strong incoherence of theme and message.
Damsels in Distress get rescued. Dudes in Distress just die...
Obviously not - like dozens funny comedic sidekicks were frequently DiD-ed and yet saved by their grumpy more heroic team members.
Quote from: SHARK on January 21, 2022, 09:38:22 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:00:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:
Don't disagree. There are differences in how men and women are portrayed. There were also fewer women in those pictures. And you'll find very few black men.
But your methodology is crap. You're trying to prove a point by randomly picking a few examples you think help illustrate your point. That doesn't prove anything, because the examples you picked could easily be unrepresentative. It would require a more rigorous survey to draw any real conclusions.
And in case, parity is a ridiculous goal. You end up with crap like all the commercials that used to show three smiling faces, one black, one white, and one asian. It was pure tokenism, and really highlighted how superficial and racist most claims of "diversity" really are.
I'm not trying to rigorously prove this - I'm just expressing my opinion. I did flip completely through my DMG, PH, and DSG to look at all the cases - which is a cross-check since it's all material I'm familiar with from years of experience. Even if I did a rigorous survey (as I did once with women in text examples), I doubt posters here would find it any more convincing. Trying to rigorously prove anything about art is difficult even in good circumstances - and essentially impossible with a hostile audience.
I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.
Still, having some numbers is a nice-to-have for a few occasions. I remember back in 2007 running D&D for a group of six girls and one boy at an 11-year-old's birthday party. It took some effort to procure good selection of female miniatures, and I was using the Basic Set which had only 4 pregenerated characters - three male and one female.
Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.
Greetings!
Hey Hermano! *Landwhales*!!!!! *laughing*
That's right. More bloated landwhales shown in the artwork. Beauty at any size, right? *Laughing*
Our culture has gone fucking insane. It celebrates the freaks, the ugly, and the obese.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Gretings hermano, merry Christmass and Happy new year to you, yours and all in this wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Since I've been away and I'm too lazy to go read how many pages to find out....
Has he made the argument that the representashun is what keeps wahmen from playing elf games?
If not he or some other leftoid will soon parrot the talking point. Because they are Lysenkoists and don't really believe in evolution.
"Strong shirtless men in the art are a male power fantasy!" Must be why the boddice rippers were so popular among men, I mean ALL of the covers of that kind of tripe featured strong, pretty dudes without shirts.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.
Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.
I specifically mention stance and pose, and I had cited Macho Women With Guns and my
fan page (https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/machowomenwithguns/) as positive examples. So your reply doesn't seem to connect at all.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 11:22:14 AM
Has he made the argument that the representashun is what keeps wahmen from playing elf games?
If not he or some other leftoid will soon parrot the talking point. Because they are Lysenkoists and don't really believe in evolution.
For reference, SHARK hasn't participated in this thread at all until just now, so he wouldn't know.
The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/wizards-announces-new-evolved-dd-revision/msg1199821/#msg1199821), which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.
And no, I haven't claimed anything about why women used to participate less in tabletop RPGs.
Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2022, 02:15:35 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.
Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.
I specifically mention stance and pose, and I had cited Macho Women With Guns and my fan page (https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/machowomenwithguns/) as positive examples. So your reply doesn't seem to connect at all.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 11:22:14 AM
Has he made the argument that the representashun is what keeps wahmen from playing elf games?
If not he or some other leftoid will soon parrot the talking point. Because they are Lysenkoists and don't really believe in evolution.
For reference, SHARK hasn't participated in this thread at all until just now, so he wouldn't know.
The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/wizards-announces-new-evolved-dd-revision/msg1199821/#msg1199821), which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.
And no, I haven't claimed anything about why women used to participate less in tabletop RPGs.
YET.
In a product who's main audience is male, you would do well in having stuff males tend to like. Your argument is one of representation...
I never saw Mayan's represented anywhere in RPGs, Guess I shouldn't be playing them. Neither have I seen Basques, Galicians... And that covers my ancestry, therefore I shouldn't be playing RPGs.
I'll refer you to the Boddice Rippers covers once more. Tell me, how are women represented on those? And yet women buy them (or used to, maybe things have changed thanks to TV which killed certain type's of comics: Romance mainly) by the millions.
Repeat after me: "Human evolution doesn't stop at the neck, our brains also evolved, humans ARE a sexualy dimorphic species, among ALL sexualy dimorphic animals behaviour is also defferentiated between the sexes, humans ARE a sexually dimorphic animal..."
What you find offensive others don't, don't buy stuff that offends your Lyzenkoist sensibilities.
Quote from: SHARK on January 21, 2022, 09:38:22 AM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:00:50 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:
Don't disagree. There are differences in how men and women are portrayed. There were also fewer women in those pictures. And you'll find very few black men.
But your methodology is crap. You're trying to prove a point by randomly picking a few examples you think help illustrate your point. That doesn't prove anything, because the examples you picked could easily be unrepresentative. It would require a more rigorous survey to draw any real conclusions.
And in case, parity is a ridiculous goal. You end up with crap like all the commercials that used to show three smiling faces, one black, one white, and one asian. It was pure tokenism, and really highlighted how superficial and racist most claims of "diversity" really are.
I'm not trying to rigorously prove this - I'm just expressing my opinion. I did flip completely through my DMG, PH, and DSG to look at all the cases - which is a cross-check since it's all material I'm familiar with from years of experience. Even if I did a rigorous survey (as I did once with women in text examples), I doubt posters here would find it any more convincing. Trying to rigorously prove anything about art is difficult even in good circumstances - and essentially impossible with a hostile audience.
I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.
Still, having some numbers is a nice-to-have for a few occasions. I remember back in 2007 running D&D for a group of six girls and one boy at an 11-year-old's birthday party. It took some effort to procure good selection of female miniatures, and I was using the Basic Set which had only 4 pregenerated characters - three male and one female.
Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.
Greetings!
Hey Hermano! *Landwhales*!!!!! *laughing*
That's right. More bloated landwhales shown in the artwork. Beauty at any size, right? *Laughing*
Our culture has gone fucking insane. It celebrates the freaks, the ugly, and the obese.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
But then, you repeat yourself. :)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 02:24:25 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2022, 02:15:35 PM
The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/wizards-announces-new-evolved-dd-revision/msg1199821/#msg1199821), which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.
And no, I haven't claimed anything about why women used to participate less in tabletop RPGs.
YET.
In a product who's main audience is male, you would do well in having stuff males tend to like. Your argument is one of representation...
Not all men prefer 1970s style chainmail bikinis -- just like not all men always want to eat at Hooters, or have naked women on all their playing cards. I'm expressing what I prefer in my game illustrations, and I'm a heterosexual man. I have an active sex life, and I don't feel the need to have passive sexy women strewn in every activity. I'll enjoy bikini-clad women in some games where that's the premise - like Macho Women With Guns or Teenagers from Outer Space. I also enjoy games like Buffy the Vampire Slayer where characters may look appealing but likely aren't in bikinis. I don't think it fits in every game, though, and in particular, I don't find the 1970s trend of more passive-looking women fantasy adventurers more appealing.
But you're clearly not speaking for the people that are offended by any show of female sexuality, overt or implied.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2022, 03:55:52 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 02:24:25 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2022, 02:15:35 PM
The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/wizards-announces-new-evolved-dd-revision/msg1199821/#msg1199821), which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.
And no, I haven't claimed anything about why women used to participate less in tabletop RPGs.
YET.
In a product who's main audience is male, you would do well in having stuff males tend to like. Your argument is one of representation...
Not all men prefer 1970s style chainmail bikinis -- just like not all men always want to eat at Hooters, or have naked women on all their playing cards. I'm expressing what I prefer in my game illustrations, and I'm a heterosexual man. I have an active sex life, and I don't feel the need to have passive sexy women strewn in every activity. I'll enjoy bikini-clad women in some games where that's the premise - like Macho Women With Guns or Teenagers from Outer Space. I also enjoy games like Buffy the Vampire Slayer where characters may look appealing but likely aren't in bikinis. I don't think it fits in every game, though, and in particular, I don't find the 1970s trend of more passive-looking women fantasy adventurers more appealing.
If only there was a way in 2022 to produce alternate covers and find out what is most popular.
Alas we will never know.
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
Except, you blatant liar, they
DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond! They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages. You know this, because
you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th. So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will
do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2022, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond! They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages. You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th. So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.
But this was never announced as errata you dolt. It's a new book.
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 11:26:16 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2022, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond! They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages. You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th. So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.
But this was never announced as errata you dolt. It's a new book.
Containing the reworking of old (i.e. previously released) monsters. Just like in Volo's. You can't be honest, even when the facts are clear, can you?
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
This is slightly disingenuous I think.
The Tasha's class changes to races & classes appeared in my D&D Beyond without me having Tasha's enabled, confusing players. The Volo's changes to monster descriptions were done Ministry of Truth style, without any option to see the old version. So there is certainly precedent.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 23, 2022, 12:13:04 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 11:26:16 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2022, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond! They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages. You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th. So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.
But this was never announced as errata you dolt. It's a new book.
Containing the reworking of old (i.e. previously released) monsters. Just like in Volo's. You can't be honest, even when the facts are clear, can you?
Greetings!
Eirikrautha, why do you think Mistwell gets wrapped up in all of these printing/production arguments? Somehow, he's always tapdancing about something. Honestly, I'm not sure what he's tapdancing about. His arguments seem rather obscure.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
At this point in his quest to be always right and for fear of going against his carefully constructed personal narratives. He has begun to both contradict himself and rather than admit the truth continue to be disingenuous. When one is caught lying and still continue to claim to be right well what you expect from a Normie. No critical thinking or any self-reflection that they can possibly be in the wrong.
Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2022, 02:15:35 PM
The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/wizards-announces-new-evolved-dd-revision/msg1199821/#msg1199821), which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.
I'm not going to say that was a poor summary per se, but you neglected to mention both Pat and Jaeger providing several examples of Conan in peril and early female characters in heroic poses.
Your opinion is just as valid as any other. And clearly you have seen enough in early artwork for you to determine that women were portrayed in a negative, unequal, way. But your super low bar to female victim hood is not shared by many others around here, and certainly not the women I game with.
Not quoted here, but evoking your sex life as evidence of your lack of need to see sexy images is exactly out of the playbook. Congratulations, implying people like those images because they don't have sex is following the incel play perfectly. Just know it landed about as well as Steve Carell in 40 Year Old Virgin taking about all the sex he has.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 23, 2022, 12:13:04 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 11:26:16 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2022, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond! They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages. You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th. So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.
But this was never announced as errata you dolt. It's a new book.
Containing the reworking of old (i.e. previously released) monsters. Just like in Volo's. You can't be honest, even when the facts are clear, can you?
LOL You think Volo's was a book of reworking old monsters? You have not read Volos at all, have you. Admit it.
I mean this is how stupid your stance sounds: 1) You predict they will replace the content, 2) when that doesn't happen, you claim the prediction itself (as a complaint) is what caused it to not happen. IE in your mind, NOTHING could have happened which would have proven you wrong. If they had replaced the content you'd be right, and if they didn't replace the content you'd be right. You see how absurd your stance is, right?
Quote from: Mistwell on January 23, 2022, 02:36:12 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 23, 2022, 12:13:04 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 11:26:16 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2022, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond! They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages. You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th. So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.
But this was never announced as errata you dolt. It's a new book.
Containing the reworking of old (i.e. previously released) monsters. Just like in Volo's. You can't be honest, even when the facts are clear, can you?
LOL You think Volo's was a book of reworking old monsters? You have not read Volos at all, have you. Admit it.
I mean this is how stupid your stance sounds: 1) You predict they will replace the content, 2) when that doesn't happen, you claim the prediction itself (as a complaint) is what caused it to not happen. IE in your mind, NOTHING could have happened which would have proven you wrong. If they had replaced the content you'd be right, and if they didn't replace the content you'd be right. You see how absurd your stance is, right?
You buffoon, the statement was that the new book was a reworking of old monsters, just like the changes in Volo's changed information that was already published. You are arguing against a strawman, because that's all you've got.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 23, 2022, 03:11:08 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 23, 2022, 02:36:12 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 23, 2022, 12:13:04 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 11:26:16 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2022, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond! They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages. You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th. So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.
But this was never announced as errata you dolt. It's a new book.
Containing the reworking of old (i.e. previously released) monsters. Just like in Volo's. You can't be honest, even when the facts are clear, can you?
LOL You think Volo's was a book of reworking old monsters? You have not read Volos at all, have you. Admit it.
I mean this is how stupid your stance sounds: 1) You predict they will replace the content, 2) when that doesn't happen, you claim the prediction itself (as a complaint) is what caused it to not happen. IE in your mind, NOTHING could have happened which would have proven you wrong. If they had replaced the content you'd be right, and if they didn't replace the content you'd be right. You see how absurd your stance is, right?
You buffoon, the statement was that the new book was a reworking of old monsters, just like the changes in Volo's changed information that was already published. You are arguing against a strawman, because that's all you've got.
The extreme overwhelming majority of volos content was new for 5e. Which you'd know if you'd read it. You don't know anything really about 5e except the bullshit you read here...also written by people who don't know much about 5e.
And now you've taken to making predictions which you think are immune from ever being wrong - now if you are wrong in your prediction then you think your prediction is what changed events. Like WOTC changes all their plans, and forces all their 3rd party licensees to change their plans, based on what you and a tiny number of non-5e-players think. It's an insane way of thinking. You were never correct - they were never going to give this stuff away for free, and never had given it away for free in the past, and you've fucking lost your mind over 5e because of your stupid agendas which have become more important to you than gaming itself these days.
Quote from: Mistwell on January 23, 2022, 04:57:25 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 23, 2022, 03:11:08 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 23, 2022, 02:36:12 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 23, 2022, 12:13:04 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 11:26:16 PM
Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2022, 10:47:31 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.
D&D Beyond:
"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.
While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.
While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."
Smiteworks said:
"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.
The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."
What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond! They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages. You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th. So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.
But this was never announced as errata you dolt. It's a new book.
Containing the reworking of old (i.e. previously released) monsters. Just like in Volo's. You can't be honest, even when the facts are clear, can you?
LOL You think Volo's was a book of reworking old monsters? You have not read Volos at all, have you. Admit it.
I mean this is how stupid your stance sounds: 1) You predict they will replace the content, 2) when that doesn't happen, you claim the prediction itself (as a complaint) is what caused it to not happen. IE in your mind, NOTHING could have happened which would have proven you wrong. If they had replaced the content you'd be right, and if they didn't replace the content you'd be right. You see how absurd your stance is, right?
You buffoon, the statement was that the new book was a reworking of old monsters, just like the changes in Volo's changed information that was already published. You are arguing against a strawman, because that's all you've got.
The extreme overwhelming majority of volos content was new for 5e. Which you'd know if you'd read it. You don't know anything really about 5e except the bullshit you read here...also written by people who don't know much about 5e.
And now you've taken to making predictions which you think are immune from ever being wrong - now if you are wrong in your prediction then you think your prediction is what changed events. Like WOTC changes all their plans, and forces all their 3rd party licensees to change their plans, based on what you and a tiny number of non-5e-players think. It's an insane way of thinking. You were never correct - they were never going to give this stuff away for free, and never had given it away for free in the past, and you've fucking lost your mind over 5e because of your stupid agendas which have become more important to you than gaming itself these days.
First, I own Volos and DNDBeyond, so I know exactly what is in each.
Second, all right, liar, quote where I predicted that WotC would give away anything. In fact, quot ANY prediction I've made about this. You only have strawmen, because I've never said anything you claim I have. This discussion was about what WotC was going to do with the monsters in the new book, and whether they were going to do the same thing they already did with Volos.
Oh, and even the knob-polishers on Reddit were angry about Volos and questioning what would happen with the new book. So I'm pretty sure WotC knew that their errata strategy was a failure...
Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2022, 03:55:52 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 02:24:25 PM
Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2022, 02:15:35 PM
The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142 (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/wizards-announces-new-evolved-dd-revision/msg1199821/#msg1199821), which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.
And no, I haven't claimed anything about why women used to participate less in tabletop RPGs.
YET.
In a product who's main audience is male, you would do well in having stuff males tend to like. Your argument is one of representation...
Not all men prefer 1970s style chainmail bikinis -- just like not all men always want to eat at Hooters, or have naked women on all their playing cards. I'm expressing what I prefer in my game illustrations, and I'm a heterosexual man.
Yeah, hashtag not all. But enough do that it's a solid bussiness decision.
Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2022, 03:55:52 PM
I have an active sex life, and I don't feel the need to have passive sexy women strewn in every activity.
Yes Jim, everybody that likes stuff you don't is an InCel...
Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2022, 03:55:52 PM
I'll enjoy bikini-clad women in some games where that's the premise - like Macho Women With Guns or Teenagers from Outer Space. I also enjoy games like Buffy the Vampire Slayer where characters may look appealing but likely aren't in bikinis. I don't think it fits in every game, though, and in particular, I don't find the 1970s trend of more passive-looking women fantasy adventurers more appealing.
You enjoy what you enjoy, I'll do the same, and as a plus I'll never advocate for banning the stuff you (or anyone else -within certain limits) enjoy.
I'm seriously considering getting ALL the art for my totally not conan game be chainmail buxom women. Half of the time holding the strong almost naked dude's (that just saved her) leg.
Greetings!
*Laughing* I think buxom, scantily-clad women are great features in art. It's also cool when they need to be saved from some monster or villain by a strong, masculine hero.
Good stuff.
I always hope we see MORE of it.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
The only problem I have with buxom, scantily-clad women in art is that they are wearing clothes at all.
Fair enough. Some of us want more equality: maybe show a few xenas rescuing puny glasses-wearing princes (that are totally not self-inserts, why would you think that? ;) ).
Quote from: SHARK on January 24, 2022, 12:08:37 AM
Greetings!
*Laughing* I think buxom, scantily-clad women are great features in art. It's also cool when they need to be saved from some monster or villain by a strong, masculine hero.
Good stuff.
I always hope we see MORE of it.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
truly who doesn't love Tits?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 24, 2022, 01:15:29 PM
Fair enough. Some of us want more equality: maybe show a few xenas rescuing puny glasses-wearing princes (that are totally not self-inserts, why would you think that? ;) ).
So you're not happy with strong females resquing Conan?
I have exactly zero objection to having the danger magnet-hero tropes reversed. Why would I? Didn't Xena regularly rescued everybody? I'm sure there must have been some such prince in that show. Also didn't She-Ra reversed the tropes? There was this guy with a heart symbol on his chest...
Quote from: S'mon on January 23, 2022, 03:36:40 AM
Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM
Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!
This is slightly disingenuous I think.
The Tasha's class changes to races & classes appeared in my D&D Beyond without me having Tasha's enabled, confusing players. The Volo's changes to monster descriptions were done Ministry of Truth style, without any option to see the old version. So there is certainly precedent.
What you describe seeing there; with automatic changes being forced upon you, is flat out bull shit. "You will be updated and assimilated!!!"