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"?