This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
This is just the logical conclusion to the idea that "representation matters". You need to see people of your own race in game. If you are disabled, you need to see people who are also disabled in game. If you are a loser millennial who has trouble adulting, you need to see loser millennials who have trouble adulting in the game as well. The whole thing has turned into an exercise in self validation.

Add this to the fact that for most D&D writers, their idea of "fantasy" is Harry Potter which, ultimately, had more to do with relationships than actual magical adventuring.
Ain't that the gawds own truth. That representation bs. This has been on my mind, especially lurking TBP (I know, I know, mental torturing myself lol). But what I realized are, exactly what you said hedge, they're loser millennials who can't adult. It's like they're technically "adult" (as in above 18 or whatever your countries age of adulthood it) but they are, and will ever be children. Because they know no adversity. And when real life kicks them when they're down, as it will, they reeee and complain and get like minded individuals to reeee and complain.

It's just astounding.
2
Protest art should always be part of our culture so to censor it is obnoxious. Even if you don't agree with the message.

What if someone did a fantasy scenario portraying the conservative anti-abortionists as religious zealot sorcerers who kept their women as breeding machines to keep the line pure. Then killed anyone who wanted to control their own reproductive rights? Would that be allowed?

Do we censor Charlie Hebdo? Because it offends Muslims? I think not...

That's a good thought.  So it bundling some of my stuff as anti-abortion / pro-life.  Might do that, but first I'd like to get the results of DriveThru's internal review.
3
As a publisher I can say this, "If you were to ask if you can write in world with our settings, we would ask for a royalty (small) if you were selling."

Many other publishers I know feel the same way.  A letter of intent, or query to write can move mountains, and keep you out of copywrite court.  I have asked and been turned down very politely before, and at other times I was given the greenlight, as long as I made sure to reference the company/IP owner and give proper attribution.  Many company sites have these terms listed in the FAQ or designated webpage. 

It can get a bit dicey if you try and write for published fiction, computer games, and the like.

***Shameless plug*** We are generally easy going when it comes to rights and fan fiction/games/settings.
4
When did that change?  Unless I was reading a Hardy Boys story, I never wanted to read stories about scrawny and awkward teenage boys.  I wanted super spies, sword wielding ass kickers, super heroes, and clever scientists, engineers, and sorcerers.
5
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Re: Biden's Cascade of Failure!
« Last post by zircher on Today at 10:35:01 AM »
Interesting bit of info.
6

Do we censor Charlie Hebdo? Because it offends Muslims? I think not...
Sigh. As a matter of fact, Charlie Hebdo got censored by direct violence.

"Charlie Hebdo Republishes Cartoons That Prompted Deadly 2015 Attack

The decision by the French satirical magazine to recirculate cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad and Islam coincides with the start of a long-awaited trial for the attack that killed 11 of its staff."
7

Do we censor Charlie Hebdo? Because it offends Muslims? I think not...
Sigh. As a matter of fact, Charlie Hebdo got censored by direct violence.
8
I'm curious, though, what is exactly going on with this whole drive amongst WOTC--as well as others--to have utopian wannabe, "Barista Adventuring Days"? This weird obsession with sex, "Hot messes in college"; working at normal, modern jobs, gay dances, and celebrating gossip networks with faeries? It's kind of scattered, but I think my thoughts are sensing this kind of design focus and theme, alternating between sex, drama, utopianism, and an insistence on indulging in modern jobs and petty details of ordinary lives. If that makes any sense?

This is just the logical conclusion to the idea that "representation matters". You need to see people of your own race in game. If you are disabled, you need to see people who are also disabled in game. If you are a loser millennial who has trouble adulting, you need to see loser millennials who have trouble adulting in the game as well. The whole thing has turned into an exercise in self validation.

Add this to the fact that for most D&D writers, their idea of "fantasy" is Harry Potter which, ultimately, had more to do with relationships than actual magical adventuring.
9
I think that if anyone ever wants to do Star Trek- most realistically for an RPG campaign- they'll have to sit down and decide what elements of it are canon and which elements are not. This doesn't even have to be due to politics (though it will be if dealing with anything from the last 10-15 years) but simply the inevitable drift and sprawl a decades-old franchise that's been through the hands of multiple writers who didn't consult or research with one another to keep things straight. Everything made by Star Trek from the end of the Kirk era has been mostly written by people who don't know the minutiae of the lore like a hardcore Trekkie does and and canon that's been added to enough begins to contradict itself.


One of my main points to re-work in any Trek canon I'd control would be hand phasers and the nerfing thereof.  Back in TOS, a hand phaser was a horribly deadly weapon. Phaser combat usually consisted on one person pulling a trigger and the fight being over- buildings could be blown up and crowds rendered unconscious by a single shot from a phaser.

Then TNG arrives- and more importantly, Star Wars happened between it and the end of TOS.

With later shows when a phaser fight did happen the directors seemed to want to make things more exciting by having the battles be like Star Wars- people duck and dive around cover while throwing sparkly light at one another. Which worked with blasters in Star Wars, but in Trek- why don't they set the phaser to high-intensity disruption and blow up the cover and whoever's behind it? They keep missing- what happened to the wide angle settings, or why not use sustained beam and walk the shot onto the enemy?

It's one of my pet peeves, and players in the ST game I ran were sometimes shocked to find what hand phasers were capable of and how short and deadly phaser combat was. It's a good thing the Modiphius game has metacurrency because the way I ran things it was "whoever doesn't shoot first, spend metacurrency to not be removed from the fight".
10
They have completely wrecked the whole point of Drizzt. Way to fucking go, WotC. I would rather deal with a thousand badly-designed original content donut steel knockoffs than this shit.

I'm not so worried about Drizzt, but the Underdark itself. As it was originally created, the Underdark was a unique environment. Not because it was a cave network but because it was a vast land ruled over by a powerful race of evil elves. While you might find a temporary reprieve, you were never truly safe with the Drow roaming round. You weren't going to find a nice Drow girl and settle down like Little House on the UnderPrairie. By making Drow not evil but mostly good, you've taken the one unique thing about their homeland and turned it into just another wilderness.

Once again it's subtraction by addition.
Yup. And it cheapens Drizzt's entire character arc, as well as wreaking havoc on the non-Lolth minorities (Eilistraee, Vhaeraun) who were also fighting to get the drow out from under Lolth's thumb. Way to fucking go, WotC.

(Among the scraps I had written for a modern urban fantasy setting was that the drow who had landed in modern day were, after a short period of disorientation, overjoyed to be out from under Lolth. Not because they were any less evil, but because they no longer had to deal with a lunatic bitch of a goddess who would fuck with them for the lulz. They were still opportunistic bastards, but now they could be bastards on their own terms.)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10