RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Grognard GM]

But tbh I have no beef with general alt-hist from folk who as community were conquered and reduced to small sad remnants about how it all would be better if they were not conquered.

For all I care, they could write a dozen books about how white people dying out gave American Indians superpowers, and all of their penis' grew to double size; IF other groups were afforded the same leeway.

If we're going to live in a society where some groups are tied in linguistic and thought knots, then I damn well expect it to be universal. Make people like by what they preach.

[Bruwulf]

Plot twist: there is no clear coherent common understanding of the word "good" even in modern Western world. All that's common is wishy washy feel that fall apart when examined closely.

Nah. There's debate about the particulars, but there's a general consensus on broad points. Summarily executing surrendered prisoners, for example, is generally frowned on.

Note that "general consensus" doesn't mean "universal agreement". There's always outliers.

For all specific dumbness in this setting - general gist is fine.

No. If that's all it was, sure, I would agree, but it goes further. In this case I'm on Grognard's side.

For example, I've never before seen an RPG that explicitly gives - over and over again - separate rules for "native" and "non-native" players. Not characters, players.

The closest I can think is that some older RPGs (I wanna say I remember Harnmaster having this, but I don't feel like pulling the books off my shelf to look) would say something like "for roleplaying purposes, we suggest players play characters of the same gender as themselves", but even then it was never phrased as a rule. In Coyote and Crow, it's an explicit rule. Sure, you can ignore it, but it's still there.

Edit, I lied, I went and looked. Harnmaster, 1E, says, and I quote, "Role playing difficulties are best avoided if players have characters of their own gender." But, again, it's not phrased as a rule, just a suggestion.

[Grognard GM]

No. If that's all it was, sure, I would agree, but it goes further. In this case I'm on Grognard's side.

For example, I've never before seen an RPG that explicitly gives - over and over again - separate rules for "native" and "non-native" players. Not characters, players.

It gets worse when you realize that the same people that harp on and on about how D&D used to have a rule where female characters had a cap on maximum strength, and how outrageous it was; are the exact same people absolutely cool with a game that tells players they have different rules depending on their ethnicity.

[rytrasmi]

No. If that's all it was, sure, I would agree, but it goes further. In this case I'm on Grognard's side.

For example, I've never before seen an RPG that explicitly gives - over and over again - separate rules for "native" and "non-native" players. Not characters, players.

It gets worse when you realize that the same people that harp on and on about how D&D used to have a rule where female characters had a cap on maximum strength, and how outrageous it was; are the exact same people absolutely cool with a game that tells players they have different rules depending on their ethnicity.

If your moral compass is centered on identity, oppression, and privilege, this is consistent.

An identity that lacks privilege and/or is oppressed can do whatever the fuck it wants to an identity that has privilege and/or is not oppressed.

Truth and justice are relative, dummy!

[Wrath of God]

For all I care, they could write a dozen books about how white people dying out gave American Indians superpowers, and all of their penis' grew to double size; IF other groups were afforded the same leeway.

I mean they are but it probably will be seen as bit dumber coming from successful rich nations, not failures of the history.
It's specific scratch that works with nations that are basically at least at the moment - loosers of history.

For example, I've never before seen an RPG that explicitly gives - over and over again - separate rules for "native" and "non-native" players. Not characters, players.

I specifically wrote about specific Grognard's problem, not about overall assholish behaviour of Connor "I'm not white, trust me" O'Cheerokee.
I agree those separate rules were dumb, racist behaviour - alas that's different problem from general gist of setting.

Like you don't have to convince me this dude is a fraud and hack, and abhorent case of dumb relativism.

[wmarshal]

TBP in general, and Zeea specifically, are drowning in the "everyone I hate is a Neo-Nazi" Kool-Aid.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/dungeons-dragons-and-the-ogl-1-1-official-discussion-thread-part-2-read-post-1.906691/page-53#post-24670849

The specific part is:
"Neo-Nazis and other toxic individuals were using the content quite a bit last decade and Wizards of the Coast not only did nothing, but they recruited two of them to help with the Player's Handbook and gave them credit for it. Right now, nearly the entire far-right and toxic portion of OGL users has faded into obscurity, with only Wizards of the Coast routinely having scandals for their latest racist fuckup. It is not an ongoing problem, at all."

So a TBP staff member and moderator is calling RPGPundit and Zak S. Neo-Nazis. The latter definitely seems to have various issues, and the former is by admission a "shitlord", but saying they are fascist white supremacist in alignment with the political ideology of the Nazi Party would seem slanderous. It's more than just a hot take. But nobody can dare push back on those charges to even the slightest degree or they'll catch a ban by the TBP mods.

[jhkim]

But then, the same applies to the morality of people playing Coyote & Crow. These are just games, after all.

I don't think anyone is judging the morality of anyone playing Coyote & Crow, exactly. I don't think people who read and write Mary Sue self-insert fanfics are evil, either, I just don't see the fun in it.

I'll damn well judge the author though.

If someone wrote an RPG world where only Europeans existed, so they'd created a technological utopia without the other races messing everything up, do you think people would be giving it praise? Do you think it would be excused as speculative fiction?

It's not an RPG, but I recently read Poul Anderson's _The High Crusade_, which has a related premise. It projects is that if the English in the 1300s were colonized by a high-tech alien invaders, they would just saddle up, learn the tech, and take over that conquering empire. For the glory of God and England.

That's a very obvious allegory to how other historical cultures that encountered higher-tech colonizers, and didn't fare so well.

As far as I can tell, it has been excused as speculative fiction. If it were written today, it would probably be condemned by liberals and excused by conservatives. If someone wrote a parallel story about Native Americans overcoming alien invaders, the opposite would be true.

---

I think there's a middle ground of being willing to criticize both, but also being willing to recognize value.

[Grognard GM]

But then, the same applies to the morality of people playing Coyote & Crow. These are just games, after all.

I don't think anyone is judging the morality of anyone playing Coyote & Crow, exactly. I don't think people who read and write Mary Sue self-insert fanfics are evil, either, I just don't see the fun in it.

I'll damn well judge the author though.

If someone wrote an RPG world where only Europeans existed, so they'd created a technological utopia without the other races messing everything up, do you think people would be giving it praise? Do you think it would be excused as speculative fiction?

It's not an RPG, but I recently read Poul Anderson's _The High Crusade_, which has a related premise. It projects is that if the English in the 1300s were colonized by a high-tech alien invaders, they would just saddle up, learn the tech, and take over that conquering empire. For the glory of God and England.

That's a very obvious allegory to how other historical cultures that encountered higher-tech colonizers, and didn't fare so well.

As far as I can tell, it has been excused as speculative fiction. If it were written today, it would probably be condemned by liberals and excused by conservatives. If someone wrote a parallel story about Native Americans overcoming alien invaders, the opposite would be true.

---

I think there's a middle ground of being willing to criticize both, but also being willing to recognize value.

I'd bet money you'd work your way through this crate, and only wonder why one of the apples tasted funny.

[rytrasmi]

If someone wrote an RPG world where only Europeans existed, so they'd created a technological utopia without the other races messing everything up, do you think people would be giving it praise? Do you think it would be excused as speculative fiction?

It's not an RPG, but I recently read Poul Anderson's _The High Crusade_, which has a related premise. It projects is that if the English in the 1300s were colonized by a high-tech alien invaders, they would just saddle up, learn the tech, and take over that conquering empire. For the glory of God and England.

That's a very obvious allegory to how other historical cultures that encountered higher-tech colonizers, and didn't fare so well.

As far as I can tell, it has been excused as speculative fiction. If it were written today, it would probably be condemned by liberals and excused by conservatives. If someone wrote a parallel story about Native Americans overcoming alien invaders, the opposite would be true.

Interesting. I will have to give that a read!

However, in the colonization of the Americas, aside from the ships to sail there, I don't think technology played a significant role. It was 90% the result of disease which nobody at the time understood. Countless natives died of European diseases without ever seeing a European. The other 10% was diplomacy, dumb luck, and superstition, as exemplified by Cortes and a ragged band vs. the Aztec Empire. Horses and firearms played a role, as did the cultural mindset of the Europeans, but not nearly as much as popularly thought.

[jhkim]

If someone wrote an RPG world where only Europeans existed, so they'd created a technological utopia without the other races messing everything up, do you think people would be giving it praise? Do you think it would be excused as speculative fiction?

It's not an RPG, but I recently read Poul Anderson's _The High Crusade_, which has a related premise. It projects is that if the English in the 1300s were colonized by a high-tech alien invaders, they would just saddle up, learn the tech, and take over that conquering empire. For the glory of God and England.

That's a very obvious allegory to how other historical cultures that encountered higher-tech colonizers, and didn't fare so well.

As far as I can tell, it has been excused as speculative fiction. If it were written today, it would probably be condemned by liberals and excused by conservatives. If someone wrote a parallel story about Native Americans overcoming alien invaders, the opposite would be true.

Interesting. I will have to give that a read!

However, in the colonization of the Americas, aside from the ships to sail there, I don't think technology played a significant role. It was 90% the result of disease which nobody at the time understood. Countless natives died of European diseases without ever seeing a European. The other 10% was diplomacy, dumb luck, and superstition, as exemplified by Cortes and a ragged band vs. the Aztec Empire. Horses and firearms played a role, as did the cultural mindset of the Europeans, but not nearly as much as popularly thought.

I generally agree. My point isn't about historical reality, but what The High Crusade was conveying by allegory. Back in 1960 when the novel was published, the role of disease was not widely recognized, even though all the historical data was still there.

[rytrasmi]

If someone wrote an RPG world where only Europeans existed, so they'd created a technological utopia without the other races messing everything up, do you think people would be giving it praise? Do you think it would be excused as speculative fiction?

It's not an RPG, but I recently read Poul Anderson's _The High Crusade_, which has a related premise. It projects is that if the English in the 1300s were colonized by a high-tech alien invaders, they would just saddle up, learn the tech, and take over that conquering empire. For the glory of God and England.

That's a very obvious allegory to how other historical cultures that encountered higher-tech colonizers, and didn't fare so well.

As far as I can tell, it has been excused as speculative fiction. If it were written today, it would probably be condemned by liberals and excused by conservatives. If someone wrote a parallel story about Native Americans overcoming alien invaders, the opposite would be true.

Interesting. I will have to give that a read!

However, in the colonization of the Americas, aside from the ships to sail there, I don't think technology played a significant role. It was 90% the result of disease which nobody at the time understood. Countless natives died of European diseases without ever seeing a European. The other 10% was diplomacy, dumb luck, and superstition, as exemplified by Cortes and a ragged band vs. the Aztec Empire. Horses and firearms played a role, as did the cultural mindset of the Europeans, but not nearly as much as popularly thought.

I generally agree. My point isn't about historical reality, but what The High Crusade was conveying by allegory. Back in 1960 when the novel was published, the role of disease was not widely recognized, even though all the historical data was still there.

Yeah, I did not intend that to be a lecture for you. Mostly just old man yells at cloud.

The narrative of high-tech expansionist colonists vs noble savages living in harmony with nature is a hard one to shake. People have a deep-seated need to read intention into things that just happen.

[Wrath of God]

So a TBP staff member and moderator is calling RPGPundit and Zak S. Neo-Nazis. The latter definitely seems to have various issues, and the former is by admission a "shitlord", but saying they are fascist white supremacist in alignment with the political ideology of the Nazi Party would seem slanderous. It's more than just a hot take. But nobody can dare push back on those charges to even the slightest degree or they'll catch a ban by the TBP mods.

Well they were smart enough to avoid names, alas if names were used that's definitely reason to sue for slander.

[wmarshal]

So a TBP staff member and moderator is calling RPGPundit and Zak S. Neo-Nazis. The latter definitely seems to have various issues, and the former is by admission a "shitlord", but saying they are fascist white supremacist in alignment with the political ideology of the Nazi Party would seem slanderous. It's more than just a hot take. But nobody can dare push back on those charges to even the slightest degree or they'll catch a ban by the TBP mods.

Well they were smart enough to avoid names, alas if names were used that's definitely reason to sue for slander.

I don't think names are required to understand who is being talked about. They have shut down conversations about ACKS where it was being referred to in a round about way. TBP understands that avoiding names is not a safe harbor. Or at least they ought to.

Also, if not RPGPundit and Zak, then who are the two Neo-Nazi consultants WOTC hired for 5E? (It's clearly RPGPundit and Zak, but other consultants would probably disliked being put in the category of possibly being the Neo-Nazis Zeea is claiming Mike Mearls and WOTC hired for 5E.)

[Ghostmaker]

They're not outright naming them, though, so any legal nastygrams can be fended off with 'oh, we weren't talking about YOU'.

Which is, of course, a coward's tactic and par for the course with TBP. And remember, Zak already wrung an apology out of Ettin (a former mod). They're probably trying to avoid that same misstep.

[Ratman_tf]

PS- Bonus points for where the lore states they have 99% effective birth control, but also trumpets they have abortions for all.

    I'm reading the thread now, and I just hit the point where the reader drops that "children are not considered fully fledged humans until after they finish breastfeeding."

     

    Can you say "casual infanticide," ladies and gentlemen?

Is that what's implied? We don't consider children to be responsible adults until the age of 18(ish). "Fully fledged humans" does sound a bit "Post birth abortion is ok", but I'd like to give someone the benefit of the doubt on that until clarified.