Quote from: tenbones;1038244I'm curious. Do you think that D&D before the inclusionary language was de-facto *exclusionary* for not specifying inclusive language for LGBT+ crowd? If so on the basis of what? Because by that logic then D&D will always be exclusionary to someone. This is the fun part of the ideology that conflates the importance of the small over the large without context or presumption of intention to be actually exclusionary.

What this does is turn the endeavor itself into a game of meta-politics. It becomes enslaved by the projections of those whose feelings can never be assuaged because of their own self-loathing that is married to the narcissism of self-entitlement merely by appearance.

No, I don't think that the game was inherently exclusionary for not specifying. As I said, women can and did have fun playing D&D in previous editions. Conversely, though, if a game has mostly women in the pictures and examples and background, that doesn't inherently exclude men.

I do think that pictures and examples and background do have some effect - but that is encouragement, not exclusion.

I do consider it hypocritical whining if someone says (a) women could perfectly well play older edition D&D even though there were few illustrations, examples, and background showing heroic women; and (b) men are excluded from a new D&D edition if it includes women in the illustrations, examples, and background.

Quote from: jhkim;1038234This is a load of crap.
... I think it is a crock of shit to think that your game is "desecrated" by other people playing Lamentations.

Agreed.

Let me point out that I'm against the tabloid journalism of amateurs using a platform to punish/lambaste a person. There are better ways to address sexual harrassment (or inequality, or unequal representation), than burning people publicly.

I absolutely support people making WHAT EVER kinds of games they want. LGBTQ people should make games that appeal to their desires and preferences. It certainly does NOT mean that now hetero white dudes should stop making games. There is PLENTY of room in the industry for everyone!

I am absolutely opposed to ANY censorship, ANY gate-keeping, ANY rules that exclude ANYONE from this hobby. Period!

Everyone has a right to express concerns, opinions and produce the kind of games they want to see. People need to focus on what makes them happy and leave others alone with what makes them happy.

I'm tired of the White Knights / over-zealous SJWs / over-zealous Religious types telling us what to do! Take care of your shit, and leave my shit alone! Why can't we just appreciate what we have and be happy for others who appreciate what they have? When did this become so fucking difficult.

Quote from: jhkim;1038234D&D should be for all of women, homosexuals, men, and heterosexuals.

Even those who are uninterested in actually playing the game?

Quote from: jhkim;1038252No, I don't think that the game was inherently exclusionary for not specifying. As I said, women can and did have fun playing D&D in previous editions. Conversely, though, if a game has mostly women in the pictures and examples and background, that doesn't inherently exclude men.

I do think that pictures and examples and background do have some effect - but that is encouragement, not exclusion.

Fair enough. But then conversely to that - without actual evidence that including images on some magical forumula (as seen in the Harvard Study where the professor spent his time counting pictures for representation balance) has some form of impact on demographics, where is this data? Is that actually provable? (this might be an aside...) Or is it just a feeling based on demographics they can't seem to analyze beyond the surface appearance so it must be some male heterodoxy at work.

Because the real question becomes: in order to not be exclusionary, why then is it necessary, or even fiscally responsible to denigrate your largest and primary demographic for the purposes of going after a much smaller demographic that *may not actually exist*?

We both agree that there is a difference between being inclusionary/exclusionary by choice without having to be overt at *either*. But yet - WotC's devs have actually made that choice. They have, whether you agree it's done in humor or not, said or implied that D&D needs less men. If the implication of more images have some desired effect, why in the world would that implication not extend to the overt messaging of the opposite of that? And again - *to what end*?

Quote from: jhkim;1038252I do consider it hypocritical whining if someone says (a) women could perfectly well play older edition D&D even though there were few illustrations, examples, and background showing heroic women; and (b) men are excluded from a new D&D edition if it includes women in the illustrations, examples, and background.

Okay I may have missed that. I dunno where anyone said those things. I personally find the use of surface-level observations as causal factors disingenuous at best. It leads to the picture-counting scenario being evident of something that to my knowledge has zero support scientifically, though people seem perfectly happy to make that leap if it serves their larger narrative. But I'll stand on the larger fact of these demographics that WotC are making a direct appeal to something that may not exist (the diversity demographic) - and they're making that appeal directly at the expense of their primary demographic, whom they are casting shade on based purely on huge generalizations. Those things might be zero-sum in how they're tackling it as well.

Some of those generalizations, I might add, seem to crop up with those in their own ideological camp far more frequently than they would admit. Meanwhile... how does this serve the game - or the industry at large?

Here's something I think is some middle-ground on this topic...

I believe it's less of an issue of ideology than methodology. For instance most people not in the SJW camp, generally didn't care about most of the perceived issues the SJW's have groused about. Some are legit (but I'm going to ballpark the vast majority aren't to non-SJW's). But it's the methodology of how SJW's go about trying to "address" those issues that freak people out.

For instance - there is gigantic presumption the surface appearance of things are what is important, and no one is responsible for their own agency in any interactions, but if you're appear to be on the list of oppressed people - then you have some form of diplomatic immunity from bad decision-making. Case in point: Presumed guilt based on arbitrary accusations free of evidence. Presumed guilt based on gender. Presumed guilt based on sexual plumbing. Presumed guilt based on non-proscribed language. Presumed guilt on non-proscribed thoughts.

And the emergent playbook of how you insert these ideas into the culture has trickled down into nearly every nook and cranny of society. It's become a meta-game of not trying engage in endeavors for their own sake, but to throw a wet blanket on all endeavors unless they now meet the criteria of untouchable Oppression Olympians who are immune to their own ideology depending on their own hierarchy which they conveniently pretend they don't exist.

This literally is why we can't have good things. Because all the things have to be pre-judged in the light of what the Oppression Police have dictated what is proper free of any actual facts. I think the reality is SJW's don't really want any of the things they say they want. I don't think it's demonstrably true in any meaningful fashion where they have, in fact, made a difference they themselves can live with. This thread - and the Guilt-by-accusation to be tried and prosecuted in public is part of that failed methodology. And it's not about justice. It's about revenge.

And I'm not saying those two things aren't linked. But in the hands of naive, ignorant, and overly emotional people - they become weapons. And unfortunately, not everyone submits when attacked. Hence - we have the current state we're in.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038262Even those who are uninterested in actually playing the game?

Well, obviously they're uninterested in playing the game because they're not included, so therefore we need to rectify that...

Quote from: Brad;1038272Well, obviously they're uninterested in playing the game because they're not included, so therefore we need to rectify that...

Who is not including them? And what does inclusion entail? What evidence is their disinterest has to do with their belief they're not feeling included that isn't motivated by something else other than feelings?

Quote from: tenbones;1038282Who is not including them? And what does inclusion entail? What evidence is their disinterest has to do with their belief they're not feeling included that isn't motivated by something else other than feelings?

Probably needed sarcasm tags on that. I guess it's like saying basketball only appeals to tall guys because there aren't any midgets in the NBA. Obviously we need midget players to be more inclusive!

Quote from: tenbones;1038282And what does inclusion entail?

Simple! Every possible current and future favored group must be explicitly positively portrayed and there can be NO negative portrayal of anything that could even remotely be construed as a representing a favored group (no matter how absurd). The thought police shall render judgement of adherence and violators will be publicly shamed out of existence.

Quote from: Brad;1038283Probably needed sarcasm tags on that. I guess it's like saying basketball only appeals to tall guys because there aren't any midgets in the NBA. Obviously we need midget players to be more inclusive!

LOL Halflings! Dorfs! Gnomes! O-my!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1037288I dont' care about harassment anymore. It's none of my business, and...



... an awful lot of this going on.

That's the problem with any movement based on Identitarianism. It eats itself. They're always going through Purity Purges.

Quote from: S'mon;1038239I don't think they are the same SJWs, no. Regular sex-hating SJWs are very hostile to Zak Sabbath, James Raggi et al. I'm not saying those guys aren't a bunch of filthy degenerate pornographer feminist commie pinko liberals - and Mandy Morbid does a bunch of Youtube stuff in the WoTC orbit - but they are definitely not the same group as the RPG industry's SJW Red Guard cadre.

For the most part, they're not SJWs.
Silas is trying to mix up two different groups. The crowd taking over D&D (Crawford, etc) are virulently against female sexuality but are fervently pro-LGBT. They aren't pro-LGBT because they want to spread some kind of 'degeneracy' but because they are in an ideological war. These are the kind of people who would be demanding Gender Fluid Elves in RPG books but also demanding that Venger Satanis' books be censored.

The SJWs, like our friend Silas, are moral prudes that have a high disgust factor at anything they personally wouldn't like to the point of thinking it shouldn't exist.

The other guys he brought up (the DIY OSR people) are just libertines, albeit a lot of them are otherwise leftist without realizing the irony of it.
And of course Zak, who is absolutely DESPERATE to be admitted as a member of the SJW club to the point that he's disavowed pretty much the entire OSR to try to win them over, but they're never ever going to want him because he did Porn.

The fallout from all this will likely not recede as fast as the previous outrage outcries have. If anything it seems to be spreading more and more.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1038294For the most part, they're not SJWs.
Silas is trying to mix up two different groups. The crowd taking over D&D (Crawford, etc) are virulently against female sexuality but are fervently pro-LGBT. They aren't pro-LGBT because they want to spread some kind of 'degeneracy' but because they are in an ideological war. These are the kind of people who would be demanding Gender Fluid Elves in RPG books but also demanding that Venger Satanis' books be censored.

The SJWs, like our friend Silas, are moral prudes that have a high disgust factor at anything they personally wouldn't like to the point of thinking it shouldn't exist.

The other guys he brought up (the DIY OSR people) are just libertines, albeit a lot of them are otherwise leftist without realizing the irony of it.
And of course Zak, who is absolutely DESPERATE to be admitted as a member of the SJW club to the point that he's disavowed pretty much the entire OSR to try to win them over, but they're never ever going to want him because he did Porn.

Don't group me in with SJWs. I am not a "moral prude", nor do I think book should be banned, etc.

There are RPGs specifically designed for a mature audience (Necroscope, Creepshow, Blue Rose, or even Call of Cthulhu to some degree) and there are RPGs that have a history of being family-friendly, such as D&D. I have no problem with someone writing a RPG for a specific audience, but I do have a problem with gay activists hijacking an existing game and turning it into something else. As a consumer, I can object.

LotFP falls somewhere in-between, as it uses the OSR rules, but directs the game into new, gory territory. At the end of the day, I don't have an issue with it, but I do see some of the motivations behind it. The Ennies judges love to give it rewards, even though guys like Zack are held in suspicion.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1038223Documentation, please? This is such an overt and outrageous statement that I have trouble wrapping my head around it.

He has openly talked about it at conventions, and will probably tell you he does it if you reach out to him. He doesn't see any issue with doing this, as Republicans and Trump supporters are literal Nazis who do not belong in the gaming industry, or even in the US.

He isn't quite as bad as Jeff Dee though (author of V&V). Jeff argues that conservatives should be treated like the Nazi war criminals at the Nurnberg trials (executed basically), that the First Amendment doesn't apply to people who disagree with him, and that violence should be used against the political right. He makes Yvette Falarca look like a moderate.

Go check out the social media of these guys for a month or two. It is as frightening as it is humorous.