Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on June 27, 2024, 08:43:16 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on June 27, 2024, 05:45:23 PMUltimately a choice between maintaining the fictional integrity of the setting and validating a player's lived experiences must be made when they are in opposition, and unless those priorities are clear someone's gonna have a bad time.

To be fair, if that's exactly what products like this are trying to do -- i.e. support players in creating settings where the fictional integrity and their desired validations don't have to be in opposition -- then in and of itself I've never had a problem with that, as an optional goal of play.

It's the ongoing implication (and occasional outright assertion) that neglecting to actively include PCs and NPCs who require such support is a moral flaw on the part of those who don't to which I object. This is entertainment, not Sunday school.

Except they are doing it at the expense of the majority of players that have decades of time invested in these products, who are now being demonized for not wanting these "experiences" shoved down their throat in the products, and worse for voicing their opinions on it in social media or in person at public events.

The problem is not that the product is trying to represent these experiences for these outlier weirdos, it's that the brand has been co-opted by them, and we're watching it happen in real-time across all of pop-culture for purposes other than actual entertainment.

It might be entertaining for the weirdos - but then that would be defending the purpose of having a nude tea-party in the middle of the Super-Bowl because those weirdos think it's more fun, and claiming "This is now American Football." now all you NFL fans can go fuck off with your tea-phobic views.

This is why I'm in the camp that says - we'll just see if the weirdos can sustain this shit. In the meanwhile, we'll be playing ball over here with the regular folks.

Quote from: tenbones on July 05, 2024, 10:00:06 AMThe problem is not that the product is trying to represent these experiences for these outlier weirdos, it's that the brand has been co-opted by them, and we're watching it happen in real-time across all of pop-culture for purposes other than actual entertainment.

Without disagreeing that the frequency and volume of content aimed at fringe-interest groups is increasing, I have to wonder if declaring the brand to have been wholly co-opted is quite reasonable yet. Roleplaying games have over fifty years of history and an immense collected volume of products, most of which is still available exactly as originally printed (or likely to become so available from, er, let's call them "enterprising amateur distributors" if demand gets high enough); the rush of Current Year items has a long way to go before it can match that, either for volume or longevity.

(As Elmore Leonard said when asked what he thought of how Hollywood movie adaptations had changed his books, "Nobody changed my books. They're right up there on the shelf.")

That said, you may well be right about the basic clash of goals here. Ultimately the problem is the difficulty of finding a middle ground between players who don't want to have to pay an extra surcharge for supplements so they can be explicitly acknowledged and included, and players who don't want to have to pay for core products that include too much content for which they have no interest or use at the expense of content they can use. Even though nowadays it might actually be economically feasible, via PDFs and electronic distribution, to create separate versions of core game products customized to the wishes of differing groups, the problem is that the bad-faith rabble rousers more interested in provoking conflict than resolving it will only throw tantrums at any hint of "separate but equal". It is this last group I particularly dislike and resent.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 05, 2024, 04:14:20 PM

Quote from: tenbones on July 05, 2024, 10:00:06 AMThe problem is not that the product is trying to represent these experiences for these outlier weirdos, it's that the brand has been co-opted by them, and we're watching it happen in real-time across all of pop-culture for purposes other than actual entertainment.

Without disagreeing that the frequency and volume of content aimed at fringe-interest groups is increasing, I have to wonder if declaring the brand to have been wholly co-opted is quite reasonable yet. Roleplaying games have over fifty years of history and an immense collected volume of products, most of which is still available exactly as originally printed (or likely to become so available from, er, let's call them "enterprising amateur distributors" if demand gets high enough); the rush of Current Year items has a long way to go before it can match that, either for volume or longevity.

(As Elmore Leonard said when asked what he thought of how Hollywood movie adaptations had changed his books, "Nobody changed my books. They're right up there on the shelf.")

That said, you may well be right about the basic clash of goals here. Ultimately the problem is the difficulty of finding a middle ground between players who don't want to have to pay an extra surcharge for supplements so they can be explicitly acknowledged and included, and players who don't want to have to pay for core products that include too much content for which they have no interest or use at the expense of content they can use. Even though nowadays it might actually be economically feasible, via PDFs and electronic distribution, to create separate versions of core game products customized to the wishes of differing groups, the problem is that the bad-faith rabble rousers more interested in provoking conflict than resolving it will only throw tantrums at any hint of "separate but equal". It is this last group I particularly dislike and resent.

Citing older editions as proof that WotC and therefore D&D haven't been wholly co-opted is kinda disingenuous, yeah they can't change my books, not because they don't want to, but because those are in my possession and beyond their reach.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 05, 2024, 06:16:55 PMCiting older editions as proof that WotC and therefore D&D haven't been wholly co-opted is kinda disingenuous....

I wasn't intending to be. By "brand" I thought you were talking about RPGs in general as a hobby, not D&D and WotC specifically.

I certainly don't have a high opinion of 5E or the current Wizards management, I just don't think they represent the entirety of the RPG hobby, or even the entirety of what the hobby considers "D&D". There's too much history for that.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 05, 2024, 09:27:35 AMAny female who is depicted remotely fit & attractive is "oversexualized" even if shown wearing a nun's habit.

That dips into a sexual fetish of its own...

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 05, 2024, 04:14:20 PMAs Elmore Leonard said when asked what he thought of how Hollywood movie adaptations had changed his books, "Nobody changed my books. They're right up there on the shelf."

[somethingsomething] Physical Media [/somethingsomething].

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 05, 2024, 09:04:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 05, 2024, 06:16:55 PMCiting older editions as proof that WotC and therefore D&D haven't been wholly co-opted is kinda disingenuous....

I wasn't intending to be. By "brand" I thought you were talking about RPGs in general as a hobby, not D&D and WotC specifically.

I certainly don't have a high opinion of 5E or the current Wizards management, I just don't think they represent the entirety of the RPG hobby, or even the entirety of what the hobby considers "D&D". There's too much history for that.

So, if I say that Disney has tarnished it's brand you understand I'm talking about ALL of Hollyweird?

Let's try with other example: "Ford has tarnished it's brand" Am I talking about ALL car manufacturers?

It might be my Assburguers but I fail to see how can anyone read D&D/WotC and thin we're talking about RPGs in general, except maybe a normie?

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 05, 2024, 04:14:20 PMUltimately the problem is the difficulty of finding a middle ground between players who don't want to have to pay an extra surcharge for supplements so they can be explicitly acknowledged and included...

And there it is.  See, part of what makes the cooption so abrasive is the sense of entitlement and arrogance of these game-tourists.  People who have never been accommodating or tolerant now demand we change the games we've been playing for decades in the name of those principles they have no intention of extending to us.

Allow me to be very clear.  No one explicitly acknowledged or included me in D&D. Ever.  I've played D&D with friends, family, and total strangers.  I've played in home groups, public groups, organized play, and conventions.  None of them "explicitly acknowledged and included" me.  Most didn't know anything about me at all, as that was our first meeting.  But we all shared a love of the game and a desire to play.  So our games were far more "inclusive" than modern political activists' declarations, because I've played games with every color, sex, and culture.    All because the only thing that mattered was that they wanted to play the game.

No game company ever "explicitly acknowledged and included" me, either.  They made the games they wanted to play, and we either played them or changed them or made our own.  Did some games default to heterosexual, male heroism?  Sure.  But that's not because the designers "saw" me.  It's because that was either who the designer was, or who he knew would buy the game.

So, when these people declare a need to be "seen," they are demanding something I never got.  They aren't making something new.  They aren't adding to the universe of gaming.  They are demanding that the games I play change to explicitly cater to their "needs" (which is also infuriating, since they don't "need" any more than I did).  That's arrogance and narcissism.  So, no.  Go make your new game if you need to be "seen."  Pay more for your gay prom adventure set in magic high school.  That's the cost of being "seen."

Don't come to my dance party and tell me that I have to change the music to make you feel more "comfortable," especially when you have no desire to play music that I like at your own parties.  These people aren't poor little victims that need to be "seen"; they're bullies who want to take everyone else's stuff under the moral pretense of not being "acknowledged."  Screw that noise.

Do dungeons now need to have handicap-accessible bathrooms, so handicapped people can make a trip to the can?  Can toilet paper be hidden in a treasure chest, or is that ableist to not have it right there in the can?

Quote from: Cathode Ray on July 07, 2024, 03:31:51 PMDo dungeons now need to have handicap-accessible bathrooms, so handicapped people can make a trip to the can?  Can toilet paper be hidden in a treasure chest, or is that ableist to not have it right there in the can?

How dare you!  Don't you know that some cultures don't use toilet paper?  Are you islamaphobic? /s

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 06, 2024, 11:21:56 PMSo, if I say that Disney has tarnished it's brand you understand I'm talking about ALL of Hollyweird?

Not at all. But the original comment I was responding to -- which actually came from tenbones, not yourself -- said simply "brand". Not "D&D brand" or "WotC brand", just "brand".

Once the conversation expands to the idea of disability-advocacy game products in general, rather than the specific product used as the inspiring example, I assume the subject goes beyond specifics. That's most likely my own form of OC hyperfocus -- I always like to drill down to underlying general principles -- but it certainly wasn't meant to be disingenuous; apologies for giving that impression.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 07, 2024, 02:32:57 PMNo one explicitly acknowledged or included me in D&D. Ever. ...Did some games default to heterosexual, male heroism?  Sure.  But that's not because the designers "saw" me.  It's because that was either who the designer was, or who he knew would buy the game.

So, when these people declare a need to be "seen," they are demanding something I never got.

But that's the entire point of that argument. You (in this context including me as well, and most players who don't have these challenges) did get it: you (and I et al) were "seen". We simply never noticed being "seen" (goes the claim) because everybody around us was also getting the same experience, the experience they never got -- i.e. the experience of being assumed to be part of the baseline audience.

We weren't explicitly acknowledged or included, but we didn't need to be because nothing in the games functionally ex-cluded us, in the sense of making characters like us counterproductive to play in the game -- we (meaning characters who shared our own real limitations) were never consistently and regularly on the short end of situations which required actions most people could execute at least moderately well but we couldn't (being able to climb stairs, run fast, see or hear adequately, speak clearly, manipulate objects precisely, read quickly and accurately, respond apropos and coherently, etc.). Fish don't appreciate that their own water is clean if they've never had to swim in dirty waters.

That most of those browbeating others about this are doing it as an excuse to be bullies or sell products, rather than genuine concern for other players, I don't deny. Likewise I fully concede the hypocrisy and narcissism of saying something like, "I just want to feel as 'normal' and 'effective' and 'represented' as anybody else," and then trying to use one's issues as emotional blackmail to gain special priority, commandeer attention, hog the spotlight, and disregard criticism. But people unjustly exploiting an issue doesn't invalidate the issue. If there's a practical way to thread that needle -- to shut down the bullies and narcissists without screwing over players just looking for ways to improve their own gaming experiences -- I still think it's worth trying to find.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 08, 2024, 12:30:58 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 07, 2024, 02:32:57 PMNo one explicitly acknowledged or included me in D&D. Ever. ...Did some games default to heterosexual, male heroism?  Sure.  But that's not because the designers "saw" me.  It's because that was either who the designer was, or who he knew would buy the game.

So, when these people declare a need to be "seen," they are demanding something I never got.

But that's the entire point of that argument. You (in this context including me as well, and most players who don't have these challenges) did get it: you (and I et al) were "seen". We simply never noticed being "seen" (goes the claim) because everybody around us was also getting the same experience, the experience they never got -- i.e. the experience of being assumed to be part of the baseline audience.

We weren't explicitly acknowledged or included, but we didn't need to be because nothing in the games functionally ex-cluded us, in the sense of making characters like us counterproductive to play in the game -- we (meaning characters who shared our own real limitations) were never consistently and regularly on the short end of situations which required actions most people could execute at least moderately well but we couldn't (being able to climb stairs, run fast, see or hear adequately, speak clearly, manipulate objects precisely, read quickly and accurately, respond apropos and coherently, etc.). Fish don't appreciate that their own water is clean if they've never had to swim in dirty waters.

That most of those browbeating others about this are doing it as an excuse to be bullies or sell products, rather than genuine concern for other players, I don't deny. Likewise I fully concede the hypocrisy and narcissism of saying something like, "I just want to feel as 'normal' and 'effective' and 'represented' as anybody else," and then trying to use one's issues as emotional blackmail to gain special priority, commandeer attention, hog the spotlight, and disregard criticism. But people unjustly exploiting an issue doesn't invalidate the issue. If there's a practical way to thread that needle -- to shut down the bullies and narcissists without screwing over players just looking for ways to improve their own gaming experiences -- I still think it's worth trying to find.

When I started playing I was a skinny, four eyes, nerd...

As me how many PCs I built that were skinny, four eyes, nerds?

None, because the game's point isn't to play your exact copy, but to become something you aren't. What was preventing someone with disabilities from playing? No books on braille, but your friends could help you, granted it's harder to play if you don't know how stuff look, but I don't think ANY of the "Muh Represhentashun" advocates are trying to solve any of that.

Being deaf or mute could also present an obstacle, but easier to overcome than blindness, in order to play I mean.

Wheelchairs... well, not being able to walk IRL represents no challenge to be able to play.

The target demographic wasn't "Huwhite, straight, buzzword, buzzword, commie gobledygook, buzzword", it was teens with an imagination that wanted to pretend to be someone/something they weren't.

So, what exactly, was preventing ANYONE from playing pretend "(being able to climb stairs, run fast, see or hear adequately, speak clearly, manipulate objects precisely, read quickly and accurately, respond apropos and coherently, etc.)"?

IF the "advocates" were asking for book in braille, audiobooks, or other stuff that could help them overcome the obstacles they have to be able to play you might have a reason to assume they have good intentions, but they aren't.

If you can't identify with a character unless it's your clone then you're a narcissistic sociopath and I don't want you near me (the royal you). I don't care if you're suffering from some disability, come play pretend, roll some dice and have fun or go away to preach and browbeat somewhere else.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 08, 2024, 12:30:58 PMIf there's a practical way to thread that needle -- to shut down the bullies and narcissists without screwing over players just looking for ways to improve their own gaming experiences -- I still think it's worth trying to find.

There isn't. Any concession made to latter group will always feed the former and encourage them to push for the next step.

The big problem I have with this is that I don't trust the motivations behind it, even of the people you put in the second category. As far as I can tell, this demand to be "seen" didn't exist 15-20 years ago. When diversity first started being pushed hard in media back in the 80s and 90s, the justification was to "combat negative stereotypes" of minorities. Now we live in a world where portraying a negative stereotype of a minority in any major media project will get you tarred and feathered (unless you have certain kinds of social or economic clout) and hey presto, suddenly the justification has changed.

Frankly, I think the bullies taught the other group to think this way, and if they get what they demand, they will then teach them another grievance to have. The only solution is to reject the premise, and try to teach those people that they shouldn't identify solely with their incidental characteristics and don't need to be replicated in fiction in order to be included in it.

Suppose that instead of illustrating the fantasy character in a wheelchair, they did one of those illustrations of a party juxtaposed with the players, and showed a player in a wheelchair playing a fantasy character without that disability. That would still be pandering, but it would be a much more positive message.

Inclusion is a lie. Always has been.

What was fixed by inclusion on TV? Nothing. Racial disparities have gotten worse in this country for the 99% (even if the 1% Hollywood star elites have been rewarded).

It's a distraction from real, actual social issues... like fixing Urban American schools. Fix the dang schools already. You won't need a rigged, racist Quota system if you fixed the dang primary school system!

Nothing is solved with inclusion. Asian Americans are EXCLUDED (especially since they are "White Adjacent")... and yet they succeed. They've never needed inclusion to actually achieve in America. (Like... did I miss all the non-Kung Fu roles for Asian men in Hollywood, or did Asians somehow succeed in this society without racial pandering on TV and the movies?)

Inclusion is just a way for rich 1%er elite Whites to reward their obedient 1%er minority friends while tricking the 99% into thinking that they've solved some injustice in the world... when nothing ever changes for the 99%, ever.

There's ZERO reason for inclusion, and yet we're supposed to treat inclusion for inclusion's sake as a universal good?

It's a lie, like "Transwomen are women" and "Fat is healthy" and "Combat wheelchair man is as capable in melee combat as Able-bodied man".

If you want your fantasy game to be about Fat, Transwoman in a Wheelchair... well, fine. I don't want that product, but I guess there's a market for it somewhere.

/"I didn't leave Dungeons & Dragons... Dungeons & Dragons left me."