Quote from: Mistwell;1109342Wrong trendy argumentation retort. The trendy argumentation retort you were looking for is whataboutism, not strawman. I did not accuse him of making that argument. I compared his argument to another argument.

Unless you mean the lesbians and gays taking over snowball. Which was obvious hyperbole. Whatever people are afraid of with this, it's stupid. There is nothing to fear from this. Our culture is not being harmed by a couple of gay gnomes in your fantasy adventure book.

Quote from: jeff37923;1109348Sorry I described your disingenuous stupidity with the wrong term. I'll endeavor to be more accurate when describing the idiocy that you post in the future. :rolleyes:

I should back up here for a moment because I was in a hurry to get ready for work in my first response.

The annoyance you have brought out from me is because of how you are disingenuously framing your commentary. You are insinuating that any criticism of WotC's piss-poor writing is due to fear of the subject matter (the use of token gay characters and a lack of understanding for the setting), which makes it easier to dismiss such criticism. The thing is, I want the writing to be worth paying for. I shelled out my hard earned dollars for this and want my money's worth (which I think I haven't gotten). If I supported the social justice based inclusion of LGBT characters, then I'd be annoyed that the token gay characters are both pathetic and obviously shoehorned in to a throwaway adventure within the main module - they are practically comic relief (which is far more insulting than their tokenism).

The problem isn't that people who are critical of WotC are afraid of this material, the problem is that supporters of WotC are afraid of their favorite game being criticized accurately.

Quote from: tenbones;1109336FORTUNATELY my players don't get to determine what *I* want in my game. As I posted - I'm not going to run anything I don't want to run. That includes putting dumb stuff in there that doesn't belong. I don't GM by committee but I certainly ask them what they're interested to see if it dovetails with what I'm willing to run. Beyond that: they can choose to play/not play or run something themselves. Pretty easy.

If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.

I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.

Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.

I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.

What if they simply choose not to include dragonborn? Would the assumption be that they can not figure it out because they are not smart, or they allowed to make that choice without being attacked?

Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.

I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.

Yeah... I see what you mean.  This comment IS pretty retarded.

Quote from: jeff37923;1109290After having read it, I'd say that it was terrible and has little to no merit.

Thanks.

Quote from: Omega;1109299... It is either very sloppy or a very poor attempt at a joke location...

Without having read it, that sounds plausible. Humor is tough, especially in written form, and it could certainly explain the absurdity.

Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.

I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.

Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.

My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.

My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.

This.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.

My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.

It's the modern version of the old complaint against the Puritans.  The problem with the Puritans was that they were upset at the thought that somewhere a person was having fun.  Now it is people upset at the thought that somewhere a person was thinking for themselves.  Can't have either one in elf games.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1109381Yep, lemme just let some fuckwit's marketing decisions run completely roughshod over 20+ years of my setting's development.

My table, my setting, fuck you. Don't like it, fuck off.

The Viking Hat LIVES! Long may it be worn by GMs!

I had to tell an 11 year old boy there were no Dragonborn in Primeval Thule...
Once he got over it, and stopped threatening to boycott the campaign, he made a much cooler* character anyway.

*Literally - Vorstag the Frost Giant's Son!

Quote from: jeff37923;1109242I know that you are just kidding, but that kind of parody is something that I think would want to be avoided if the character inclusion was supposed to be taken seriously and not a stereotype.

:confused: :eek: A fair point. In honor of your gracious defense of your LGBT comrades, I am inclined to offer a more serious opinion on the other thread. This thread was never serious, except for the important questions about mimic anatomy.

Quote from: jeff37923;1109366I should back up here for a moment because I was in a hurry to get ready for work in my first response.

The annoyance you have brought out from me is because of how you are disingenuously framing your commentary. You are insinuating that any criticism of WotC's piss-poor writing is due to fear of the subject matter (the use of token gay characters and a lack of understanding for the setting), which makes it easier to dismiss such criticism. The thing is, I want the writing to be worth paying for. I shelled out my hard earned dollars for this and want my money's worth (which I think I haven't gotten). If I supported the social justice based inclusion of LGBT characters, then I'd be annoyed that the token gay characters are both pathetic and obviously shoehorned in to a throwaway adventure within the main module - they are practically comic relief (which is far more insulting than their tokenism).

The problem isn't that people who are critical of WotC are afraid of this material, the problem is that supporters of WotC are afraid of their favorite game being criticized accurately.

And that is a disingenuous description of most of the comments in this thread. There is a whole lot of "Ew you got your SJW in my peanut butter" in this thread. I have total sympathy for the "this doesn't make much sense" and "this is poorly written". I have no sympathy for the "yet more sign of the SJW apocalypse" tone of so many posts here.

Quote from: Shasarak;1109375If a DM can not figure out how to include a Dragonborn into a DnD setting then they are not smart enough to even be allowed to DM in the first place - and this is a game that a 11 year old can run.

I mean we are talking about serious levels of retardation here.

Well, you know - I don't include Zentraedi in my game either. Or Bi-clopses. Or Tri-clopses. Or Dinosaur men. Or any other arbitrary race I don't need or want to explain in my largely Greybox influenced game.

Could I put any of those things in there? sure. Easily. But I don't like them. I don't even think they belong - but hey, I get it. Marketing needs something new to show the kids.

I'll grant I still might be retarded tho. The question would be "compared to what". Being burdened with the curse of perspective is often something most people don't have to endure today... I'm just a poor little POC.

Quote from: Mistwell;1109433And that is a disingenuous description of most of the comments in this thread. There is a whole lot of "Ew you got your SJW in my peanut butter" in this thread.

So we have to like SJW shit in our peanut-butter too? Look at the title of the thread. Look at the content in which it's presented. do you think it's "good"? You seem to talk a lot of shit without actually saying anything.

If you like this stuff - sell it. We're right here. Instead you'd rather make passive-aggressive insinuations like a little twat. I'm down to have the discussion. What's objectively good about this, and the rest of the SJW stuff you pretend is "good". And tell us how? Tell me why my Asian Gnomes aren't represented? I've been asking again - multiple times - none of the allies to these ideas can explain it to me. Why is that?

Quote from: Mistwell;1109433I have total sympathy for the "this doesn't make much sense" and "this is poorly written". I have no sympathy for the "yet more sign of the SJW apocalypse" tone of so many posts here.

Great! Tell us why these things are connected. Tell us why having one doesn't immediately lead to the other? Because contrary to a LOT of people here, I do believe you can use SJW themes and make it good. I just don't think SJW's would like the ramifications of it. You've offered *nothing* to discuss... but c'mon, you didn't really want to do that.

Quote from: tenbones;1109443So we have to like SJW shit in our peanut-butter too? Look at the title of the thread. Look at the content in which it's presented. do you think it's "good"? You seem to talk a lot of shit without actually saying anything.

If you like this stuff - sell it. We're right here. Instead you'd rather make passive-aggressive insinuations like a little twat. I'm down to have the discussion. What's objectively good about this, and the rest of the SJW stuff you pretend is "good". And tell us how? Tell me why my Asian Gnomes aren't represented? I've been asking again - multiple times - none of the allies to these ideas can explain it to me. Why is that?




Great! Tell us why these things are connected. Tell us why having one doesn't immediately lead to the other? Because contrary to a LOT of people here, I do believe you can use SJW themes and make it good. I just don't think SJW's would like the ramifications of it. You've offered *nothing* to discuss... but c'mon, you didn't really want to do that.

Because there never was anything meaningful to discuss after the first couple of comments. IT'S MEANINGLESS. That's my point! I am not going to "sell it" because there is nothing to sell. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ADVENTURE ITSELF, AND DOES NO HARM IN ANY WAY aside from poorly written nonsense - which isn't unique to SJW issues at all.  People are free to dislike it, particularly if it makes no sense or is poorly written. But your reaction in particular is clearly way past those kinds of objections and well into "SJW Apocolypse oh my God they're taking over run for your lives grab the pitchforks if we don't stop it now our entire lives will be ruined" level of hysteria.

It's not like your reaction to this has been anything close to the tone you'd take to any other kind of poorly written or nonsense element of an adventure. If the gnomes were, say, posing as hobgoblins for no reason at all, you wouldn't be posting about it like this. You might make an off hand comment that it makes no sense or is poorly written, but you wouldn't go on and on like you are but-for the fact it's that they're GAY gnomes who are poorly written and make no sense. Add in the gay part and you freak your shit out.

Which is why I am bashing you for it. Calm down Francis. It's no more meaningful than any other minor element of an adventure which is poorly written or makes no sense.