Quote from: Omega;1110963Your strawman is showing.

Sure is!

My only point is that anyone should be able to be the bad guy. Just because a character (or NPC) is identifiable as LGBT doesn't mean they must be represented as LG.

Quote from: Sunsword;1110916Sadly, WotC has demonstrated that this level of inclusion is for attention and not just a reflection of the world we live in. And I'm torn if this adventure, which makes a gay character a villain and mentally ill, should be presented in a Starter set. Imagine being a young member of the LGBT and this game you are hearing about as inclusive, casts someone you identify with as mentally ill and the bad guy.

If a character can't be the bad guy, it isn't representation, it's pandering.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1110925Imagine being an old white guy with a beard that suffers from anxiety & depression and discovering that that they've cast an old white guy with a beard as a crazy necromancer... Same shit, different labels.

Gonna try to keep this short, because I think I suspect it won't be super new ideas to anyone here: I think this is actually the crux of the problem: when you make a big deal about how "Inclusive!" a character/game is, the character ceases to be its own thing and becomes a representative of the whole group. Its flaws are the group's flaws, its failures are the group's failures. This is why they all tend to be Mary Sues.

I'm not an Old White Guy With a Beard, but I would be grumpy and suspicious if I picked up a piece of media that advertised itself on being "Inclusive!" of Old White Guy With a Beard Tribe, and then saw that said "included" character was shitty. The selling point is that this Tribe is "Represented!" and "Included!", and then the Token Inclusion is a frickin' jerk?

But it could also be that my perception is biased by the zeitgeist of "Inclusive!" meaning "Old White Guys Are The Literal Worst!" and "Exclude People!".

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111061Gonna try to keep this short, because I think I suspect it won't be super new ideas to anyone here: I think this is actually the crux of the problem: when you make a big deal about how "Inclusive!" a character/game is, the character ceases to be its own thing and becomes a representative of the whole group. Its flaws are the group's flaws, its failures are the group's failures. This is why they all tend to be Mary Sues.

I'm not an Old White Guy With a Beard, but I would be grumpy and suspicious if I picked up a piece of media that advertised itself on being "Inclusive!" of Old White Guy With a Beard Tribe, and then saw that said "included" character was shitty. The selling point is that this Tribe is "Represented!" and "Included!", and then the Token Inclusion is a frickin' jerk?

But it could also be that my perception is biased by the zeitgeist of "Inclusive!" meaning "Old White Guys Are The Literal Worst!" and "Exclude People!".

A very good insight, and I agree. I couldn't give two shits about a couple of gay gnomes in an RPG setting, but there's so much identity politics surrounding the issue, it's nearly impossible to ignore and just get on with the gaming.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111061I'm not an Old White Guy With a Beard, but I would be grumpy and suspicious if I picked up a piece of media that advertised itself on being "Inclusive!" of Old White Guy With a Beard Tribe, and then saw that said "included" character was shitty. The selling point is that this Tribe is "Represented!" and "Included!", and then the Token Inclusion is a frickin' jerk?

First of all, has WotC actually advertised the Essentials Kit as being inclusive of gays because of the gnome kings? I haven't seen such claimed earlier.

Second, even if they did, then the problem would be the tokenism. It shouldn't be that gay characters should never appear in modules or can't be the villain/opponent. Would you agree?

Quote from: jhkim;1111079First of all, has WotC actually advertised the Essentials Kit as being inclusive of gays because of the gnome kings? I haven't seen such claimed earlier.

Second, even if they did, then the problem would be the tokenism. It shouldn't be that gay characters should never appear in modules or can't be the villain/opponent. Would you agree?

I noted this before in various threads. So far all of these instances are stealth inserts. I do not think a single one has been crowed.

WOTC has been busy crowing elsewhere, and sometimes loudly. But the modules? Not a peep.

I am betting each module has at lease one gay insert that is totally meaningless and maybee one insert that has at least a little background. Bemusingly so far all but one, maybee two have been either villains or of questionable sanity. I would in no way call the gnome king a villain. He is just in a panic state and not thinking.

Quote from: jhkim;1111079First of all, has WotC actually advertised the Essentials Kit as being inclusive of gays because of the gnome kings? I haven't seen such claimed earlier.

I was writing about a general problem with the ideas of representation and of tokenism, and using HappyDaze's example in specific, not about the Essentials Kit. I don't know anything first hand about its contents or its marketing. That said, I think it's correct to state that WotC and D&D have both marketed heavily on "inclusion and diversity" in general, though.

Mea culpa, in retrospect, that might make it off topic, though I think it's relevant to the overall related-to-gnome-kings discussion of how to effectively develop characters in general and with "representative" aspects in particular.

Quote from: jhkim;1111079Second, even if they did, then the problem would be the tokenism. It shouldn't be that gay characters should never appear in modules or can't be the villain/opponent. Would you agree?

I agree, though I find it interesting that you wanted to raise that over what I said.

I want interesting characters developed as flawed, inspiring individuals, not box tickers. To me, finding universal humanity even in characters/individual very different from me is an appealing and inspiring part of reading and storytelling. I can't comment on the EK directly since I haven't read it.

Do you think the EK representation is box tickers, or genuinely developed, true-to-lore gnomes and setting with a coherent backstory, or somewhere in between? Or perhaps something else entirely?

Edit: Could also be none of the above, I suppose

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111130I want interesting characters developed as flawed, inspiring individuals, not box tickers. To me, finding universal humanity even in characters/individual very different from me is an appealing and inspiring part of reading and storytelling. I can't comment on the EK directly since I haven't read it.

Do you think the EK representation is box tickers, or genuinely developed, true-to-lore gnomes and setting with a coherent backstory, or somewhere in between? Or perhaps something else entirely?

Edit: Could also be none of the above, I suppose

I'd say none of the above. They aren't great characters -- but they're also not advertised as "look at how great these gay characters are", nor are they gay stereotypes.

I'm no mind-reader, so maybe they were carefully placed as part of a planned gay invasion of D&D. However, from what I can see, this is indistinguishable from just randomly rolling 4% for different NPCs to see if they're gay.

My son just GMed that segment of the module with his group at college. He upped the opposition from one mimic to two mimics - plus a baby mimic distraction. It sounds like it went pretty well, with some amusing player antics about trying to light on fire the baby mimic that was stuck to his hand. ( Players always do the weirdest shit. :confused: ) The gnome kings apparently didn't evoke any comment.

Quote from: jhkim;1111136I'd say none of the above. They aren't great characters -- but they're also not advertised as "look at how great these gay characters are", nor are they gay stereotypes.

I'm no mind-reader, so maybe they were carefully placed as part of a planned gay invasion of D&D. However, from what I can see, this is indistinguishable from just randomly rolling 4% for different NPCs to see if they're gay.

My son just GMed that segment of the module with his group at college. He upped the opposition from one mimic to two mimics - plus a baby mimic distraction. It sounds like it went pretty well, with some amusing player antics about trying to light on fire the baby mimic that was stuck to his hand. ( Players always do the weirdest shit. :confused: ) The gnome kings apparently didn't evoke any comment.

Sounds like you've taught your son to GM well.

Otherwise, I'm still not sure why you're replying this way -- it reads to me like you're arguing against a point I'm not attempting to make. I'm glad that the kings read as merely meh, and not cringey. God knows it's hard enough to try to make anything resembling art even before all this polarizing political stuff gets factored in.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1110220WTBF, so someone has to run modules to be an RPG player

Hold on there sparky. I never said he's not a player.

I said in the context of  THIS KIND OF CONTENT, he doesn't play it. Or buy it. Or read it. Or interact with it in any way other than this thread where he is white room bitching. So why would I give a fuck what he thinks about it? He is entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to anyone caring what his opinion is about something he literally knows nothing about other than this thread. I am dismissing his opinion because he's declared his opinion is utterly vapid and dismissable. It's like he has an opinion about professional Basketball when he's never watched a game and calls it sportsball, and now he's whining that Basketball doesn't include his favorite kind of players when nobody would give a shit what a non-fan thinks about Basketball.

Quote from: jhkim;1111136I'm no mind-reader, so maybe they were carefully placed as part of a planned gay invasion of D&D.

I think Jeremy Crawford has been pretty explicit about that being his intent; to gay-ify the adventures in particular. I see it as more a political fetish than a sexual fetish, where Ed's sex stuff in FR is definitely sexual, without any real political agenda.

Quote from: Mistwell;1111162Hold on there sparky. I never said he's not a player.

I said in the context of  THIS KIND OF CONTENT, he doesn't play it. Or buy it. Or read it. Or interact with it in any way other than this thread where he is white room bitching. So why would I give a fuck what he thinks about it?

But since your telepathic abilities suck. You're really good at projecting and making shit up in your mind and presenting disingenuous narratives for your own motives. I *only* said I don't run modules. I never said I don't purchase them. I never said I don't read them. I never said I don't interact with them. I said *I don't run them*.

You inserted all the other bullshit to support whatever retarded point you're trying to make. But let's face it, you're not trying to discuss any of this in good faith, so the reason you shouldn't care about my opinion is the really the same reason we shouldn't care about yours: you're not interested in talking about this topic. You're building some effigy of me to move in rent-free. I'm cool with it tho. It's roomy in here with all this air.

Quote from: Mistwell;1111162He is entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to anyone caring what his opinion is about something he literally knows nothing about other than this thread.

Says the idiot that can't read and projects his own narratives into a discussion he's not actually having. LOL dude you could have just asked me why I don't run modules. Instead you've concocted this fanciful bullshit fairytale to further divert from the point of the thread and pretend you're somehow rhetorically discrediting me. You're a retard.

Quote from: Mistwell;1111162I am dismissing his opinion because he's declared his opinion is utterly vapid and dismissable.

Are you standing like Captain Morgan when you said this out loud to yourself to test its tenor?

Quote from: Mistwell;1111162It's like he has an opinion about professional Basketball when he's never watched a game and calls it sportsball, and now he's whining that Basketball doesn't include his favorite kind of players when nobody would give a shit what a non-fan thinks about Basketball.

It's like... you know me in your own mind. Because I've never written modules, adventures, articles, campaign books, etc. in publication and know nothing about any of this stuff. LOL this is great.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1111141it reads to me like you're arguing against a point I'm not attempting to make.

Yep, you figured him out.

Quote from: tenbones;1111188You're really good at projecting and making shit up in your mind and presenting disingenuous narratives for your own motives.

Another perceptive poster!

Quote from: jhkim;1111079It shouldn't be that gay characters should never appear in modules or can't be the villain/opponent. Would you agree?

What if I say I don't want to have gay characters in modules I run at all because I'd rather not inject real-world issues into my fantasy campaign? Does that mean I'm a terrible person?