Quote from: SHARK;1060185Greetings!

Oh really? What the hell does the hobby membership need to be "educated" on?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Here's a radical example for you, please don't faint. The membership was (re)educated on how early RPGs were actually played, and this grew into the OSR. The OSR in turn worked to attract some older players back into the hobby, and provided additional tools for (existing) older players to play with their kids etc.

Quote from: sureshot;1060167I agree that Hollywood could use more diversity.

Define diversity, because surface traits are only a part of it.  Diversity of thought should also be part of it.  But no one wants to see that.

Quote from: sureshot;1060167That it's a good thing that less woman are getting groped at conventions.

Have you seen female cosplayers?  They don't do it any less!

Quote from: sureshot;1060167That being said Hollywood and other industries have and refuse learn about forcing diversity on the viewers imo. It's great that their a strong female leads in all types of media. Not so much when other male characters tend to look like idiots and weak compared to their female counterparts. Funny enough just like female viewers don't like the reverse male viewers strangely enough feel the same. Hollywood seems to think toss in diversity and inclusiveness with a mediocre script and it will make them millions. It usually does not imo. They can be as diverse as they want in Hollywood yet don't expect them to be diverse too much because the Chinese market simply will not accept it imo.  That market is their biggest profitable market. Unlike IDW who prefers to lose money. hollywood will make a token effort at both so they say they are and make sure they rake in the profit.

Again nothing wrong with inclusiveness and diversity in rpgs which to me at least they always were. It's the insane, trigger happy special snowflakes who see rapist, racist, misogynists in every dark corner in every home, convention or in the street. Everything  and anything is offensive and if one cannot see why that is a bad thing your not but a disingenuous piece of crap.

EVERYTHING is wrong with diversity and inclusiveness if you spend your time pushing people OUT.  That's not inclusiveness.  But people say it is!

What the hell is wrong with people???

Quote from: SHARK;1060185Greetings!

Oh really? What the hell does the hobby membership need to be "educated" on?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Motorskills;1060191Here's a radical example for you, please don't faint. The membership was (re)educated on how early RPGs were actually played, and this grew into the OSR. The OSR in turn worked to attract some older players back into the hobby, and provided additional tools for (existing) older players to play with their kids etc.

As you can see, SHARK, Motorskills still reads my posts even though he has publicly declared that I am on his Ignore List. Motorskills is our resident SJW who has lectured the forum repeatedly on how we need to be re-educated on being inclusive and welcoming to the extent that players should be forced to create and play characters that are opposite sex or gay or African-American or Mexican-American or trans or what-the-fuck-ever in order to broaden our collective consciousness, even if the players do not wish to do that.

Here is the thread where I handed Motorskills his ass, if you are interested.

EDIT: And just for completeness, the Motorskills Intellectual Wedgie thread was created in response to this linked thread, so you might want to start there.

I'll admit to being slightly torn. The more game companies that go 'woke' mean less competition for mine, but if WotC gets TOO woke it'll drive people away before they'd be invested enough in enjoying TTRPGs to look for low cost of entry alternatives.

Quote from: Chris24601;1060198I'll admit to being slightly torn. The more game companies that go 'woke' mean less competition for mine, but if WotC gets TOO woke it'll drive people away before they'd be invested enough in enjoying TTRPGs to look for low cost of entry alternatives.

  WotC is likely too beholden to Hasbro and the breadth of the D&D brand to go hyper-woke; they may take a few steps further into progressive thinking, but I don't think they'll ever be as dedicated to the heresy as Paizo, Onyx Path, or TBP.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1060203WotC is likely too beholden to Hasbro and the breadth of the D&D brand to go hyper-woke; they may take a few steps further into progressive thinking, but I don't think they'll ever be as dedicated to the heresy as Paizo, Onyx Path, or TBP.

Yeah Hasbro has actual suits.

At the same time we shouldn't be surprised if D&D splat books contain weird things. Those are niche products in a niche industry.

Surprised we haven't got more monster manuals though...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1060192Define diversity, because surface traits are only a part of it.  Diversity of thought should also be part of it.  But no one wants to see that.

I agree though diversity of thought is seen as a bad thing. I don't agree with that sentiment at all yet it seems all too popular.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1060192Have you seen female cosplayers?  They don't do it any less!

I don't doubt it.

It just that I was thought to respect and protect women by my family at a early age. That being said not to the insane destroying other men lives on world alone stance that seems again all too popular at the moment.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1060192EVERYTHING is wrong with diversity and inclusiveness if you spend your time pushing people OUT.  That's not inclusiveness.  But people say it is!

What the hell is wrong with people???

Just because I think we should have both does not mean that I want to push people out. I'm Ok if they choose a black actor for Superman. Though I know some will not yet I can respect that. I don't mind seeing a strong female lead as long as the men are not portrayed as idiots. I don't care the sexuality of an actor if he gives us a good performance. Nothing is wrong with me. I'm not the second coming of Motorskills. I just believe in both yet not to the point of excluding others especially if they have different view points.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060209Surprised we haven't got more monster manuals though...

That is a good thing to myself at least. Paizo Bestiary are a good example of too many Monster Manuals not enough variety. How is a Ocean/River/Pond/Lake Giant that different from one to the other. Too many similar monsters with similar environments. Give me variety not more copy and paste and a "it's a new monster really" nudge, nudge, wink wink that Paizo tries to do.

Quote from: jeff37923;1060196As you can see, SHARK, Motorskills still reads my posts even though he has publicly declared that I am on his Ignore List. Motorskills is our resident SJW who has lectured the forum repeatedly on how we need to be re-educated on being inclusive and welcoming to the extent that players should be forced to create and play characters that are opposite sex or gay or African-American or Mexican-American or trans or what-the-fuck-ever in order to broaden our collective consciousness, even if the players do not wish to do that.

Here is the thread where I handed Motorskills his ass, if you are interested.

EDIT: And just for completeness, the Motorskills Intellectual Wedgie thread was created in response to this linked thread, so you might want to start there.

Greetings!

Oh, Geesus, Jeff! The SJW marxist syrup just doesn't stop, does it? LOL. Dayum, Jeff, you took him TO THE WOODSHED, BROTHER!!!!!!

I read all 16 pages of it. LOL!

The debate made me wonder though--and you kept on relentlessly hammering him with it--why does "representation" of whatever *flavor of fruit* matter in a particular campaign, where such *flavor of fruit* doesn't exist--like Pundit talked about, because it's not part of the historical milieu--or like you said often, if such a detail just doesn't matter? Such detail is *extraneous* and a meaningless *embellishment* that doesn't add anything to the campaign? Tenbones really went to work on him, repeatedly asking, why do I need to have that? Explain what it adds to the campaign, or what *specifically* I'm missing if I don't have *whatever* in the game? He never really did answer you or Tenbones. I saw a lot of circle-jerking, *circular reasoning*, waffling, and tap-dancing instead.

In my own campaigns--I have dozens of races of creatures and characters, of many different colors. LOL! Most of the *human* characters tend to be some flavour of white, brown, or black. The white is predominant because it is largely a Ancient European environment. Brown, in the sense of Turkish/Semetic/Arabic/Egyptian; Black, in the sense of African-like. There's also some Asian-like peoples. I don't have any Brown *Hispanics*--because the area where much of the campaign being played, doesn't have a "Hispanic" area. Does that mean I am racist against Hispanics, and I am guilty of *erasure* because I don't have them represented in the campaign? (so far, anyways, theoretically) The men players in my campaigns like fucking women. The women--well, they like fucking men. So, *gay* or *lesbian* or *transwhatever* characters don't make it "on screen." (Theoretically, of course, they *exist* in the campaign world though.) Most of my players would have absolutely *zero* interest in such NPC's. Certainly, they may be interested in them for whatever other important reason--but specifically, to the fact that such a character is gay, lesbian or trans? Entirely irrelevant and uninteresting. Am I guilty then, of *erasing* them because I haven't represented them? It just seems to be an entirely irrelevant detail. Like with my Hispanic example above, they do in fact, exist in the campaign world--but haven't made it "on-screen" as it were. My black friends who play--and I work with them to draw up some cool way as to why they have gotten to whatever area they are in--which typically hasn't been in their homelands, because the entire rest of the group is *over there* where there just are no black people, or very few. My black friends have understood the geography and culture quite well, and we roll on and have a good time. None of them have said, "Geesus, SHARK, you must be racist against black people because the campaign area doesn't have a bunch of black people in it." I think Pundit said it--I have whatever races or colors present if the historical or campaign context makes sense for it--not because I'm trying to fucking "Virtue Signal." I like that. As I mentioned, I have a fucking rainbow of races and cultures in the campaign. At any given time, not including *flavor A* doesn't mean that I am purposely exclusing them--it just means that whatever fruit flavor isn't currently historically or campaign relevant. I am just boggled why these people think that they need to go around and mind-fuck everyone because they are not *inclusive* enough by having every possible fruit flavor constantly present.

Am I making any sense, Jeff? LOL. Great stuff, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Just to state the obvious, being inclusive as in open and welcoming is different from being inclusive as in forced diversity covering for conformity of thought.

Quote from: SHARK;1060218Greetings!

Oh, Geesus, Jeff! The SJW marxist syrup just doesn't stop, does it? LOL. Dayum, Jeff, you took him TO THE WOODSHED, BROTHER!!!!!!

I read all 16 pages of it. LOL!

The debate made me wonder though--and you kept on relentlessly hammering him with it--why does "representation" of whatever *flavor of fruit* matter in a particular campaign, where such *flavor of fruit* doesn't exist--like Pundit talked about, because it's not part of the historical milieu--or like you said often, if such a detail just doesn't matter? Such detail is *extraneous* and a meaningless *embellishment* that doesn't add anything to the campaign? Tenbones really went to work on him, repeatedly asking, why do I need to have that? Explain what it adds to the campaign, or what *specifically* I'm missing if I don't have *whatever* in the game? He never really did answer you or Tenbones. I saw a lot of circle-jerking, *circular reasoning*, waffling, and tap-dancing instead.

In my own campaigns--I have dozens of races of creatures and characters, of many different colors. LOL! Most of the *human* characters tend to be some flavour of white, brown, or black. The white is predominant because it is largely a Ancient European environment. Brown, in the sense of Turkish/Semetic/Arabic/Egyptian; Black, in the sense of African-like. There's also some Asian-like peoples. I don't have any Brown *Hispanics*--because the area where much of the campaign being played, doesn't have a "Hispanic" area. Does that mean I am racist against Hispanics, and I am guilty of *erasure* because I don't have them represented in the campaign? (so far, anyways, theoretically) The men players in my campaigns like fucking women. The women--well, they like fucking men. So, *gay* or *lesbian* or *transwhatever* characters don't make it "on screen." (Theoretically, of course, they *exist* in the campaign world though.) Most of my players would have absolutely *zero* interest in such NPC's. Certainly, they may be interested in them for whatever other important reason--but specifically, to the fact that such a character is gay, lesbian or trans? Entirely irrelevant and uninteresting. Am I guilty then, of *erasing* them because I haven't represented them? It just seems to be an entirely irrelevant detail. Like with my Hispanic example above, they do in fact, exist in the campaign world--but haven't made it "on-screen" as it were. My black friends who play--and I work with them to draw up some cool way as to why they have gotten to whatever area they are in--which typically hasn't been in their homelands, because the entire rest of the group is *over there* where there just are no black people, or very few. My black friends have understood the geography and culture quite well, and we roll on and have a good time. None of them have said, "Geesus, SHARK, you must be racist against black people because the campaign area doesn't have a bunch of black people in it." I think Pundit said it--I have whatever races or colors present if the historical or campaign context makes sense for it--not because I'm trying to fucking "Virtue Signal." I like that. As I mentioned, I have a fucking rainbow of races and cultures in the campaign. At any given time, not including *flavor A* doesn't mean that I am purposely exclusing them--it just means that whatever fruit flavor isn't currently historically or campaign relevant. I am just boggled why these people think that they need to go around and mind-fuck everyone because they are not *inclusive* enough by having every possible fruit flavor constantly present.

Am I making any sense, Jeff? LOL. Great stuff, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You are making total sense.

(Then again, I was a squid for 6 years before college, so I grok where you are coming from.)

EDIT: (Oh, and ITT We Are Marines in 1775 Bitching About the Corps. The NAVY delivers.)

Quote from: sureshot;1060213Just because I think we should have both does not mean that I want to push people out. I'm Ok if they choose a black actor for Superman. Though I know some will not yet I can respect that. I don't mind seeing a strong female lead as long as the men are not portrayed as idiots. I don't care the sexuality of an actor if he gives us a good performance. Nothing is wrong with me. I'm not the second coming of Motorskills. I just believe in both yet not to the point of excluding others especially if they have different view points.

I meant you in the general sense, not you specifically, Sureshot.  I'd use your name if I was deliberate accusing you of anything.  And I'd rather attack the argument.  Again, I apologize, I was not speaking to you specifically.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1060228I meant you in the general sense, not you specifically, Sureshot.  I'd use your name if I was deliberate accusing you of anything.  And I'd rather attack the argument.  Again, I apologize, I was not speaking to you specifically.

It's all good we agree more on the subject the we disagree so no worries.

Quote from: SHARK;1059975Greetings!

Hey Opaopajr! Interesting! You know, I'll admit that a portion of the mentally ill and those with a variety of mental disabilities--their antics and expressions can be very humorous. Sometimes, of course, some individuals are also quite dangerous. In general though, many of them can be frustrating to deal with, for a wide variety of reasons. I think some aspects of the streotypes, like with many such, can be humorous and in good fun.

The Gully Dwarves were just fucking stupid as all hell though.

Having said that, I have also done some work tutoring both adolescents and adults with mental and learning disabilities. Down's Syndrome, and so on. I have to say some of them are indeed a great blessing to us. Many are without guile, at all. They don't lie or deceive, and they truly accept YOU for being YOU. They could care less about your age, your race, what you look like, what you do, or how much you make. What is deeply meaningful to them, is that YOU are their friend. I think that kind of love and acceptance is a gift to us, the rest of humanity, and I think that capacity for love and friendship often demonstrated by mentally disabled/challenged people makes them very special. Joking aside, we should remember to respect them, cherish them, and value them as members of our community.

Your post reminded me of some of those good relationships I had, Opaopajr. Thank you, my friend.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I am glad it brought good memories.

Yes, some of them really do bring forth many of the virtues we aspire to. However, I have also met others with more sullen, savvy, and predatory personalities, too, often those who ended up leaving some of the more overcrowded state hospitals. Some even who were too much to handle for the private facility circles I traveled tangentially, even to the point of being regional police nuisances and manipulating others through their known rights.

(It was really sad when some had to give up on truly higher functioning challenged adults because of their manipulative & destructive behavior problems. You knew they learned (or honed) it from overcrowded state or county facilities, but also had enough awareness to truly do greater positive things than those who require 24/7 care. It's also why I don't underestimate them either; cunning and savvy comes in all forms of life, and there is no shame in being tricked by them. Life is wily, and exploits, regardless of aptitude... and you can't be everywhere all the time. )

There is light and dark everywhere. Come join me in the abyss!

Quote from: sureshot;1060213I'm Ok if they choose a black actor for Superman.

The problem with that is I don't think Hollywood can do it well. If anything I think movies are less diverse today than they were 30 years ago as pretty much every character is a stereotype. Will the black superman still be from Kansas or will they write him into an urban ghetto upbringing because that's where all black characters come from? And God forbid they don't cast a 6ft 5inch tall bald black guy with muscles on muscles to play the part, because that's basically the go to "black guy" for Hollywood these days.

If they went with a black actor that was more towards the Christopher Reeves type who's character parents were down to earth farmers in rural Kansas, then yeah, I'd be totally onboard. But I think if they went that route they'd hear a ton of flack from the SJW crowd because the character didn't meet their expectations of "black".