So over on this blog (http://roll1d100.blogspot.com/2018/08/survey-results-watching-d.html), a dude did something very interesting. He did a survey of nearly 2700 people who watch D&D livestreams, in the style of Critical Role and such. And the results were very interesting, and confirm what I've been saying for some time.
[video=youtube_share;Jld0Yi2PBZ4]https://youtu.be/Jld0Yi2PBZ4[/youtube]
The study covers a number of different points, but the essence of what has to do with vindicating my arguments is this: over 83% of the people who answered the survey said that the main reason they watch the show is because they like the cast members (that is to say, the ACTORS who perform on the show).
They're watching these shows as a Soap Opera or TV Drama, not as a game in action. And the reaction I talked about in the video I linked above, to when the RULES caused a character to die created a backlash, is evidence of that. There are certainly people who play D&D who also watch these livestreams, and people who didn't play D&D that started playing it because of these livestreams, but a very significant number of viewers do NOT watch these livestreams to see D&D being played. They watch them the way other people would watch a drama on the CW or a Reality Show on Fox.
Other important points:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_mN6CzSTsi8/W4BiFo5algI/AAAAAAAABas/AntTq7cYkIsS2-r_zDZWVj7KgdY4sYNOACLcBGAs/s320/Surprise3.png)
Note how the vast majority of viewers don't give a crap about die rolls.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-if_Uwkho0II/W4Bkb8ecpVI/AAAAAAAABbE/kEU7KwiIYWoYjaAesVpYD2KfMVUO4SS7wCLcBGAs/s320/Surprise4.png)
See that virtually NONE of the viewers (0.4%) want to see actual published adventures being played. And 40% are fine with the stuff being done on the show being stuff that will never be published.
So yeah, the data is backing what I'd already surmised months back.
And again, it's fine that there's a whole new hobby of watching people do D&D-based Improv Theater. But those people have nothing to do with the D&D Hobby I'm a part of.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Quiete + Gawith's Commonwealth
That is a bit potentially misleading as many will read "Pre-created adventures" as meaning "Modules" which for whatever reason many seem to dislike. Gronan for example would probably squarely fall into the "entirely original" slice of the pie as hes stated many a time how much he dislikes modules.
Same with the technical elements. Just because someone doesnt want to see the rolls for everything doesnt exactly mean they arent interested in the mechanics. Its akin to how some complain about RPG novels that they think the combats are cleaving too close to the mechanics. It could also just mean that they dont want the video to keep zooming in on the rolls or something.
The questions are worded such that the answers might skew in certain directions based on just how someone is reading the questions and the results may be pointing to a different answer than the article leads on.
YMMV but thats how its looking to me. That and I just can not ever trust online surveys or surveys at all.
And...? It doesn't mean it won't sell books.
It sounds to me like sour grapes because it's working better than any other method of selling books.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1054717The study covers a number of different points, but the essence of what has to do with vindicating my arguments is this: over 83% of the people who answered the survey said that the main reason they watch the show is because they like the cast members (that is to say, the ACTORS who perform on the show).
They're watching these shows as a Soap Opera or TV Drama, not as a game in action. And the reaction I talked about in the video I linked above, to when the RULES caused a character to die created a backlash, is evidence of that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1054717Note how the vast majority of viewers don't give a crap about die rolls.
I don't watch the shows and don't have any opinion right now about who watches them and/or for what reasons. However, I would point out that there are a lot of people who play actual RPGs more for *who* they are playing with than because of the dice rolls or the rules. To put it another way, they would rather play whatever game with their friends rather than their favorite game with strangers.
Eh? According to this survey, a massive majority of players (80%-ish) enjoy game mechanics playing a part in the shows, 5% or less prefer freeform RP that leaves out the mechanics. If they were watching it as any other drama or soap opera and not a game in action, it's pretty strange that they would want the game elements. If they were watching it as a game, then it would make perfect sense.
WTH does not wanting to watch people play published adventures have to do with anything? Players have (IME) never preferred published adventures to the real thing, why would this be any different.
That was a nicely done survey. There's rich data there to be mined and extrapolated.
What jumped out to me was 39.6% watched initially to learn about the game.
And 10% want more character death!!
Also, huge interest in non-D&D YT events.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1054717The study covers a number of different points, but the essence of what has to do with vindicating my arguments is this: over 83% of the people who answered the survey said that the main reason they watch the show is because they like the cast members (that is to say, the ACTORS who perform on the show).
They like the Wesley Crushers that are out there.
I treat Dice Funk like my weekly radio show. Spin up Disgaea V to play on PS4 (run around the Item World levels) while I listen. That said, Dice Funk does not shy away from character death and actions have consequences and repercussions. Every dice roll gets announced with critical successes and failures really changing the narrative. Season 4 has been pretty amazing as they are running a cyberpunk campaign in a place called Valentine using the DnD 5e rules.
I just read a bizzarre tweet where someone felt bad because the new trend in the RPG community (streaming) was leaving them behind.
QuoteAnd again, it's fine that there's a whole new hobby of watching people do D&D-based Improv Theater. But those people have nothing to do with the D&D Hobby I'm a part of.
You have decided that it is an either / or, but of course none of this stuff happens in a vacuum (well maybe in Montevideo, I dunno).
Quote from: jhkimTo put it another way, they would rather play whatever game with their friends rather than their favorite game with strangers.
Exactly so. Friendships can and are built through shared interest in (say)
Critical Role, and then someone in that circle offers to run a game, or then someone else introduces the circle to a game store gathering, etc. (Or that kind of thing in a different order of events).
It's not rocket science.
There's no membership quiz required.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1054717Note how the vast majority of viewers don't give a crap about die rolls.
No, they don't care about seeing the dice. If the GM says "roll" and the player says "I got a 7", I don't need to see a close up of the dice. Most of the time, I don't even care to know it's a "7". If the rules only have "miss", "hit", and "crit" as possible results, I don't care if you missed with a 2 or a 12. If the rules don't distinguish between them, why should I? A miss is a miss.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1054717See that virtually NONE of the viewers (0.4%) want to see actual published adventures being played. And 40% are fine with the stuff being done on the show being stuff that will never be published.
I think this implies that they are interested in playing in addition to watching. If they only wanted to watch, they wouldn't care about spoilers. If they plan to play those published adventures themselves, they don't want to see someone else play it and spoil the details for them. And why would they want to have a published version of the adventure they saw someone else play? They already saw it. Would you want to play an adventure that you've already read? If the GM makes up some cool monsters, NPCs, items, or something, I might be interested in a supplement that details those things so I can use them in new adventures, but I've already seen the adventure they were used in and don't want to repeat the same scenario.
I really enjoyed watching the "Lord of the Rings" films. If I played in a game based in Middle Earth, I don't want to go to Moria and face the "puzzle" of the locked door and act like I don't already know the password is "Mellon". I don't want to stand on the wall at Helm's Deep and shoot orcs, but I do want stats for orcs and bows so I can shoot them in new encounters that I haven't already seen or read about.
This might be a great study on the misuse of statistics.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1054717So over on this blog (http://roll1d100.blogspot.com/2018/08/survey-results-watching-d.html), a dude did something very interesting. He did a survey of nearly 2700 people who watch D&D livestreams, in the style of Critical Role and such. And the results were very interesting, and confirm what I've been saying for some time.
Interesting and not unexpected.
People watch what they like to watch, which is unsurprising. I've never watched a live stream of a RPG, but I have watched other people play when I have been too tired or wasn't interested in the game. It's like watching a drama series. You have players/actors, characters and situations. You want to see how the characters do in those situations.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1054717And again, it's fine that there's a whole new hobby of watching people do D&D-based Improv Theater. But those people have nothing to do with the D&D Hobby I'm a part of.
What, the people participating in the Livestream or the people watching it?
The people participating are playing D&D, so are definitely part of the hobby.
The people watching are watching D&D as if it is a drama, or fantasy series. Not necessarily part of a RPG hobby, but very connected to it. Pretty much everyone who plays FRPGs likes Fantasy TV Series and Films, I would expect. Nothing wrong with that.
One of my players is a big fan of livestreamed channels like Critical Role. Not coincidentally, he now wants improvisational in-character theatrics to be a big part of our game, when he didn't a couple years ago. So this stuff isn't just a passive entertainment; it has a big influence on how people want to play D&D. I think we need to recognize that humans are social animals, and many feel powerful urges to adopt popular behaviours.
A lot of people don't actually play Football or Basketball, but prefer to watch the big leagues play on TV or in stadiums.
If Video Games and Table-top games become a spectator sport like physical sports, why is this a bad thing, or why do people seem to be against this general concept?
I've always thought CR etc are more show than game. The data strengthens my view.
Quote from: Xúc xac;1054902No, they don't care about seeing the dice. If the GM says "roll" and the player says "I got a 7", I don't need to see a close up of the dice. Most of the time, I don't even care to know it's a "7". If the rules only have "miss", "hit", and "crit" as possible results, I don't care if you missed with a 2 or a 12. If the rules don't distinguish between them, why should I? A miss is a miss.
Agreed. Also the stats show that they do care more about visible character sheets. If viewers weren't interested in the game why would they be interested in the character sheets?
Quote from: JRT;1054917A lot of people don't actually play Football or Basketball, but prefer to watch the big leagues play on TV or in stadiums.
If Video Games and Table-top games become a spectator sport like physical sports, why is this a bad thing, or why do people seem to be against this general concept?
It's the difference between "the game is for the people who play it" and "the game is for people who don't play it". We who play it prefer the former.
Yes, anyone's local game can be "for those who play it". But if the games become written and published "for those who don't play", then the hobby as a whole shifts in undesirable ways.
Quote from: mightybrain;1054925Agreed. Also the stats show that they do care more about visible character sheets. If viewers weren't interested in the game why would they be interested in the character sheets?
Because when your character sheet looks like an IRS tax form (like the last three versions of D&D do), you might want to see an example in the hope that it will show you how to fill it out right.
Quote from: Motorskills;1054900You have decided that it is an either / or, but of course none of this stuff happens in a vacuum (well maybe in Montevideo, I dunno).
This is very similar to your assertion that LARPers are just like TTRPG players.
Quote from: Motorskills;1054900Exactly so. Friendships can and are built through shared interest in (say) Critical Role, and then someone in that circle offers to run a game, or then someone else introduces the circle to a game store gathering, etc. (Or that kind of thing in a different order of events).
It's not rocket science.
There's no membership quiz required.
Except that isn't what is happening, is it?
Everyone that wears a Star Wars shirt at the mall thinks they are a sci-fi expert. The bigger the shirt, that fatter and slower and more out of breath the person is.
It appears that these RPG shows help sell books, and may (or may not) create new gamers.
Of course, in the future, when you mention you play D&D, the other person might say "oh yeah, I used to watch that."
But so be it. The survey does show there's an appetite for RPG watching (how fucking weird) and its a beneficial sales and marketing channel for publishers.
Clearly, smaller RPGs should get their own shows happening.
Quote from: RandyB;1054930It's the difference between "the game is for the people who play it" and "the game is for people who don't play it". We who play it prefer the former.
Yes, anyone's local game can be "for those who play it". But if the games become written and published "for those who don't play", then the hobby as a whole shifts in undesirable ways.
Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.
Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.
1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
2. Go read the intro to Pathfinder 2, focusing on the Inclusiveness Manifesto. (That's my name for it, not the heading in the book.) "Play for the sake of those not at your table" feeds the "RPGs as spectator activity" quite squarely.
Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.
The NFL has been putting in rules, for years now, that limit what defensive players can do. Why? Because fans love offense.
Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.
Pick a better example since this one is 100% untrue.
Quote from: RandyB;1054930It's the difference between "the game is for the people who play it" and "the game is for people who don't play it". We who play it prefer the former.
Yes, anyone's local game can be "for those who play it". But if the games become written and published "for those who don't play", then the hobby as a whole shifts in undesirable ways.
Regarding #1, somebody feel free to send me to a good reliable source that shows evidence of the sports game rules changing over time due to media influence and I'll be satisfied. As for #2, I read it, and while a bit heavy handed I think it's more of a "don't be a jerk" clause, but YMMV.
And, regardless of that, being too much of a purist won't do you any good. If the hobby does transform itself to a spectator driven hobby, you're just going to have to deal with it, since the majority ultimately rules. The people who were afraid D&D would poison or eclipse the war gaming movement complained, but that didn't prevent it from happening.
Quote from: JRT;1054917If Video Games and Table-top games become a spectator sport like physical sports, why is this a bad thing, or why do people seem to be against this general concept?
I'm not against it, but I also don't care about it.
Some years ago I came to the realization that I'm not a part of the mainstream RPG hobby, these days. I used to be, but the hobby has changed over time and now "my" part of it is a tiny sliver. The most popular games aren't games I'm interested in (the RPG shelves at my local gaming stores are full of books I'd never buy). The culture around RPG gaming isn't something I'm invested in (except my tiny little sliver). The social media dramas and the youtube streams and such aren't things I want to participate in or consume (although I do still participate in a few forums: this one is probably the most "mainstream" of them -- the others are all more niche). I purchase very little (and even then, I think I only use maybe half of the few RPG items I purchase, which probably means I should make fewer purchases). I'm essentially irrelevant. None of that is a complaint, though. I'm content with the situation.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1054995I'm not against it, but I also don't care about it... I'm content with situation.
That's truly the most mature attitude to have, and I wish more people espoused that attitude.
Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.
I doubt RPG rules will change, because there's no money in them. However, all major televised sports have modified themselves over time for the needs of the media, or demands of the audience. There is far too much money in professional sports, and competition for viewership, to not ensure the audience is maximized.
Here's an article by the NFL
https://operations.nfl.com/the-game/impact-of-television/
Here's another on changes to various sports
https://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/tv-and-culture/10-ways-television-has-changed-sports.htm
Quote from: RandyB;1054982"Play for the sake of those not at your table"
A) Fuck Paizo.
B) WTF does that even mean???
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1054995. Some years ago I came to the realization that I'm not a part of the mainstream RPG hobby, these days. I used to be, but the hobby has changed over time and now "my" part of it is a tiny sliver.
Welcome to the non-D&D part of the hobby!
If you're playing OSR games today, you're in no different position than those of us who played the Not-Major RPGs of the 80s/90s/00s.
In fact, for an OSR game, you probably STILL have an easier time getting players than if you GM'd a second or third tier RPG.
Fortunately, all it takes is some effort (not huge, but some effort) to find players interested in your Not-Major game du jour.
And PJ, I know you know this, so I'm mostly posting it for the lurkers.
Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.
I thought the rules for American Football re time outs were affected by the demands of radio & TV scheduling?
Quote from: Spinachcat;1054997B) WTF does that even mean???
Their advice included a statement that Protected Groups deserve to be represented in your game - as NPCs - regardless of who your players are. So your Vikings game had better include a black character or three, BBC style.
Quote from: S'mon;1055003Their advice included a statement that Protected Groups deserve to be represented in your game - as NPCs - regardless of who your players are. So your Vikings game had better include a black character or three, BBC style.
Nothing bad on you S'mon, but I groan every time I see that. Just because a Protected Group is represented in your game does not mean that it isn't represented as a parody. Better off just ignoring the whole Affirmative Action Approach.
For the industry, using Youtube to show off your game is just another advertising avenue. For the hobby, using Youtube to show off your game may actually turn potential players away from it.
Quote from: S'mon;1055003Their advice included a statement that Protected Groups deserve to be represented in your game - as NPCs - regardless of who your players are. So your Vikings game had better include a black character or three, BBC style.
a) Please tell me you're kidding.
b) Did Paizo actually say "Protected Group" or anything akin to that?
c) Fuck Paizo.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1055012b) Did Paizo actually say "Protected Group" or anything akin to that?
I'm not kidding. They didn't say Protected Group, they used different wording. I'm going by the quote given here.
Quote from: S'mon;1055015I'm not kidding. They didn't say Protected Group, they used different wording. I'm going by the quote given here.
OK I downloaded the pdf and found the exact wording:
People of all identities and experiences have a right to be
represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily
playing at your table.Sorry, they don't
deserve to be represented, they have a
RIGHT to be represented -
ALL of them. :-O
Page 6 of the PF2 Playtest document:
Gaming Is for All
Whether you're a player or a Game Master, participating
in a tabletop roleplaying game involves an inherent social
contract: everyone has gathered to have fun together,
and the table is a safe space for everyone. Everyone has
a right to play and enjoy Pathfinder regardless of their
age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other
identities and life experiences. Pathfinder is for everyone,
and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun
as possible for all.
Players
As a player, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are
not creating or contributing to an environment that makes
any other players feel uncomfortable or unwelcome,
particularly if those players are members of minority
or marginalized communities that haven't always been
welcome or represented in the larger gaming population.
Thus, it's important to consider your character concepts and
roleplaying style and avoid any approach that could cause
harm to another player. A character whose concept and
mannerisms are racist tropes, for example, is exceptionally
harmful and works against the goal of providing fun for
all. A roleplaying style in which a player or character is
constantly interrupting others or treating certain players
or characters with condescension is similarly unacceptable.
Furthermore, standards of respect don't vanish simply
because you're playing a character in a fantasy game.
For example, it's never acceptable to refer to another
person using an offensive term or a slur, and doing so
"in character" is just as bad as doing so directly. If your
character's concept requires you act this way, that's a good
sign your concept is harmful, and you have a responsibility
to change it. Sometimes, you might not realize that your
character concept or roleplaying style is making others
feel unwelcome at the gaming table. If another player
tells you that your character concept or roleplaying style
makes them uncomfortable, you shouldn't argue about
what they should or shouldn't find offensive or say that
what you're doing is common (and therefore okay) among
players or in other media. Instead, you should simply stop
and make sure the game is a fun experience for everyone.
After all, that's what gaming is about!
Game Masters
The role of Game Master comes with the responsibility of
ensuring that none of your players violate the game's social
contract, especially when playing in a public space. Be on
the lookout for behavior that's inappropriate, whether
intentional or inadvertent, and pay careful attention to
players' body language during gameplay. If you notice
a player becoming uncomfortable, you are empowered
to pause the game, take it in a new direction, privately
check in with your players during or after the session, or
take any other action you think is appropriate to move
the game toward a fun experience for everyone. That
said, you should never let players who are uncomfortable
with different identities or experiences derail your game.
People of all identities and experiences have a right to be
represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily
playing at your table.
Otherwise, if a player tells you they're uncomfortable
with something in the game, whether it's content you've
presented as the GM or another player's actions, listen
to them and take steps to ensure they can once again
have fun during your game. If you're preparing written
material and you find the description of a character or a
situation to be inappropriate, you are fully empowered
to change any details as you see fit to best suit your
players. Making sure the game is fun for everyone is your
biggest job!
Quote from: jeff37923;1054934Because when your character sheet looks like an IRS tax form (like the last three versions of D&D do), you might want to see an example in the hope that it will show you how to fill it out right.
Example character sheets are abundantly available outside of these shows, You even get half a dozen example pre-generated characters with the starter set. So that doesn't explain why so many viewers would be interested in the PC stats.
Quote from: JRT;1054981Well, there's no evidence that the rules for these games will change based on media viewing, any more than the rules for Football or Baseball changed because it became a huge spectator sport.
Funny. This has been a hot topic this year in Australian Rules Football. Now I'm assuming that when you say football you're talking about gridiron (not soccer), so AFL may not count, but https://www.sportingnews.com/au/afl/news/channel-seven-ceo-calls-for-back-to-back-shoot-outs-to-increase-afls-falling-ratings-worner-tv-television/1eu5sxqiico2818zyk4up3zxv3
Quote from: S'mon;1055016OK I downloaded the pdf and found the exact wording:
People of all identities and experiences have a right to be represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily playing at your table.
Sorry, they don't deserve to be represented, they have a RIGHT to be represented - ALL of them. :-O
S'mon, thank you and because I am a prankster myself, I double checked on the PDF and HOLY FUCK.
Part of me was hoping you were punking us.
Now, part of me wants to hope this is an amazing elaborate prank where Paizo goes full SJW retard to punk SJW retards because HOLY FUCK.
But its 2018 and going full retard is SJW baseline.
The RIGHT!!! The worthlesss fucks at Paizo think imaginary people who aren't at your table have RIGHTS to control YOUR game!!!
LMFAO. Fuck Paizo.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1055039Now, part of me wants to hope this is an amazing elaborate prank where Paizo goes full SJW retard to punk SJW retards because HOLY FUCK.
But its 2018 and going full retard is SJW baseline.
I do wonder if the writer really considered the full enormity of his statement - that everyone on Earth (or at least everyone whose identity & experience counts as valid to Paizo) has a right to be represented in every Pathfinder game.
Quote from: S'mon;1055041I do wonder if the writer really considered the full enormity of his statement - that everyone on Earth (or at least everyone whose identity & experience counts as valid to Paizo) has a right to be represented in every Pathfinder game.
You know, if that is open to litigation, then Paizo's most hated subculture group could theoretically demand representation in the Pathfinder game and sue them if they don't get it to their satisfaction.
Quote from: JRT;1054917A lot of people don't actually play Football or Basketball, but prefer to watch the big leagues play on TV or in stadiums.
If Video Games and Table-top games become a spectator sport like physical sports, why is this a bad thing, or why do people seem to be against this general concept?
Because it can and does give people the wrong idea of what playing an RPG is like. It is similar to how a-lot of LARP documentaries have painted LARPing poorly. So it is not necessarily the videos that are the issue. It is the oft overblown presentation. More and more people get it in their head that that is how you must DM or play an RPG.
That said. There are videos up of more normal play styles. But they tend to get eclipsed by the more theatrical ones.
Quote from: jeff37923;1054934Because when your character sheet looks like an IRS tax form (like the last three versions of D&D do), you might want to see an example in the hope that it will show you how to fill it out right.
That is part of why I passed on 3-4e. 5e's character sheet looks more like a 2e one.
Quote from: S'mon;1055041I do wonder if the writer really considered the full enormity of his statement - that everyone on Earth (or at least everyone whose identity & experience counts as valid to Paizo) has a right to be represented in every Pathfinder game.
:rolleyes:
I thought it sounded bad when I saw the short quotation you first gave, but reading the longer version you subsequently posted negates the interpretation all of you seem to want, whatever sticks it to the SJWs, which is red meat around here.
Quote from: S'mon;1055017Page 6 of the PF2 Playtest document:
...
Game Masters
The role of Game Master comes with the responsibility of
ensuring that none of your players violate the game's social
contract, especially when playing in a public space. Be on
the lookout for behavior that's inappropriate, whether
intentional or inadvertent, and pay careful attention to
players' body language during gameplay. If you notice
a player becoming uncomfortable, you are empowered
to pause the game, take it in a new direction, privately
check in with your players during or after the session, or
take any other action you think is appropriate to move
the game toward a fun experience for everyone. That
said, you should never let players who are uncomfortable
with different identities or experiences derail your game.
People of all identities and experiences have a right to be
represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily
playing at your table.
Those last two sentences strike me as being about people like the misogynistic jerk who defends himself by saying there are no women at the table so what's the big deal? In context, the quote is about not editing out NPCs whose existence bothers intolerant players even if people like those NPCs aren't playing at the table. Back when, we booted the guy who wanted to rape female NPCs, without checking whether he did that only in front of all male groups; we would also have mocked anyone who complained "Women can't be priests in a medieval-authentic analog of the Catholic Church!". It's not about being forced to put in every protected class you can think of to achieve representation; it's about not editing them out.
So, if a player says, "I'm a raging homophobe! I do not like that there is a same sex couple who run that inn in this make-believe game world!"
Paizo apparently thinks "OK, I'll change them because there do not appear to be any gays at the table" is the wrong way to respond.
They probably would prefer "Same sex couples exist in the real world; you should live and let live."
[/HR]
I'll agree that there's some conflict with the earlier stuff that suggests an implicit X card. But that's part of the exciting challenge of being a Pathfinder GM! :p (Never played it; D&D AL doesn't go as far, although it does call for GMs to make the game fun for everyone. But as I recall some people freaked out over the brief stuff about gender in the PHB. I did cringe internally during Breath of the Yellow Rose, where air elemental cultists were teaching their followers not to eat, because for a short time it looked a little like it would turn into a Very Special Episode about Eating Disorders; but the ranger missed her Medicine check, and we just went and killed some cultists, and my Moon Druid met a flying cat - awkward real world issue averted!)
Quote from: RandyB;1054930It's the difference between "the game is for the people who play it" and "the game is for people who don't play it". We who play it prefer the former.
Yes, anyone's local game can be "for those who play it". But if the games become written and published "for those who don't play", then the hobby as a whole shifts in undesirable ways.
RPG books are already written largely for people who read but don't play. How many copies of Call of Cthulhu 7E, for instance, have been used at a game session at the table? I doubt it's anywhere near half. And CoC is a pretty popular game. For Dungeon Crawl Classics, the One Ring, etc. I'd bet the numbers are much lower.
Just look at the way adventures are formatted: Wordy, bloated narrative in blocks of text; full of background details nobody will ever use at the table; almost no organization of the content in a way that's easy to referenced in play. They're meant to be read and maybe, hopefully, used.
Your anti-Youtube-games rants smack of sour grapes to me.
Quote from: rawma;1055093:rolleyes:
I thought it sounded bad when I saw the short quotation you first gave, but reading the longer version you subsequently posted negates the interpretation all of you seem to want, whatever sticks it to the SJWs, which is red meat around here.
Except the longer version doesn't negate anything whatsoever, but instead prattles on about how the GM is now game nanny, amateur therapist and culture warrior.
Nobody has a fucking
right to be represented. Only the GM at the table (and maybe the players) has ANY right to determine who is or who is not included in that table's campaign.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1055111Except the longer version doesn't negate anything whatsoever, but instead prattles on about how the GM is now game nanny, amateur therapist and culture warrior.
I think it's worse in the longer version. They are trying to set a single social norm for every game. Most of their mandated social norms happen to be fairly close to how I run public games in practice, but that's really not the point. This is a decision for the people at the gaming table to make, not for Paizo to set for them. And some of it, like 'everyone has a right to be represented whether or not they are playing', would be insane if actually applied as written.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1055111Nobody has a fucking right to be represented. Only the GM at the table (and maybe the players) has ANY right to determine who is or who is not included in that table's campaign.
Yes.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1055039S'mon, thank you and because I am a prankster myself, I double checked on the PDF and HOLY FUCK.
Part of me was hoping you were punking us.
Now, part of me wants to hope this is an amazing elaborate prank where Paizo goes full SJW retard to punk SJW retards because HOLY FUCK.
But its 2018 and going full retard is SJW baseline.
The RIGHT!!! The worthlesss fucks at Paizo think imaginary people who aren't at your table have RIGHTS to control YOUR game!!!
LMFAO. Fuck Paizo.
Besides my dislike of the PF2 rules. Nothing killed any interested than the above statement. It's one thing to go full SJW. The other when the company clumsilym heavy handededly demands one runs their games a certain way. The sad part is it's beginning to happen. Where a gamer had a "woke" group go to his table and demand he rewrite everything and anything they found objectionable. With the usual SJW tropes chiming in for the gamer daring to complain. It was on their main FB page to boot.
Quote from: S'mon;1055041I do wonder if the writer really considered the full enormity of his statement - that everyone on Earth (or at least everyone whose identity & experience counts as valid to Paizo) has a right to be represented in every Pathfinder game.
I think if they try and enforce their new wokeness at the society level it will bite them in the behind. Or they need to make a clear and concise list as what can or will be allowed at society tables. If it's a blanket anything and everything is objectionable and offensive society membership will drop imo. Almost no one wants to go play a PFS table where everyone has to walk on eggshells. The sad part they still have not learned go woke become broke. People may not agree with Paizo new woke stance. They sure as hell don't have to give them money either.
Quote from: S'mon;1055118I think it's worse in the longer version. They are trying to set a single social norm for every game. Most of their mandated social norms happen to be fairly close to how I run public games in practice, but that's really not the point. This is a decision for the people at the gaming table to make, not for Paizo to set for them. And some of it, like 'everyone has a right to be represented whether or not they are playing', would be insane if actually applied as written.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1055111Except the longer version doesn't negate anything whatsoever, but instead prattles on about how the GM is now game nanny, amateur therapist and culture warrior.
Nobody has a fucking right to be represented. Only the GM at the table (and maybe the players) has ANY right to determine who is or who is not included in that table's campaign.
The really sad part is it's all really good advice just poorly written and smacks of ultra pandering to a segment of the gaming community, not even gaming to the a community who makes a lot of noise to get what they want. Yet when push comes to shove refuse to support the suddenly "woke" companies. Look at Marvel and Nike they are all taking big hits financially and backlash from those who actually buy their products. Even then my table was probably woke before the term was created yeas ago. We never said no to any female, male, then gay players who wanted to join. We had a bad experience with a misogynistic asshole then a homophobic one who joined even when told we had a gay player at the table. The way the narrative is their is a potential rapist, homophobic, trans phobic, misogynistic in every dark corner, store and table in rpgs which is not the case. They may exist in one form or another. As common as the narrative makes it out to be hell no. I'm sorry if you want to play a Drow when your a back person not expecting to face racism as a Drow at first level then accuse the DM who is gay for being racist when he has a black boyfriend means your DUMB. Not the DM being racist. The wording also smacks of a perfect world syndrome imo. Sure in a perfect world the player base would have a equal or large percentage of gay, non-white, female, transgender players. In reality the majority of the players are white and usually straight. Paizo expects a DM and players to hold off running a table until a quota can be meet. Good luck with that.
I have enough to deal with as a DM at the gaming table. I am in no mood to be nanny and amateur therapist. I play with adults. If as a player your against slavery YOU need to tell me about it before the game starts. Not my job to nanny you like a child until you do. If the simple killing of a npc dog which has no connection to the party has a player male or female in tears it's not my job to be a psychiatrist. At most I might tell you to go play at another table because crying over random npcs in a rpg where killing things for xP is a major factor may not be a suitable hobby to be in imo. It's not to say I'm a jerk or a asshole. If a person has a phobia about fire I will go out of my way to make sure they are ok at the table to a certain extent. First they need to tell me second I will freely admit I cannot guarantee no fire creatures either. If a player says or does something offensive they get ONE chance to stop or they are gone. Same thing with a DM. Or if it's at someone else house I get up and walk away. I check the context. As for culture warrior no I will not check my privilege.
What becomes even more (truly, not SJW freako) problematic is the redefining of these real but overused terms, such as "misogynist" and/or "racist", etc. As we've seen over and over, the moronic clarion calls of such labels are based on ever-shifting standards. It's simply unrealistic to pander, as we all know.
Another super-easy thing? Don't be a dick. It's that simple. I have a friend who dislikes a couple things and they make him uneasy. What do I do? Not rub them in his face, at the table or away. He does the same. With strangers it's even easier as most people with a shred of being a functional person act respectfully toward strangers. If you need or want advice on how to function as a basic human from a book about being an elf wizard, you're pretty much fucked.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055124Another super-easy thing? Don't be a dick. It's that simple. I have a friend who dislikes a couple things and they make him uneasy. What do I do? Not rub them in his face, at the table or away. He does the same. With strangers it's even easier as most people with a shred of being a functional person act respectfully toward strangers. If you need or want advice on how to function as a basic human from a book about being an elf wizard, you're pretty much fucked.
The Core of the problem is that we have people who have been taught that it is OK to be an asshole as long as it is for social justice.
Quote from: rawma;1055093:rolleyes:
I thought it sounded bad when I saw the short quotation you first gave, but reading the longer version you subsequently posted negates the interpretation all of you seem to want, whatever sticks it to the SJWs, which is red meat around here.
Those last two sentences strike me as being about people like the misogynistic jerk who defends himself by saying there are no women at the table so what's the big deal? In context, the quote is about not editing out NPCs whose existence bothers intolerant players even if people like those NPCs aren't playing at the table. Back when, we booted the guy who wanted to rape female NPCs, without checking whether he did that only in front of all male groups; we would also have mocked anyone who complained "Women can't be priests in a medieval-authentic analog of the Catholic Church!". It's not about being forced to put in every protected class you can think of to achieve representation; it's about not editing them out.
So, if a player says, "I'm a raging homophobe! I do not like that there is a same sex couple who run that inn in this make-believe game world!"
Paizo apparently thinks "OK, I'll change them because there do not appear to be any gays at the table" is the wrong way to respond.
They probably would prefer "Same sex couples exist in the real world; you should live and let live."
[/HR]
I'll agree that there's some conflict with the earlier stuff that suggests an implicit X card. But that's part of the exciting challenge of being a Pathfinder GM! :p (Never played it; D&D AL doesn't go as far, although it does call for GMs to make the game fun for everyone. But as I recall some people freaked out over the brief stuff about gender in the PHB. I did cringe internally during Breath of the Yellow Rose, where air elemental cultists were teaching their followers not to eat, because for a short time it looked a little like it would turn into a Very Special Episode about Eating Disorders; but the ranger missed her Medicine check, and we just went and killed some cultists, and my Moon Druid met a flying cat - awkward real world issue averted!)
Am I represented in your games? Please let me know in what way I'm represented so I can pass judgement on the purity of your representation of me.
Seriously tho... you're doing it right here. Do you honestly believe that people allow/disallow people at their tables based on the text of a game-company self-righteously patting themselves on the back by virtue signalling to their ideological herd that they support in-game some out of game political ideology?
Did you *really* need a piece of text to toss out some asshole of your game that should have been tossed out regardless of what was between those two book-covers? If not... why do you really believe the "diversity text" is put into these things? Yes, this is a facetious question... I'm trying to give you some credit.
I'm a straight, white male and GM for my straight, white female wife and our bi, white male friend. According to SJW "thinking" we are subhuman scum by virtue of things that don't mean two fucks at the table. No blacks, trans or whatever-else at our table, not because we don't know any who wish to game with us, so it must be that we're bigots. :rolleyes: I hate these vapid, gatekeeping turds.
Quote from: sureshot;1055121The really sad part is it's all really good advice just poorly written and smacks of ultra pandering to a segment of the gaming community.../snip
I'm going to go out a little further. No it's not good advice. If it's good advice - I merely ask *for whom*? Who *really* needs to be told whom to game with that they, as presumed normal people with some sense of self-interest can't decide for themselves how to play make-believe with others?
It doesn't "smack of pandering" - it literally is pandering to a bunch of zealots that merely want these things in here like the old Comic-Code on comicbooks. They are the new Morality Thought Police that happen to eat heartily of the biggoted stew of low-expectations.
I have higher standards.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1054950It appears that these RPG shows help sell books, and may (or may not) create new gamers.
Of course, in the future, when you mention you play D&D, the other person might say "oh yeah, I used to watch that."
But so be it. The survey does show there's an appetite for RPG watching (how fucking weird) and its a beneficial sales and marketing channel for publishers.
Clearly, smaller RPGs should get their own shows happening.
Problem is there is so far no real proof that these game shows actually sell any games significantly. Just polls and surveys which are notoriously unreliable or often skewed to get the desired results.
Quote from: Omega;1055149Problem is there is so far no real proof that these game shows actually sell any games significantly. Just polls and surveys which are notoriously unreliable or often skewed to get the desired results.
Do you think showcasing or advertising D&D in this way hurts sales?
Quote from: tenbones;1055134Am I represented in your games? Please let me know in what way I'm represented so I can pass judgement on the purity of your representation of me.
Seriously tho... you're doing it right here. Do you honestly believe that people allow/disallow people at their tables based on the text of a game-company self-righteously patting themselves on the back by virtue signalling to their ideological herd that they support in-game some out of game political ideology?
Did you *really* need a piece of text to toss out some asshole of your game that should have been tossed out regardless of what was between those two book-covers? If not... why do you really believe the "diversity text" is put into these things? Yes, this is a facetious question... I'm trying to give you some credit.
I think Paizo's text (and rawma's analysis of it) is fine. While Spinachcat* makes a mostly legitimate point (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?39489-Big-Study-Proves-Most-Viewers-of-Youtube-D-amp-D-Shows-Treat-it-as-a-SHOW&p=1055111&viewfull=1#post1055111), I think it's an overblown one. I don't see how Paizo is a threat to the smooth running of his game.
*congrats on 10k by the way
Tenbones' post is an interesting one, but I still see this all as part of an ongoing effort to make representation a positive thing, not a deterrent, (or worse, an active tool use to gatekeep people from the hobby).
I reckon the vast majority of it is unconscious, and that's where text like Paizo's can be helpful, another small push on the wheel.
Likewise, I don't think these McDonalds folks are evil bigots (https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pearland/article/texas-photo-mcdonalds-pearland-viral-2018-13204150.php), but probably were blinkered to a particular demographic. I love that this thing was done in a warm way, and I imagine McDonalds will respond positively, and other companies will quickly follow suit. We all learn, and such sources of education are not to be feared.
(I actually live in Houston, although I first saw the story on a European news site! I can confirm that while the Asian demographic is smaller than the other main ones, it's still pretty sizeable (5%). )
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055124Another super-easy thing? Don't be a dick. It's that simple. I have a friend who dislikes a couple things and they make him uneasy. What do I do? Not rub them in his face, at the table or away. He does the same. With strangers it's even easier as most people with a shred of being a functional person act respectfully toward strangers. If you need or want advice on how to function as a basic human from a book about being an elf wizard, you're pretty much fucked.
Apparently that is not enough. One has to bend over backwards to make sure nothing is remotely objectionable, or offensive at the table. Don't agree get ready to be labelled trans, homo or whatever phobic they can add to you. With a side order of misogyny , rapist etc too boot.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055140I'm a straight, white male and GM for my straight, white female wife and our bi, white male friend. According to SJW "thinking" we are subhuman scum by virtue of things that don't mean two fucks at the table. No blacks, trans or whatever-else at our table, not because we don't know any who wish to game with us, so it must be that we're bigots. :rolleyes: I hate these vapid, gatekeeping turds.
Seconded and completely agree. With a demand to check our privilege at the door.
Quote from: Omega;1055149Problem is there is so far no real proof that these game shows actually sell any games significantly. Just polls and surveys which are notoriously unreliable or often skewed to get the desired results.
Maybe it's just coincidence that D&D has seen a sharp increase in popularity and profile at the same time as these extremely popular streaming shows took off.
Gotta love grognards. Even when D&D becomes more popular, if it seems to be because of reasons they don't like, they gotta shit all over it or deny it's even happening.
So does Paizo want GMs to have 'benevolent' pedophile NPCs in their game? It should make some people pretty uncomfortable, but apparently that takes a backseat to being inclusive, right? And what about the cannibals?
Quote from: Motorskills;1055155I think Paizo's text (and rawma's analysis of it) is fine.
This is jeff37923's complete lack of surprise.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1055164So does Paizo want GMs to have 'benevolent' pedophile NPCs in their game? It should make some people pretty uncomfortable, but apparently that takes a backseat to being inclusive, right? And what about the cannibals?
As long as they're fine, young cannibals it should be OK.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1055151Do you think showcasing or advertising D&D in this way hurts sales?
Hard to say? From a business viewpoint I'd guess likely no damage unless these gameplay podcasts start going vocally SJW which could easily turn potential buyers off.
And thinking on this I got the idea for the following theory.
The reason these shows are popular is because D&D has not had any real TV or movie media presence since Wrath of the Dragon God. (I do not count Book of Vile Darkness as a D&D movie.) Especially there has been no D&D cartoon since Lodoss War which came out in 1990 and unless you A: watched anime and B: knew it was a D&D series youd likely only have ever known of the D&D cartoon from 83-85. That is now a 35 year gap with no animated series and 28 if you count the anime. (28 if you count the anime TV series.)
That is quite a span and I think its contributing to the popularity of these shows and also the popularity of the various YouTube animations people are doing.
Embedded play fixed!
Quote from: Spinachcat;1054761That was a nicely done survey. There's rich data there to be mined and extrapolated.
What jumped out to me was 39.6% watched initially to learn about the game.
And 10% want more character death!!
Also, huge interest in non-D&D YT events.
Indeed.
Quote from: Haffrung;1054915One of my players is a big fan of livestreamed channels like Critical Role. Not coincidentally, he now wants improvisational in-character theatrics to be a big part of our game, when he didn't a couple years ago.
That's great news...
...for people like me.
Quote from: rawma;1055093I did cringe internally during Breath of the Yellow Rose, where air elemental cultists were teaching their followers not to eat,
So basically Breatharians (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Breatharianism).
Quote from: S'mon;1055118I think it's worse in the longer version. They are trying to set a single social norm for every game. Most of their mandated social norms happen to be fairly close to how I run public games in practice, but that's really not the point. This is a decision for the people at the gaming table to make, not for Paizo to set for them. And some of it, like 'everyone has a right to be represented whether or not they are playing', would be insane if actually applied as written.
They're essentially saying you're accountable to people
who are not even in your game, which isn't even possible on any practical level. And that's exactly how the SJWs want it, as it gives them an attack vector which can never go away.
Your accountability begins and ends with the people
at your table and those who
choose to watch your stream. Anyone else making demands of you better be offering to pay for your time.
Quote from: jeff37923;1055125The Core of the problem is that we have people who have been taught that it is OK to be an asshole as long as it is for social justice.
Which is why that movement attracts so many narcissists, hypocrites, and sociopaths.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055170As long as they're fine, young cannibals it should be OK.
That is a name I have not heard in a long time. A long time.
Great music.
Quote from: tenbones;1055134Am I represented in your games? Please let me know in what way I'm represented so I can pass judgement on the purity of your representation of me.
Seriously tho... you're doing it right here. Do you honestly believe that people allow/disallow people at their tables based on the text of a game-company self-righteously patting themselves on the back by virtue signalling to their ideological herd that they support in-game some out of game political ideology?
Did you *really* need a piece of text to toss out some asshole of your game that should have been tossed out regardless of what was between those two book-covers? If not... why do you really believe the "diversity text" is put into these things? Yes, this is a facetious question... I'm trying to give you some credit.
Another willful misreading of the Paizo quote combined with a misreading of my post. I have no idea if you're represented in my games or not, because I know virtually nothing about you.
Did you see where I said that we booted that person "back when"? That would be the late 1970s. Paizo hasn't told me anything, as I own nothing from Pathfinder (except for a dry erase map marked out in squares that I use for D&D) and hadn't read anything they've written until encountering S'mon's quotes. I use it as the sort of example that they are telling their GMs not to cave to. I don't think it's bad advice, and has nothing to do with requiring any GM to represent someone in their game, only to avoid removing some NPC because a player is uncomfortable with the NPC's identity. If you were really trying to give me any credit, you'd do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote.
Honestly, the whole lot of you are just looking for something to be offended by; I don't know if the projection outweighs the irony or not, as you've probably collectively broken every scale for either.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055163Maybe it's just coincidence that D&D has seen a sharp increase in popularity and profile at the same time as these extremely popular streaming shows took off.
I am DEFINITELY getting a bunch of people at my Meetup trying out D&D because they saw a show on Youtube. The cause and effect is very clear. Not all stay playing, but some do.
Quote from: rawma;1055181I don't think it's bad advice, and has nothing to do with requiring any GM to represent someone in their game
"People of all identities and experiences
have a right to be
represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily
playing at your table."
How the fuck can you read "have a right to be represented in the game" as having "nothing to do with requiring any GM to represent someone in their game"?
Quote from: S'mon;1055194"People of all identities and experiences have a right to be
represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily
playing at your table."
How the fuck can you read "have a right to be represented in the game" as having "nothing to do with requiring any GM to represent someone in their game"?
I think you are being unnecessarily uncharitable and/or unnecessarily defensive here. I see it far more as creating a constructive and welcoming environment for gaming in general.
The title of the segment is "Gaming Is For All".
That's the objective.
I don't see it as requiring the GM to create particular worlds or NPCs or anything else. I do see it as obligating the GM to be open-minded and flexible to maximise that OOC objective. Re-read the rest of the GM-specific section, it's pretty straightforward. A racist or homophobic GM can cause offence at his table, even if all the players are hetero and the same race.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055206I think you are being unnecessarily uncharitable and/or unnecessarily defensive here. I see it far more as creating a constructive and welcoming environment for gaming in general.
The title of the segment is "Gaming Is For All". That's the objective.
I don't see it as requiring the GM to create particular worlds or NPCs or anything else. I do see it as obligating the GM to be open-minded and flexible to maximise that OOC objective. Re-read the rest of the GM-specific section, it's pretty straightforward. A racist or homophobic GM can cause offence at his table, even if all the players are hetero and the same race.
It's already been "gaming for all". The only marginalization in Nerd Land has been between games, not race and sex. There weren't so many boogey men until the disease of social justice weakened the hearts, minds and spines of certain people. It's stupid advice to have in a game book and if you're the person who needs such things in your make believe, again, you're fucked.
Quote from: S'mon;1055182I am DEFINITELY getting a bunch of people at my Meetup trying out D&D because they saw a show on Youtube. The cause and effect is very clear. Not all stay playing, but some do.
Did you notice a difference in those kinds of players?
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055208It's already been "gaming for all". The only marginalization in Nerd Land has been between games, not race and sex. There weren't so many boogey men until the disease of social justice weakened the hearts, minds and spines of certain people. It's stupid advice to have in a game book and if you're the person who needs such things in your make believe, again, you're fucked.
You can't have shit like GamerGate and more recently the backlash against the appointment of Kate Welch and reasonably argue that everything is just fine and dandy in Nerd Land.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055163Maybe it's just coincidence that D&D has seen a sharp increase in popularity and profile at the same time as these extremely popular streaming shows took off.
I think this probably gets the causality backwards. D&D saw a sharp increase in popularity as soon as 5e was released and it hasn't looked back since. I suspect the popularity of the game supports the shows rather than the other way around.
I've become aware of the fact that for a few years now, watching youtube videos of other people playing computer games (as opposed to playing yourself) has been a trend with the Kids These Days. It doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever. Get off my lawn. It seems reasonable to suppose that things like Critical Role are an extension of this same trend. Which I suspect means that Pundit is correct and that for most of the people who watch these shows, watching
is the hobby. Which, as other people have noted, is just fine as long as it doesn't start to distort the rules. That's not a totally insane thing to worry about. One of the many theories of what went wrong with 4e is that the designers placed too much weight on feedback from people whose real hobby was optimizing character builds on internet fora rather than actually playing the game.
As for Paizo's statement: never forget folks, pretending to be an elf is SERIOUS BUSINESS:rolleyes:.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055217You can't have shit like GamerGate and more recently the backlash against the appointment of Kate Welch and reasonably argue that everything is just fine and dandy in Nerd Land.
I never said everything is fine, far from it. But the fault lies with SJW bullshit not the made-up issues they constantly bemoan.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055219I never said everything is fine, far from it. But the fault lies with SJW bullshit not the made-up issues they constantly bemoan.
It's not made up. "SJW bullshit" is clearly not responsible for people haranguing Welch.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1055216Did you notice a difference in those kinds of players?
The ones attracted by Youtube are almost always young, but so are the majority of newbies in general. They seem less nerdish on average, more normal I guess, so unlikely to see any Catpissman behaviour from them. They can handle 5e rules fine and don't show any extreme characteristics - they can do both crunch and in-character roleplay ok. A minority are unhappy with my game's lack of focus on special snowflake backstory-ism, but most like my more OSR style ok. Generally they're a fine bunch and a good addition to the hobby.
Edit: Oh, PrometheanVigil would probably be happy to know we get a lot more black female D&D players these days. I'm not sure if Youtube is responsible, I get the impression the pro-diversity 5e art direction may have had an influence - although one of my black female players adopted as her PC a former NPC, a busty blonde amazon warrior straight out of a '70s Frazetta pic called Nemesis (https://www.deviantart.com/amazon-warriors/art/AMAZON-WARRIOR-JANE-578869786) (pic NSFW). Plays her awesomely. :cool:
Quote from: Motorskills;1055206The title of the segment is "Gaming Is For All". That's the objective.
That's not really the objective. They clearly don't want social conservatives playing, never mind sexists racists et al. In fact they don't even want people playing sexist or racist characters, since it's triggering.
Now ironically I just booted a jerkish player, and one of the reasons I did so was because he in-character called Nemesis (
supra) a bitch, for some trivial reason, while running off leaving the party to die - only to run down a dead end passage and be eaten by the pursuing undead miners, much to my joy (the wizard PC turned him & Nemesis invisible, so
they survived). I guess if Paizo saw my DMing style they'd probably think I did a great job keeping those scummy straight white dudes in line, and protecting the Vulnerable Minorities. But it's not their place to be mandating how people behave in private games, or even who they allow to play.
Quote from: rawma;1055181Another willful misreading of the Paizo quote combined with a misreading of my post. I have no idea if you're represented in my games or not, because I know virtually nothing about you.
As I said - I was being facetious. The fact is there is no purity test that can ever be passed. That's the whole freakin point.
I'm not misreading it their text. I know exactly what they mean by it. I know why they put it in there. I used contract for them, work with them, back when we used to could talk about game-design freely. I know what they *think* they're doing by putting it in there - but it's not the primary reason they're doing it. It's a political statement first and foremost. And as I stated in my previous post - which you ratify below: You didn't *need* a game-company to tell you these things. SO WHY HAVE IT IN THERE? (this is where the political point becomes relevant...)
Quote from: rawma;1055181Did you see where I said that we booted that person "back when"? That would be the late 1970s. Paizo hasn't told me anything, as I own nothing from Pathfinder (except for a dry erase map marked out in squares that I use for D&D) and hadn't read anything they've written until encountering S'mon's quotes. I use it as the sort of example that they are telling their GMs not to cave to. I don't think it's bad advice, and has nothing to do with requiring any GM to represent someone in their game, only to avoid removing some NPC because a player is uncomfortable with the NPC's identity. If you were really trying to give me any credit, you'd do me the courtesy of reading what I wrote.
Aaaaaaand thank you. You made my point by obviously not reading my post - you know that part where I said "is it really necessary?". The only difference is you're somehow trying to justify their reasons *despite* agreeing with me they're unnecessary and you even provided a handy-dandy example. It's political first and unnecessary advice unless you're mentally deficient (not saying YOU - but if you're someone that needs this text to tell you how whom to play with, how to play, and by what manner - then yeah that person).
Quote from: rawma;1055181Honestly, the whole lot of you are just looking for something to be offended by; I don't know if the projection outweighs the irony or not, as you've probably collectively broken every scale for either.
As you pointed out - you don't really know me so I'm not part of the "whole lot". It takes a lot to actually offend me. I'm actually laughing at this whole thing. Just like I laugh at Marvel cratering itself, like I laugh at Disney's handling of Star Wars, like I laugh at the NFL, now Nike etc. I'm amused that these corporate giants have embraced an idiotic ideology that is completely against their own interests, and are willing to pursue it to their ultimate degradation and loss. I find it very interesting. Offended? Not at all! I think Paizo has every right to pursue what ever ends they want - including financial loss if the market says so. If they find an audience - great! I'm still not buying their products.
Edit: Thread topic - as I said a long time ago, Performance Gaming isn't gaming.
Quote from: Dimitrios;1055218I've become aware of the fact that for a few years now, watching youtube videos of other people playing computer games (as opposed to playing yourself) has been a trend with the Kids These Days. It doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever. Get off my lawn. It seems reasonable to suppose that things like Critical Role are an extension of this same trend. Which I suspect means that Pundit is correct and that for most of the people who watch these shows, watching is the hobby.
But given how popular these streams are - 150k+ watching each video - even if only a third of them feel curious to try D&D at the table, that's 50k new gamers. I can't think of any marketing initiative that has brought that many new players into the game. Even accidental marketing, like Stranger Things, wouldn't have had much impact if the kids who saw the game played on Netflix couldn't go to Youtube and see D&D being played by people who look fun and cool.
As for Paizo's inclusivity policy, it helps to regard these sorts of statements as religious declarations. The demographic the publishers belong to (and who they're trying to aim their products at) are in the midst of an evangelical movement. A whole class of people are Woke to a higher morality, a new path for humankind. They're inspired and anxious and passionate. But most importantly, it's absolutely vital in their social environment for them to Declare, to publicly express their virtue and their membership in the movement.
They can't control what other people do at their tables. All they can do is proclaim that their products meet the moral doctrine of their sub-culture. And like other religious declarations, those of us who don't share the faith can simply ignore the hectoring sanctimony if we like the product well enough (as I ignore the religious comments on Coco Brooks pizza boxes and turn the channel when athletes launch into thank the lord moments).
Quote from: Haffrung;1055238As for Paizo's inclusivity policy, it helps to regard these sorts of statements as religious declarations. The demographic the publishers belong to (and who they're trying to aim their products at) are in the midst of an evangelical movement. A whole class of people are Woke to a higher morality, a new path for humankind. They're inspired and anxious and passionate. But most importantly, it's absolutely vital in their social environment for them to Declare, to publicly express their virtue and their membership in the movement.
They can't control what other people do at their tables. All they can do is proclaim that their products meet the moral doctrine of their sub-culture. And like other religious declarations, those of us who don't share the faith can simply ignore the hectoring sanctimony if we like the product well enough (as I ignore the religious comments on Coco Brooks pizza boxes and turn the channel when athletes launch into thank the lord moments).
Oh shit... I read this and I saw Transexual Messiah images in my head with elf-ears.
Corellon?
Quote from: Motorskills;1055221It's not made up. "SJW bullshit" is clearly not responsible for people haranguing Welch.
Who is Kate Welch and what's the issue surrounding her?
That aside, until the SJW mob stops its stupidity things will never stop being problems. They create self-inflicted traumas or worse, latch on to legitimate ones and leech from them and use them as shields. Look at your signature quote from Minnie Driver; it's white knight virtue signaling that's attached to the made-up epidemic of rape culture, so I'm far from any bit surprised you can't see through your panic-colored glasses.
Quote from: rawma;1055181Honestly, the whole lot of you are just looking for something to be offended by; I don't know if the projection outweighs the irony or not, as you've probably collectively broken every scale for either.
Oh, shit! For a moment there I thought a reasonable person was explaining reality to an SJW. Then I realized it was the self-deluded spewing ignorance. My bad.
Quote from: tenbones;1055239Oh shit... I read this and I saw Transexual Messiah images in my head with elf-ears.
Corellon?
This dong hits hard.
Quote from: S'mon;1055194"People of all identities and experiences have a right to be represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily playing at your table."
How the fuck can you read "have a right to be represented in the game" as having "nothing to do with requiring any GM to represent someone in their game"?
I don't actually understand what that phrase is intended to mean. I don't think it was intended to mean that every GM is required to have every possible identity and experience in whatever game they run. But if not, then I'm not sure how the supposed right to be represented would apply. I guess, as some people say, it may be just virtue signaling without actually expressing a concrete policy.
Personally, I think that representation is a matter of collective responsibility. There is nothing wrong if one GM runs a game with only male characters - like running an army WWII game. But if *every* GM runs *every* game with only male characters, then I think it would be a problem. There is no right to be represented, but people should be open-minded. If people are open-minded, then there will be a variety of representation.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055243Who is Kate Welch and what's the issue surrounding her?
Her tits made her unqualified to work for WOTC (https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/07/25/rosie-beestinger-interview-dds-kate-welch/) basically. You know the drill (https://www.themarysue.com/the-mary-sue-critical-role-interview/).
Quote from: AlderaannLook at your signature quote from Minnie Driver; it's white knight virtue signaling that's attached to the made-up epidemic of rape culture, so I'm far from any bit surprised you can't see through your panic-colored glasses.
It was a time and place thing. The place was here (one of the usual suspects posted the regular wimminz BS), I forget the who and when. I wish they had had Minnie Driver in the room at the time, she can eyeroll like nobody's business. And indeed, your post smells a bit like it too. The victims of Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein were real, and far from being in a vacuum, just the most high profile.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055252The victims of Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein were real
Nice turn of phrase. Like saying "The victims of Obama and Hitler" - they both did bad things, but different orders of magnitude.
Quote from: S'mon;1055278Nice turn of phrase. Like saying "The victims of Obama and Hitler" - they both did bad things, but different orders of magnitude.
Eh, I think it is a genuine scale. If it was just a few Hollywood actresses or Fox News staffers getting done over, the #MeToo movement wouldn't have gone anywhere.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055252Her tits made her unqualified to work for WOTC (https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/07/25/rosie-beestinger-interview-dds-kate-welch/) basically. You know the drill (https://www.themarysue.com/the-mary-sue-critical-role-interview/).
It was a time and place thing. The place was here (one of the usual suspects posted the regular wimminz BS), I forget the who and when. I wish they had had Minnie Driver in the room at the time, she can eyeroll like nobody's business. And indeed, your post smells a bit like it too. The victims of Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein were real, and far from being in a vacuum, just the most high profile.
Likely more crying from the SJW mob that WOTC was called out on a women getting a job because of said tits, not because she's qualified. Or she might be, in which case being an asshole isn't cool. The difference is...consistently...that reasonable (non-SJW) people smack down abuses and unfair treatment on the regular, however it's never recognized or applied because it removes victimhood status. It's also often justifiably applied to SJWs and they cannot deal with mirrors. Your camp has so royally fucked up any hope of reasoned debate and then cries about it.
And do you mean women like Asia Argento? Or the several other fabricated, overblown stories of rape that insult and create true victims? Or the sluts who lament poor choices who cry "Rape!"? And I assume men who have been exploited and abused are protected alongside those same women, right? Like the many young boys abused in Hollywood? The same institution your camp so vehemently adores and defends? What's that I hear? Nothing? Though so.
Oh, do you have an original thought in your head or is linking heavily-skewed, SJW-infected opinion pieces your only foundation?
Quote from: S'mon;1055278Nice turn of phrase. Like saying "The victims of Obama and Hitler" - they both did bad things, but different orders of magnitude.
These are the same disingenuous fuckwits who applaud Polanski and cried for days when their Champion of Feminism, HRC...the one who ruined the lives of rape victims...lost the election. The same asshats who get caught fabricating a rape story and then defend with, "It could've been real!", and so on. Hypocrisy thy name is social justice.
Quote from: S'mon;1055278Nice turn of phrase. Like saying "The victims of Obama and Hitler" - they both did bad things, but different orders of magnitude.
If you have a penis you can't say things like that. Only women get to decide what is sexual harassment and that's why you have tweets claiming someone asking for your number (https://twitter.com/katewelchhhh/status/1035605559888625664) is sexual harassment.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055252 The victims of Roger Ailes and Harvey Weinstein were real....[/QUOTESo was the Duke lacrosse case and the Rolling Stone's debacle.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1055285So was the Duke lacrosse case and the Rolling Stone's debacle.
Ras Algethi, one of the biggest differences? Non-SJWs don't discount actual bigotry and abuse for an agenda. So while your example is valid, to the SJW horde those ruined lives were conscripts who died on the right hill.
Hammurabi's Code: false accusations carry the same sentence as if the accuser had committed the crime.
Don't think you'd see too many false rape accusations if the accuser had the possibility of years in jail.
Quote from: S'mon;1055194"People of all identities and experiences have a right to be
represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily
playing at your table."
How the fuck can you read "have a right to be represented in the game" as having "nothing to do with requiring any GM to represent someone in their game"?
By reading the previous line of the quotation which you posted and which I quoted. It's in regard to not removing what's already in the game because somebody is intolerant.
Quote from: tenbones;1055233As I said - I was being facetious.
Ah, the just kidding defense. Excuse me while I shudder.
QuoteI'm not misreading it their text. I know exactly what they mean by it. I know why they put it in there. I used contract for them, work with them, back when we used to could talk about game-design freely. I know what they *think* they're doing by putting it in there - but it's not the primary reason they're doing it. It's a political statement first and foremost.
You're getting the meaning from what you know from working with the game company, not from actually reading the text. It does not say what S'mon claimed when he quoted it out of context.
QuoteAnd as I stated in my previous post - which you ratify below: You didn't *need* a game-company to tell you these things. SO WHY HAVE IT IN THERE? (this is where the political point becomes relevant...)
Aaaaaaand thank you. You made my point by obviously not reading my post - you know that part where I said "is it really necessary?". The only difference is you're somehow trying to justify their reasons *despite* agreeing with me they're unnecessary and you even provided a handy-dandy example. It's political first and unnecessary advice unless you're mentally deficient (not saying YOU - but if you're someone that needs this text to tell you how whom to play with, how to play, and by what manner - then yeah that person).
The fact that I've GMed for more than 40 years means that the GM advice in almost every rulebook for conventional RPG games is not something I need. But I still recognize that people with less experience may need it, without being mentally deficient. And of course a tabletop game depends on a social contract; if it involves people who may never have met (like at conventions, game stores and organized play events), then it's better to make it explicit. The longer quotation starts off talking about that, and clearly Paizo is saying what they think should be in it. Discouraging in advance players like S'mon's who will start calling other players names if they are frustrated is probably not a bad thing.
QuoteAs you pointed out - you don't really know me so I'm not part of the "whole lot".
I know of you from the posts you've made at this site; it does not set you apart from the pack, sorry. And for all that you claim to be completely laid back and just hipster level amused, you
were shouting up there ("SO WHY HAVE IT IN THERE?") and then going off on politics. So welcome to the whole lot.
Quote from: jhkim;1055251I don't actually understand what that phrase is intended to mean. I don't think it was intended to mean that every GM is required to have every possible identity and experience in whatever game they run. But if not, then I'm not sure how the supposed right to be represented would apply. I guess, as some people say, it may be just virtue signaling without actually expressing a concrete policy.
In the context of the line before it in the longer quotation, it's clearly about not censoring out NPCs who are already in the adventure because someone doesn't like what they are.
QuotePersonally, I think that representation is a matter of collective responsibility. There is nothing wrong if one GM runs a game with only male characters - like running an army WWII game. But if *every* GM runs *every* game with only male characters, then I think it would be a problem. There is no right to be represented, but people should be open-minded. If people are open-minded, then there will be a variety of representation.
As I read the longer quote, Paizo is saying "don't remove the female NPCs from the game world if someone doesn't like women in the roles those characters have, even if there are no female players at the table."
Quote from: rawma;1055299By reading the previous line of the quotation which you posted and which I quoted. It's in regard to not removing what's already in the game because somebody is intolerant.
Ah, the just kidding defense. Excuse me while I shudder.
You're getting the meaning from what you know from working with the game company, not from actually reading the text. It does not say what S'mon claimed when he quoted it out of context.
The fact that I've GMed for more than 40 years means that the GM advice in almost every rulebook for conventional RPG games is not something I need. But I still recognize that people with less experience may need it, without being mentally deficient. And of course a tabletop game depends on a social contract; if it involves people who may never have met (like at conventions, game stores and organized play events), then it's better to make it explicit. The longer quotation starts off talking about that, and clearly Paizo is saying what they think should be in it. Discouraging in advance players like S'mon's who will start calling other players names if they are frustrated is probably not a bad thing.
I know of you from the posts you've made at this site; it does not set you apart from the pack, sorry. And for all that you claim to be completely laid back and just hipster level amused, you were shouting up there ("SO WHY HAVE IT IN THERE?") and then going off on politics. So welcome to the whole lot.
In the context of the line before it in the longer quotation, it's clearly about not censoring out NPCs who are already in the adventure because someone doesn't like what they are.
As I read the longer quote, Paizo is saying "don't remove the female NPCs from the game world if someone doesn't like women in the roles those characters have, even if there are no female players at the table."
Your mindset is the weakest (thankfully, at the moment) version of fascism and everything you're pushing is poison.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055206The title of the segment is "Gaming Is For All". That's the objective.
But it's ALWAYS been for all.
The only reason certain demographics (Women, popular kids) didn't, was because it was stigmatized that only losers played D&D. Then Big Bang Theory fooled a bunch of normies into thinking that being a Geek is an In thing, but the issue is that now that they are IN the group, they (women, popular 'kids') want the undesirables out of this group they've appropriated, after being invited in.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055303But it's ALWAYS been for all.
The only reason certain demographics (Women, popular kids) didn't, was because it was stigmatized that only losers played D&D. Then Big Bang Theory fooled a bunch of normies into thinking that being a Geek is an In thing, but the issue is that now that they are IN the group, they (women, popular 'kids') want the undesirables out of this group they've appropriated, after being invited in.
Ding ding, winner!
This is why I laugh scornfully at all this inclusivity bullshit. When TTRPGs first came out, only nerds and weirdos (the "othered") were playing them and now that being a nerd is cool - the social justice generation doesn't think that we understand what it feels like to be "othered" and therefore must be reeducated by these "woke" zombies like Motorskills.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055303But it's ALWAYS been for all.
The only reason certain demographics (Women, popular kids) didn't, was because it was stigmatized that only losers played D&D. Then Big Bang Theory fooled a bunch of normies into thinking that being a Geek is an In thing, but the issue is that now that they are IN the group, they (women, popular 'kids') want the undesirables out of this group they've appropriated, after being invited in.
Let's take that for a spin....
In the UK at least, the
Fighting Fantasy novels were regularly bestsellers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Fantasy#Reception) a quarter of a century before
The Big Bang TheoryThe Harry Potter books came out a decade before the
The Big Bang Theory.
TBBT probably helped add some numbers, but the crowd was there long before.
Finally, you can't have it both ways. Either gaming was always for all, or the folks giving you sleepless nights were invited in. Pick one.
In most gaming groups it was for all. In my neck of the woods at least until the mid-90s women would not be caught dead playing in any tabletop rpgs as it was a hobby that came with a huge social stigmata. For geeks, nerds, losers and the less cool and popular members of a social group. It was only when I went to college in the mid-90s that I saw a decent number of women playing rpgs. Even then it was still a smaller number than men. I'm pretty sure before coming out about being gay was a accepted thing. Which some sJWs like to act like it always was. I'm pretty sure we had gay members who kept quiet about being gay as well. My table we never turned away anyone no matter gender, creed or religion. We never failed to boot someone who acted rudely like a jerk. Think being a female member made you immune from being booted out of a group for acting poorly guess again.
I despise the SJW movement in rpgs because the narrative they push is that at every table, convention, or socieity level play. Or worse every single white, straight, male gamer is a racist, rapist, intolerant, privileged male just waiting to ban and talk shit about anyone different from them. Don't get me started on those who seem to be offended by everything and anything when they go to Gencon or something similar. How do they survive daily life. Probably developing a new ulcer everytime they take the subway or bus to work.
Quote from: sureshot;1055316I despise the SJW movement in rpgs because the narrative they push is that at every table, convention, or socieity level play. Or worse every single white, straight, male gamer is a racist, rapist, intolerant, privileged male just waiting to ban and talk shit about anyone different from them. Don't get me started on those who seem to be offended by everything and anything when they go to Gencon or something similar. How do they survive daily life. Probably developing a new ulcer everytime they take the subway or bus to work.
I honestly don't see this in the significant numbers of places that I go. We have eight (ish) games shops within an hour of me, five are within twenty minutes of me. We have multiple conventions (both gaming-focus and gaming-peripheral). Adventurers' League is huge, but my local FB and MeetUp pages are bombarded with people starting new games and looking for games (of all kinds). The Gauntlet (http://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/) started round here and is now pretty much global.
I travel all the time (work), that enables me to go to conventions around the country, I stop by games stores I didn't know about the day before just to poke around and chat, I occasionally meet gamer-strangers for a beer.
All I see is a growing, thriving hobby, with all creeds and colours represented, an age demographic that I am happily astonished by (5e has been awesome for bringing people back after 20+ years away).
Other than on webforums like these...where is this negativity being represented? The FTF hobby has always had plenty of social misfits, it strikes me that that is not the issue out in the wild. I game with plenty of conservatives, it really isn't politics that is the problem IMO. I suspect it is people that are unable to restrain their intolerance for others, and bring their issues to the table.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055313Let's take that for a spin....
In the UK at least, the Fighting Fantasy novels were regularly bestsellers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Fantasy#Reception) a quarter of a century before The Big Bang Theory
The Harry Potter books came out a decade before the The Big Bang Theory.
TBBT probably helped add some numbers, but the crowd was there long before.
Finally, you can't have it both ways. Either gaming was always for all, or the folks giving you sleepless nights were invited in. Pick one.
The FF books and the CYOA series were not RPGs though and did not overall impact the RPG comminity. There were overlaps of interests just as there is overlaps with board games and wargames and later arcade and PC games. And I doubt shows like Big Bang Theory actually had as big an impact as some think.
Theres allways been overlaps of interests and as I noted prior I think the current interest in these gameplay vids is the dearth of official viewing media related.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055313In the UK at least, the Fighting Fantasy novels were regularly bestsellers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Fantasy#Reception) a quarter of a century before The Big Bang Theory
For children, though. I know I got into RPGs with FF but there was definitely some nerd stigma to D&D in the UK; probably not to the extent of the USA.
Quote from: S'mon;1055322For children, though. I know I got into RPGs with FF but there was definitely some nerd stigma to D&D in the UK; probably not to the extent of the USA.
Yeah, we didn't have the Satanic Panic and whatnot, but I do think
Fighting Fantasy was much more for "young people" (say 10 - 30?) rather than simply for "kids". I don't think it was a coincidence that age range was pretty much the demographic I seem to remember playing RPGs at the various UK conventions of the time.
(My personal gamer circles were smaller then, and no internet, so don't want to extrapolate too much from that dataset)
Quote from: Motorskills;1055319Other than on webforums like these...where is this negativity being represented?
I've not seen it in real life, but it's widespread on the Facebook D&D groups, which are a lot bigger than the forums these days. I was a member of a bunch for a while. There was a lot of it in the main 5e Facebook group, which didn't surprise me so much, but I was shocked to see it in the Swords & Wizardry group. The only D&D FB group I've not seen it in - hence the only one I'm still subbed to - is the D&D UK one. Indeed I've seen a few comments there re the other D&D groups, about those crazy Americans and how we Brits don't let politics infest our gaming, we're just here to play.
I'm sure there are people with strong socjus views at my D&D Meetup. They are welcome to play, same as everyone else, as long as they, like everyone else, are polite and respectful to their fellow players. So far (8 months in) it has not been an issue. I deleted one "Punch A Nazi - What D&D Alignment Are You?" meme from the Meetup's ancillary FB group; that's it. I didn't scold the person who posted it and she's still welcome to play.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055323Yeah, we didn't have the Satanic Panic and whatnot
Oh yes we did! :D
I grew up in Northern Ireland, and the D&D Satanic Panic was
very much a thing there. But I've heard reports from other more socially conservative parts of the UK too.
Quote from: Omega;1055320The FF books and the CYOA series were not RPGs though and did not overall impact the RPG comminity. There were overlaps of interests just as there is overlaps with board games and wargames and later arcade and PC games. And I doubt shows like Big Bang Theory actually had as big an impact as some think.
Theres allways been overlaps of interests and as I noted prior I think the current interest in these gameplay vids is the dearth of official viewing media related.
S'mon and I appear to be of a certain British age, so I don't want to generalise too much, but I honestly wouldn't put the CYOA and FF books in the same category when it came to the RPG hobby in the UK. I remember buying a couple of CYOA books and being astonished at how bad they were - or perhaps they were simply "American".
I never saw them on sale again, while FF went from strength to strength and spawned a bunch of things that were either peripheral RPGs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson%27s_Sorcery!) or full-on RPGs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maelstrom_(role-playing_game)).
And speaking for myself I would totally dispute that the FF books didn't impact the RPG hobby (in the UK). I'll let S'mon field that one if he likes. :)
Quote from: S'mon;1055325Oh yes we did! :D
I grew up in Northern Ireland, and the D&D Satanic Panic was very much a thing there.
That I can believe! :D
Quote from: S'mon;1055324I've not seen it in real life, but it's widespread on the Facebook D&D groups, which are a lot bigger than the forums these days. I was a member of a bunch for a while. There was a lot of it in the main 5e Facebook group, which didn't surprise me so much, but I was shocked to see it in the Swords & Wizardry group. The only D&D FB group I've not seen it in - hence the only one I'm still subbed to - is the D&D UK one. Indeed I've seen a few comments there re the other D&D groups, about those crazy Americans and how we Brits don't let politics infest our gaming, we're just here to play.
I'm sure there are people with strong socjus views at my D&D Meetup. They are welcome to play, same as everyone else, as long as they, like everyone else, are polite and respectful to their fellow players. So far (8 months in) it has not been an issue. I deleted one "Punch A Nazi - What D&D Alignment Are You?" meme from the Meetup's ancillary FB group; that's it. I didn't scold the person who posted it and she's still welcome to play.
Yeah, I can relate to that, the USA does seem spikier overall than the UK (related in large part to the geographical and cultural divides that Blighty doesn't have). Brits tend to be more....well....British, and that's part of it too. :)
Can we safely say that the USA and the UK are different countries with different cultures and thus different reactions to TTRPGs as an industry and a hobby?
Quote from: Motorskills;1055319I honestly don't see this in the significant numbers of places that I go. We have eight (ish) games shops within an hour of me, five are within twenty minutes of me. We have multiple conventions (both gaming-focus and gaming-peripheral). Adventurers' League is huge, but my local FB and MeetUp pages are bombarded with people starting new games and looking for games (of all kinds). The Gauntlet (http://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/) started round here and is now pretty much global.
I travel all the time (work), that enables me to go to conventions around the country, I stop by games stores I didn't know about the day before just to poke around and chat, I occasionally meet gamer-strangers for a beer.
All I see is a growing, thriving hobby, with all creeds and colours represented, an age demographic that I am happily astonished by (5e has been awesome for bringing people back after 20+ years away).
Other than on webforums like these...where is this negativity being represented? The FTF hobby has always had plenty of social misfits, it strikes me that that is not the issue out in the wild. I game with plenty of conservatives, it really isn't politics that is the problem IMO. I suspect it is people that are unable to restrain their intolerance for others, and bring their issues to the table.
From someone getting punched at Gencon by someone else who attended. To another poster who post I can no longer find having a panic attack because when they went to Gencon this year everything and anything was offending that person. To rpg.net banning people at a whim for not swallowing the kool-aid. With Paizo telling me and others how to run our games. Their is a issue and I'm hoping your right it's not as prevalent yet to pretend it's not is being deliberately both obtuse and perhaps too naive imo. To be clear what Paizo wrote in their 2E core needed to be included. It could have been done with the overly obvious attempt to cater to SJWs and proclaim their new found wokeness. A simple Don't be a jerk, make sure everyone at the table is comfortable playing in your game. Allow everyone and anyone despite gender, race or religion. More importantly have fun. We don't need to be told to be inclusive, nannies and psychologists from Paizo. Many in the hobby were inclusive before that word existed.
As much as some in the hobby want to pretend otherwise playing rpgs for many years was a stigmatized hobby. It became less worse with mmos because at least with rpgs it is a group activity and not some guy locked in his basement playing WOW hours or even weeks on end. For the longest time we were the social outcasts. So those treated like that with few exceptions tend to usually be more open minded. It's only with the Big Bang Theory that suddenly Geek became cool. To be fair though our hobby did have it's share of very socially inept and perhaps also having mental health issues too. I gamed with a few for too many years before I gave up and moved on.
The leftist "inclusion" big lie is the same as it has always been:
1. A group is reasonably inclusive to a variety of viewpoints, because of a mix of classical liberal, free-thinking conservative, libertarian, and various others that wouldn't necessarily be inclusive on their own but see no reason to rock the boat.
2. Leftist member rocks the boat. Not happy that X isn't "included". Get their way. Arguments are all about how everyone needs to be included.
3. As soon as they get enough of their like-thinking members, they start running people out. It starts with whichever target they can isolate the easiest. During this period, they deny vigorously that this is what they are doing.
4. As soon as they get control, they change the rules to ensure they never lose it, and the purge begins of anyone that even thinks about standing up to them.
5. Finally, the organization collapses as they turn on each other.
The method is standard Alinksy. (Also standard Islamic Jihad tactics, including the lying, though I think the similarity of tactics is more because it works, than any particularly affinity.)
The bolded part of point #3 is where we are with some of the people on this board, and their rabid habit of sneering at any discussion about this happening. They are bald-faced liars.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055313Finally, you can't have it both ways. Either gaming was always for all, or the folks giving you sleepless nights were invited in. Pick one.
This seems like a false choice. People were always invited in. Until recently most of them chose not to join because sitting around a table pretending to kill orcs was considered weird.
While it's not a big deal, it's at least mildly annoying to people who spent years minding their own business pursuing their (widely stigmatized) hobby to now find themselves recast as evil elitist gatekeepers who were shutting out the wretched masses who wanted to play. I started gaming in the early 80s. Those of us who kept playing after the initial fad faded away didn't spend our time chasing desperate would be players away from our tables, and it's a B.S. rewriting of history to claim otherwise.
Quote from: Dimitrios;1055350This seems like a false choice. People were always invited in. Until recently most of them chose not to join because sitting around a table pretending to kill orcs was considered weird.
While it's not a big deal, it's at least mildly annoying to people who spent years minding their own business pursuing their (widely stigmatized) hobby to now find themselves recast as evil elitist gatekeepers who were shutting out the wretched masses who wanted to play. I started gaming in the early 80s. Those of us who kept playing after the initial fad faded away didn't spend our time chasing desperate would be players away from our tables, and it's a B.S. rewriting of history to claim otherwise.
Eh, I'll concede the point, or meet you halfway at least. From the late 70s (in the UK) I never saw the hobby as
stigmatized as such (albeit except in certain religious corners), even if it was geeky/nerdy/whatever. Plenty of hobbies and interests fell into a similar category.
I think what is different now is the hobby is expanding (along with all sorts of peripheral interests) and is
actively welcoming people of all stripes, whereas in previous decades the acceptance might previously have been passive, or grudging, or not at all, (whether consciously or not). And where the acceptance is not adequately embraced, there is significant noise, whereas before either people just sucked it up or drifted away.
Quote from: Dimitrios;1055350This seems like a false choice. People were always invited in. Until recently most of them chose not to join because sitting around a table pretending to kill orcs was considered weird.
While it's not a big deal, it's at least mildly annoying to people who spent years minding their own business pursuing their (widely stigmatized) hobby to now find themselves recast as evil elitist gatekeepers who were shutting out the wretched masses who wanted to play. I started gaming in the early 80s. Those of us who kept playing after the initial fad faded away didn't spend our time chasing desperate would be players away from our tables, and it's a B.S. rewriting of history to claim otherwise.
Exactly this. I don't think Millennials really understand how stigmatized geek culture was in the 80s. If you were interested in wizards and orcs, Conan or Star Wars, past the age of about 12, you were regarded as socially and emotionally stunted. Parents were worried that you were stuck in early childhood and would never grow up. Teachers discouraged you from reading 'trash' fantasy novels. And of course, to any girls who found out, you might as well have been pushing dumptrunks around a sandbox at age 14 making vroom-vroom noises. D&D was probably the most socially toxic activity a teenaged boy could engage in. There weren't girls and visible minorities clamouring to be allowed into the gates - if you were a nerd in 1985, you were living in the trash ditch outside the gates, and passerby would sneer and hold their noses as they passed. Girls, being more socially attuned than boys at that age, wouldn't be caught dead playing D&D.
That's the cohort that make up the bulk of long-time RPG players, and who became designers and authors in the 90s and 2000s. They didn't drive away people who weren't white male nerds - they were shunned or ignored by them. Nobody would have spurned or mistreated a woman who tried to join my group in 1991 - we would have been astonished they wanted to play in the first place.
One of many cognitive defects in the SJW mindset is the inability to understand that different people like different things. To them, everything is explained by structural oppression. Any activity that has more male and female participants is exclusionary and misogynistic (though curiously, they don't feel the same about the many hobbies that skew almost exclusively female). And like True Believers of all stripes, they furiously denounce anyone who challenges their simplistic orthodoxies.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1055349The leftist "inclusion" big lie is the same as it has always been:
1. A group is reasonably inclusive to a variety of viewpoints, because of a mix of classical liberal, free-thinking conservative, libertarian, and various others that wouldn't necessarily be inclusive on their own but see no reason to rock the boat.
2. Leftist member rocks the boat. Not happy that X isn't "included". Get their way. Arguments are all about how everyone needs to be included.
3. As soon as they get enough of their like-thinking members, they start running people out. It starts with whichever target they can isolate the easiest. During this period, they deny vigorously that this is what they are doing.
4. As soon as they get control, they change the rules to ensure they never lose it, and the purge begins of anyone that even thinks about standing up to them.
5. Finally, the organization collapses as they turn on each other.
The method is standard Alinksy. (Also standard Islamic Jihad tactics, including the lying, though I think the similarity of tactics is more because it works, than any particularly affinity.)
The bolded part of point #3 is where we are with some of the people on this board, and their rabid habit of sneering at any discussion about this happening. They are bald-faced liars.
People like Motorskills will never see the error in their thinking, unless something drastic happens. They're like the Terminator: they can't be reasoned with and will never stop until they're destroyed*. Luckily, they do this to themselves with very little provocation.
*No, I'm not advocating for you to be smooshed in an industrial press or harmed in any other way. I figured I'd just head off your outrage at being “threatened”. ;)
Quote from: Dimitrios;1055350This seems like a false choice. People were always invited in. Until recently most of them chose not to join because sitting around a table pretending to kill orcs was considered weird.
While it's not a big deal, it's at least mildly annoying to people who spent years minding their own business pursuing their (widely stigmatized) hobby to now find themselves recast as evil elitist gatekeepers who were shutting out the wretched masses who wanted to play. I started gaming in the early 80s. Those of us who kept playing after the initial fad faded away didn't spend our time chasing desperate would be players away from our tables, and it's a B.S. rewriting of history to claim otherwise.
Exactly this. I don't think Millennials realize just how stigmatized geek entertainment and hobbies were in the 80s. If you were older than about 11 and you were into orcs and wizards, Star Wars and Conan, adults and most of your peers thought there was something wrong with you. Parents worried you were socially and emotionally stunted, on the path to being a lifelong virgin. Teachers discouraged you from reading 'trash' fantasy novels. And to girls, you may as have been pushing dump trucks across a sandbox making vroom-vroom noises if you played Dungeons and Dragons. It was socially toxic, to the extent where me and my friends didn't tell anyone else we played once we hit about 13, and my best friend dropped out altogether so the girls he was interested in wouldn't think him an absolute loser.
That's the cohort that makes up the long-time RPG player base, and who went on to become developers and writers in the 90s and 2000s. We didn't gatekeep the hobby to keep people outside of it. We weren't even in the castle - we were sitting in the trash ditch outside the walls rolling our funny dice while passerby sneered and held their noses. It wouldn't occur to us to exclude a girl from our group, because we would have been astonished any girl wanted to play in the first place. The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
Why do we need to represent "all" even if not present at a table? WTF does that even mean? Do I need to include "latinx" in an Arrows of Indra game? Do I need to have an equal number of Faerunians in an Al-Qadim game?
EDIT: Oops wait those games are already "inclusive" because they aren't Euro-centric. Guess I answered my own question.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055356Exactly this. I don't think Millennials realize just how stigmatized geek entertainment and hobbies were in the 80s. If you were older than about 11 and you were into orcs and wizards, Star Wars and Conan, adults and most of your peers thought there was something wrong with you. Parents worried you were socially and emotionally stunted, on the path to being a lifelong virgin. Teachers discouraged you from reading 'trash' fantasy novels. And to girls, you may as have been pushing dump trucks across a sandbox making vroom-vroom noises if you played Dungeons and Dragons. It was socially toxic, to the extent where me and my friends didn't tell anyone else we played once we hit about 13, and my best friend dropped out altogether so the girls he was interested in wouldn't think him an absolute loser.
That's the cohort that makes up the long-time RPG player base, and who went on to become developers and writers in the 90s and 2000s. We didn't gatekeep the hobby to keep people outside of it. We weren't even in the castle - we were sitting in the trash ditch outside the walls rolling our funny dice while passerby sneered and held their noses. It wouldn't occur to us to exclude a girl from our group, because we would have been astonished any girl wanted to play in the first place. The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
This is absolutely perfect.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055355People like Motorskills will never see the error in their thinking, unless something drastic happens. They're like the Terminator: they can't be reasoned with and will never stop until they're destroyed*. Luckily, they do this to themselves with very little provocation.
*No, I'm not advocating for you to be smooshed in an industrial press or harmed in any other way.
Quote from: More AlderaanYour mindset is the weakest (thankfully, at the moment) version of fascism and everything you're pushing is poison.
And you manage to leave the house every day?
Quote from: Motorskills;1055363And you manage to leave the house every day?
There is still no proof that
you leave the house every day.....
Quote from: Motorskills;1055363And you manage to leave the house every day?
I leave my house every day, unless Warframe keeps my attention too long. :D Unlike SJWs I don't live in fear of (and anger at) nearly
everything. I fear nothing from SJWs, they simply annoy me and most of the time I find them entertainingly self-destructive. Interaction about this here is a guilty-pleasure as I have no illusion that you're up for examining things objectively. I'm usually not prone to snide, jabbing remarks save for when interacting with what are truly fascist, hateful, ignorant people who want to control others. I am consistently amused by an ideology that continues to play Frankenstein by creating monsters, them blaming them for their existences.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055367I leave my house every day, unless Warframe keeps my attention too long. :D
I do need to check that out sometime. :)
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055362This is absolutely perfect.
Cut. Print. Get a beer.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055356Exactly this. I don't think Millennials realize just how stigmatized geek entertainment and hobbies were in the 80s. If you were older than about 11 and you were into orcs and wizards, Star Wars and Conan, adults and most of your peers thought there was something wrong with you. Parents worried you were socially and emotionally stunted, on the path to being a lifelong virgin. Teachers discouraged you from reading 'trash' fantasy novels. And to girls, you may as have been pushing dump trucks across a sandbox making vroom-vroom noises if you played Dungeons and Dragons. It was socially toxic, to the extent where me and my friends didn't tell anyone else we played once we hit about 13, and my best friend dropped out altogether so the girls he was interested in wouldn't think him an absolute loser.
That's the cohort that makes up the long-time RPG player base, and who went on to become developers and writers in the 90s and 2000s. We didn't gatekeep the hobby to keep people outside of it. We weren't even in the castle - we were sitting in the trash ditch outside the walls rolling our funny dice while passerby sneered and held their noses. It wouldn't occur to us to exclude a girl from our group, because we would have been astonished any girl wanted to play in the first place. The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
Co-sign.
There weren't many people that wanted to join outcasts. The few braniac girls who showed non-ironic interest in what we were doing did not like the focus of the game. They honestly seemed to feel they had better things to do than play pretend with us.
Ironically, the only time any of the popular guys showed interest in what we were playing was when they thought we were gambling with funny dice (at that time there were some clandestine money betting card games-- lunch money, basically).
Quote from: Haffrung;1055238As for Paizo's inclusivity policy, it helps to regard these sorts of statements as religious declarations. The demographic the publishers belong to (and who they're trying to aim their products at) are in the midst of an evangelical movement. A whole class of people are Woke to a higher morality, a new path for humankind. They're inspired and anxious and passionate. But most importantly, it's absolutely vital in their social environment for them to Declare, to publicly express their virtue and their membership in the movement.
.
Excellent observation (
thought it's been made by others re the larger SJW community [not to denigrate your own observation]) It really is an evangelical religious movement, replete with saints, sinners, proselytizations, excommunications, papal bulls (with competing popes) and witch hunts and symbolic witch burnings (
social media ostracization).
Quote from: Motorskills;1055369I do need to check that out sometime. :)
That's where we belong, coming together over commonalities.
Warframe is exactly where video gaming companies need to look for inspiration of monetization, but that's a separate topic. I'm more than happy to chat about it, if you're interested.
Quote from: jeff37923;1055310Ding ding, winner!
This is why I laugh scornfully at all this inclusivity bullshit. When TTRPGs first came out, only nerds and weirdos (the "othered") were playing them and now that being a nerd is cool - the social justice generation doesn't think that we understand what it feels like to be "othered" and therefore must be reeducated by these "woke" zombies like Motorskills.
Freaks & Geeks.
Quote from: rawma;1055299Ah, the just kidding defense. Excuse me while I shudder.
Are you being facetious? Or did you actually shudder? I *was* actually being facetious. But since you want to notch it down and play stupid. I'll downshift and oblige.
Quote from: rawma;1055299You're getting the meaning from what you know from working with the game company, not from actually reading the text. It does not say what S'mon claimed when he quoted it out of context.
So now you're telling me what I read and what I inferred without doing any of that yourself and projecting your meaning on us? When you yourself prove my point below... and do so again... allow me...
Quote from: rawma;1055299The fact that I've GMed for more than 40 years means that the GM advice in almost every rulebook for conventional RPG games is not something I need. But I still recognize that people with less experience may need it, without being mentally deficient.
PERFECT. So you do justify its inclusion for people that are mentally deficient enough to *need* to be *explicitly* told what/how/whom to play with and what to represent in your fantasy-elf-games at your table by a book because they're too stupid and/or weak-willed to simply not allow people even more idiotic to play with them?
Are you serious? Do you stipulate this with all recreational social interactions? Because this is the tip of a very idiotic iceberg you're making your stand on. Your 40-years of Wisdom of the Ages may have been ill-spent in the wisdom department.
Quote from: rawma;1055299And of course a tabletop game depends on a social contract; if it involves people who may never have met (like at conventions, game stores and organized play events), then it's better to make it explicit. The longer quotation starts off talking about that, and clearly Paizo is saying what they think should be in it. Discouraging in advance players like S'mon's who will start calling other players names if they are frustrated is probably not a bad thing.
Now you're excusing basic common-sense and self-interest for special events like Conventions, game-stores etc? This has nothing to do with a trend of virtue-signalling for ideological reasons. No, not at all. Because when people start calling other players names, these folks that need that text can open up their books and show the offenders the rule where it says they can tell them to "fuck off and leave the table" (or however your sensibilities run verbally) as opposed to just having the basic sense to not play with people that annoy you? Like children do?
Riiiiight. Or, you know... it could just be virtue-signalling. You know like what is rampant in left-leaning ideologues that pretend they care about everyone feelings when in reality they have other agendas.
Quote from: rawma;1055299I know of you from the posts you've made at this site; it does not set you apart from the pack, sorry. And for all that you claim to be completely laid back and just hipster level amused, you were shouting up there ("SO WHY HAVE IT IN THERE?") and then going off on politics. So welcome to the whole lot.
Ahh. So you do know me. But given the quality of your assertions and claims in this very thread, I'm afraid by dint of the mere fact you believe this isn't political and seem incapable of understanding why I, and everyone else here, believes it is - despite your own tacit admission that it has no real need to exist as written - you literally refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
So yeah, you're pretty much wrong on all counts. And yes - I'm *beyond* hipster-level amused (hint: most hipsters are not really amused at anything - they're too busy trying to be hip. I'm way too old for that) But if my caps triggered you: I totally understand. LOL <-- MOAR AMUSEMENT!
As I read the longer quote, Paizo is saying "don't remove the female NPCs from the game world if someone doesn't like women in the roles those characters have, even if there are no female players at the table."[/QUOTE]
Quote from: KingCheops;1055361Why do we need to represent "all" even if not present at a table? WTF does that even mean? Do I need to include "latinx" in an Arrows of Indra game? Do I need to have an equal number of Faerunians in an Al-Qadim game?
EDIT: Oops wait those games are already "inclusive" because they aren't Euro-centric. Guess I answered my own question.
This is why I asked "How am I being represented at others tables?"
It's a purity test.
I may be late on this, but I recently learned about MAPs, which I thought a co-worker was making up to poke fun as SJWs and such. It seems, no...ugh. And it seems they want attachment to the Alternative Lifestyle Alphabet, too. How well will that go over with gays, who have tried very hard to keep the stigma of pedophilia separate from being homosexual? My reason for examination of this abhorrent topic is...
So, rawma...Motorskills...do MAPs have a right to self-expression at a Pathfinder table? As a GM do I need to ensure a pedophile in present as an NPC? It can't only be as a villain, I'm sure, as that would be harmful (am I the only one sick of what some twerps consider "harm" now?), correct? I mean, if I ensured a blind, black lesbian in a wheelchair was present as an NPC but she was a villain, that would almost assuredly be my straight, white, cis, Christian, toxic masculinity projecting hatred of the blind, blacks, lesbians and disabled people, or at least many SJWs would see it that way.
So, do MAPs deserve to be represented? According to the Paizo manifesto you both defend, they do. I for one would not play with somebody who believed the predation of children is OK, at the table or away. At worse I have seen/GM’d villains be/being unseemly toward children but never "on-screen", and such villains are a rarity. I'm seriously hoping for one or both of you to examine the ideology that says individuals...no matter their “experiences” or “identities”...such as pedophiles and infantophiles...have every right to be respected and represented at every table. If you can't or won't see how unbelievably slippery the slope of socjus is, I hope this cancerous thinking evaporates from the world sooner than later, removing it for you.
In the brilliant words of Spinachcat, "Fuck Paizo!".
I am pretty sure when they say 'all people have the right to be represented' they really mean 'all approved people'.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1055396I am pretty sure when they say 'all people have the right to be represented' they really mean 'all approved people'.
^This^
I don't see white male cis-gendered players being represented because they do not have a space on the Inclusivity Bingo Card, even though they are the majority of TTRPG players.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1055396I am pretty sure when they say 'all people have the right to be represented' they really mean 'all approved people'.
Are MAPs approved? They're on the periphery of the Alternative Sexual Orientation Alphabet, so what then? They clearly have no issue with sexual predation, provided its inflicted on their enemies, but what about children? That's what I would like the self-professed Gatekeepers to answer.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055404Are MAPs approved? They're on the periphery of the Alternative Sexual Orientation Alphabet, so what then? They clearly have no issue with sexual predation, provided its inflicted on their enemies, but what about children? That's what I would like the self-professed Gatekeepers to answer.
Dafuq is a MAP? Is this some pedophilia normalizing thing?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1055406Dafuq is a MAP? Is this some pedophilia normalizing thing?
I can happily say that the first page of Google results did not show me anything that seems appropriately abhorrent.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1055406Dafuq is a MAP? Is this some pedophilia normalizing thing?
Yep. MAP=Minor Attracted Person. I was trying to prove a point about how unsustainable the ideology is under the slightest scrutiny, but whatever, gaming is what matters! Apologies if I dragged stuff down the sewer.
Anyhoo...Paizo will harm itself doing these crazy things, so let them.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055408Yep. MAP=Minor Attracted Person. I was trying to prove a point about how unsustainable the ideology is under the slightest scrutiny, but whatever, gaming is what matters! Apologies if I dragged stuff down the sewer.
Anyhoo...Paizo will harm itself doing these crazy things, so let them.
Yeah. I got into a similar argument at one stage on RPG.net and you can predict the outcome.
As Rath Algethi said if you don't understand the meaning of 'All' to mean 'All of the people we want in the group but not others' then you're not part of the group.
Back to the original topic though, what are people's thoughts on 'SHOWS'? My daughter introduced me to 'The Adventure Zone' podcast, which I've begun avidly listening to whilst driving. Yes there are some 'suspect' moments in terms of D&D 5th ed play rules (as much as I can tell), but not outside of normal DM actions given some of the posts on RPG sites questioning such actions (railroading, deus ex machina moments to save main characters, super fast levelling).
If we look at these through the lens of them being (at least in part) entertainment rather than educational, why shouldn't they be promoted? Just the same way as you can't (really rarely maybe) kill the main character off in the first episode of a TV series or chapter of a book, someone must listen/watch these things and realise that liberties have been taken.
At some stage some of these people watching must RTFM and spot that some license has been taken with the actual play. Won't they at least become part of the 'gaming' group? So its a way into the hobby for some of them.
Quote from: ponta1010;1055410Back to the original topic though, what are people's thoughts on 'SHOWS'?
Dunno if I posted my 2 cents yet. I'm not really interested. I'm more interested in the (pulls out pretentious word) craft of GMing, and I actually find more value in video game commentaries.
Like, I'm currently adapting Super Metroid into a dungeon exploration adventure for Starfinder, so I'm looking up info on SM and how it accomplishes what it does, gameplay wise, and how to adapt that to TTRPGs.
Yes, shows. The only time I really enjoyed watching others game was learning Blades in the Dark (seeing John run really helped) as well as Dusk City Outlaws and watching Invisible Sun and Numenera for teasers/pleasure. I tried watching Critical Role and it felt more like a theater troupe using D&D as its stage. I'm sure Matt's a fun DM, but so am I! ;)
Quote from: tenbones;1055380Are you being facetious?
QuoteAre you serious?
I'll just have to leave you guessing, since the only way I have to convey any information to you is to write some more, and you've shown a singular lack of comprehension.
Quote from: ponta1010;1055410Yes there are some 'suspect' moments in terms of D&D 5th ed play rules (as much as I can tell), but not outside of normal DM actions given some of the posts on RPG sites questioning such actions (railroading, deus ex machina moments to save main characters, super fast levelling).
From what I recall the 5e DMG is silent on railroading and deus ex machina, but does advocate super fast levelling: 1 session to 2nd level (which is pretty much a natural result of the XP table), 1 to 3rd (not so much), 2 to 4th (no) and 2-3 per level thereafter, which would require forced levelling or a game centred around killing high XP/CR monsters caught on their own. The natural progression rate after 3rd level seems to be more like 5 4-hour sessions/level on average, a bit faster 11-14.
WoTC have an idea that players want to go 1-20 within a single University year. The system is only slightly better designed for this than prior ones.
As for the actual play shows, I'm not interested in watching them. I do like Puffin Forest's cartoon accounts of his crappy games in 3 minute animated videos. :)
Quote from: rawma;1055419I'll just have to leave you guessing, since the only way I have to convey any information to you is to write some more, and you've shown a singular lack of comprehension.
Has he, though? There are a few people here I find remarkably adept at text-only conversations, one of them being tenbones, so I find your assertion disingenuous. He doesn't need me to defend him, but I'm going to nonetheless.
Also, mind addressing your singular lack of consistency? I noticed your selective attachment to the Cause. Interesting.
Quote from: S'mon;1055429From what I recall the 5e DMG is silent on railroading and deus ex machina, but does advocate super fast levelling: 1 session to 2nd level (which is pretty much a natural result of the XP table), 1 to 3rd (not so much), 2 to 4th (no) and 2-3 per level thereafter, which would require forced levelling or a game centred around killing high XP/CR monsters caught on their own. The natural progression rate after 3rd level seems to be more like 5 4-hour sessions/level on average, a bit faster 11-14.
WoTC have an idea that players want to go 1-20 within a single University year. The system is only slightly better designed for this than prior ones.
As for the actual play shows, I'm not interested in watching them. I do like Puffin Forest's cartoon accounts of his crappy games in 3 minute animated videos. :)
I'm not sure I agree that 5e's levelling is super-fast, at least in terms of game management. (It may well be faster than parallel systems or previous versions). A year to get from L1-20, a level every two sessions, doesn't seem massively problematic to me. People enjoy levelling, give them what they want.
In respect of getting from L1 to L3, I think that is deliberate - good! - design. An L1 character has more than enough moving parts for a novice, the complexity pretty much doubles by L3. I'm glad that WOTC have arranged to ease in new players, yet enabling them to get to the fully-rounded character (stats) at good speed.
I guess I can see how 5e's pace might be an issue in an extended module intended for a narrow level range, but I suspect that's more the case with modules written for previous editions.
All the above said, I haven't used XP for thirty years, I always have used milestone levelling in my home games. DDAL currently uses XP, which is what I am basing my position on, and advancement seemed perfectly fine (if a little too speedy at higher levels), however DDAL is mostly geared towards one-shots. But even DDAL is moving to an advancement checkpoint system as of later this year.
Edit: Here's their new system (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/changes-dd-adventurers-league-rewards). (Not without controversy, natch)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1055413Dunno if I posted my 2 cents yet. I'm not really interested. I'm more interested in the (pulls out pretentious word) craft of GMing, and I actually find more value in video game commentaries.
Like, I'm currently adapting Super Metroid into a dungeon exploration adventure for Starfinder, so I'm looking up info on SM and how it accomplishes what it does, gameplay wise, and how to adapt that to TTRPGs.
I know he gets a somewhat bad rap around here but this is pretty much the reason I read The Angry DM at all.
Quote from: Dimitrios;1055350This seems like a false choice. People were always invited in. Until recently most of them chose not to join because sitting around a table pretending to kill orcs was considered weird.
While it's not a big deal, it's at least mildly annoying to people who spent years minding their own business pursuing their (widely stigmatized) hobby to now find themselves recast as evil elitist gatekeepers who were shutting out the wretched masses who wanted to play. I started gaming in the early 80s. Those of us who kept playing after the initial fad faded away didn't spend our time chasing desperate would be players away from our tables, and it's a B.S. rewriting of history to claim otherwise.
Pretty much exactly what my post said. Once 'They' (the popular kids et al.) come into a hobby, they take it over and chase the undesirables out.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055356Exactly this. I don't think Millennials realize just how stigmatized geek entertainment and hobbies were in the 80s. If you were older than about 11 and you were into orcs and wizards, Star Wars and Conan, adults and most of your peers thought there was something wrong with you. Parents worried you were socially and emotionally stunted, on the path to being a lifelong virgin. Teachers discouraged you from reading 'trash' fantasy novels. And to girls, you may as have been pushing dump trucks across a sandbox making vroom-vroom noises if you played Dungeons and Dragons. It was socially toxic, to the extent where me and my friends didn't tell anyone else we played once we hit about 13, and my best friend dropped out altogether so the girls he was interested in wouldn't think him an absolute loser.
That's the cohort that makes up the long-time RPG player base, and who went on to become developers and writers in the 90s and 2000s. We didn't gatekeep the hobby to keep people outside of it. We weren't even in the castle - we were sitting in the trash ditch outside the walls rolling our funny dice while passerby sneered and held their noses. It wouldn't occur to us to exclude a girl from our group, because we would have been astonished any girl wanted to play in the first place. The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
Thing is, those parents were right.
Quote from: Ras Algethi;1055396I am pretty sure when they say 'all people have the right to be represented' they really mean 'all approved people'.
Yeap. How it's always been. Anyone who claims we're more civilized is not digging past the surface.
Quote from: KingCheops;1055471I know he gets a somewhat bad rap around here but this is pretty much the reason I read The Angry DM at all.
:D I loved his idea about the megadungeon, but he's been derailed a number of times. I'm going to see if I can accomplish something similar without going off into the weeds.
Even when I disagree with Angry GM, the reason I disagree gives me something to think about.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055217You can't have shit like GamerGate
Which one?
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055243That aside, until the SJW mob stops its stupidity things will never stop being problems. They create self-inflicted traumas or worse, latch on to legitimate ones and leech from them and use them as shields.
By dwelling on trauma and using it as a source of status, they traumatize others (including themselves) and prevent that trauma from being resolved.
Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1055282The same asshats who get caught fabricating a rape story and then defend with, "It could've been real!"
That's why you should never rule on hypotheticals.
Quote from: KingCheops;1055288Hammurabi's Code: false accusations carry the same sentence as if the accuser had committed the crime.
Seems fair.
Quote from: rawma;1055299As I read the longer quote, Paizo is saying "don't remove the female NPCs from the game world if someone doesn't like women in the roles those characters have, even if there are no female players at the table."
Really? Cause I didn't know that was even a problem.
But lets say it is. Unless Paizo is saying you're not allowed to change certain elements in their adventure paths, then groups have a right to change whatever they want when they run them
at their table. Perhaps removing these female NPCs isn't the best idea, but trying to exert control over how people run their games is even worse, and historically something RPG players rally against.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1055349The leftist "inclusion" big lie is the same as it has always been:
1. A group is reasonably inclusive to a variety of viewpoints, because of a mix of classical liberal, free-thinking conservative, libertarian, and various others that wouldn't necessarily be inclusive on their own but see no reason to rock the boat.
2. Leftist member rocks the boat. Not happy that X isn't "included". Get their way. Arguments are all about how everyone needs to be included.
3. As soon as they get enough of their like-thinking members, they start running people out. It starts with whichever target they can isolate the easiest. During this period, they deny vigorously that this is what they are doing.
4. As soon as they get control, they change the rules to ensure they never lose it, and the purge begins of anyone that even thinks about standing up to them.
5. Finally, the organization collapses as they turn on each other.
Accurate.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055303The only reason certain demographics (Women, popular kids) didn't, was because it was stigmatized that only losers played D&D.
Quote from: sureshot;1055316In most gaming groups it was for all. In my neck of the woods at least until the mid-90s women would not be caught dead playing in any tabletop rpgs as it was a hobby that came with a huge social stigmata.
Quote from: Dimitrios;1055350People were always invited in. Until recently most of them chose not to join because sitting around a table pretending to kill orcs was considered weird.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055356I don't think Millennials realize just how stigmatized geek entertainment and hobbies were in the 80s.
Can confirm.
And if you want a great example of institutionalized oppression, this is it.
Quote from: Gwarh;1055373Excellent observation (thought it's been made by others re the larger SJW community [not to denigrate your own observation]) It really is an evangelical religious movement, replete with saints, sinners, proselytizations, excommunications, papal bulls (with competing popes) and witch hunts and symbolic witch burnings (social media ostracization).
But without all the forgiveness and redemption.
Quote from: tenbones;1055380So you do justify its inclusion for people that are mentally deficient enough to *need* to be *explicitly* told what/how/whom to play with and what to represent in your fantasy-elf-games at your table by a book because they're too stupid and/or weak-willed to simply not allow people even more idiotic to play with them?
The real problem is that many treat the books as a source of validation and legitimacy, which is why trans characters were apparently unwelcome in D&D until the book explicitly said they were. So having a book which explicitly gives them permission to adopt the political beliefs they already hold and expel anyone who doesn't share those views is exactly what they're after.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1055413Dunno if I posted my 2 cents yet. I'm not really interested. I'm more interested in the (pulls out pretentious word) craft of GMing, and I actually find more value in video game commentaries.
Web DM (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7XFmdssWgaPzGyGbKk8GaQ)is a good Youtube channel for GM advice. The GM in question has a lot of experience, the advice is practical, it isn't full of ideological, tribal nonsense, and the presentation is entertaining and high-quality.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055462A year to get from L1-20, a level every two sessions, doesn't seem massively problematic to me. People enjoy levelling, give them what they want.
D&D levels aren't designed for such fast levelling. They're much too meaty, even in 5e. You can have fast leveling where it's just a small power up, as in Skyrim, but 2 D&D levels is about a x2 power increase. Whatever people want, you don't get a stable campaign that way. I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne AP as written for Pathfinder, with PCs leveling every 2 sessions. I don't think the players really enjoyed doubling in power every 4 sessions; it triviliased a good chunk of the campaign and just felt silly.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055481Web DM (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7XFmdssWgaPzGyGbKk8GaQ)is a good Youtube channel for GM advice. The GM in question has a lot of experience, the advice is practical, it isn't full of ideological, tribal nonsense, and the presentation is entertaining and high-quality.
Yeah, they're ok. There are a lot of bad GM advice channels though. The only one I really take seriously is Matt Colville.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055481Web DM (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7XFmdssWgaPzGyGbKk8GaQ)is a good Youtube channel for GM advice. The GM in question has a lot of experience, the advice is practical, it isn't full of ideological, tribal nonsense, and the presentation is entertaining and high-quality.
Thanks! I'll give a look-see.
Quote from: S'mon;1055482D&D levels aren't designed for such fast levelling. They're much too meaty, even in 5e. You can have fast leveling where it's just a small power up, as in Skyrim, but 2 D&D levels is about a x2 power increase. Whatever people want, you don't get a stable campaign that way. I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne AP as written for Pathfinder, with PCs leveling every 2 sessions. I don't think the players really enjoyed doubling in power every 4 sessions; it triviliased a good chunk of the campaign and just felt silly.
Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you, especially for homebrew campaigns.
I was slightly surprised to see XP in 5e at all, but maybe it is (was) a sacred cow. I think I remember people reporting issues with levelling via XP in LMoP, but overall I think it probably worked fine for most groups.
For some of (all?) of the more published campaign books, WOTC indicated the levels that the adventurers should be at each chapter.
If DDAL shows the 'structured milestone' thing can work, I can well imagine no XP in 6e.
Edit: but for groups that want to push levelling to experience the full level range, a bump every two sessions is fine (IMO). But yes, you need a campaign that can handle it, or a extended series of one-shots.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055488Edit: but for groups that want to push levelling to experience the full level range, a bump every two sessions is fine (IMO). But yes, you need a campaign that can handle it, or a extended series of one-shots.
Probably works best with a series of one shots and an indeterminate amount of time passing between adventures.
BTW I've been interested to see at my open table 5e Meetup that all the GMs seem to advance the PCs at about the same rate as me, in the region of 5 sessions/level, or half the DMG-recommended rate. I think this is a pretty natural result of using the XP award tables in the DMG, it's also a pretty good rate in general. It means players can keep playing their PCs for a long time and be joined by new players with lower level PCs. If we used 2.5 sessions per level then players would have to retire PCs after a few months, or GMs would all have to run closed-table Adventure Path type games with fiat levelling.
Quote from: S'mon;1055482D&D levels aren't designed for such fast levelling. They're much too meaty, even in 5e. You can have fast leveling where it's just a small power up, as in Skyrim, but 2 D&D levels is about a x2 power increase. Whatever people want, you don't get a stable campaign that way. I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne AP as written for Pathfinder, with PCs leveling every 2 sessions. I don't think the players really enjoyed doubling in power every 4 sessions; it triviliased a good chunk of the campaign and just felt silly.
Yes. The flattened progression curve was the only thing about 3e that I changed immediately right out of the box. Everyone has always known that the game plays very differently at high levels. That wasn't an issue when high level play was rare. By flattening the curve, WotC ensured that playing around level 20 would suddenly become common, but I don't think they really thought through the implications of that.
Quote from: Motorskills;1055206The title of the segment is "Gaming Is For All". That's the objective.
Quote from: S'mon;1055227That's not really the objective. They clearly don't want social conservatives playing, never mind sexists racists et al. In fact they don't even want people playing sexist or racist characters, since it's triggering.
So White Wolf was recently accused of harboring crypto fascists and Nazi sympathizers. As a result they had a press conference, and one of the questions asked was "Will you openly tell the
fuck social justice warrior sensitivities alt-righters and neo-nazis who've been using RPGs as a recruiting grounds since the Age of Conan that
The World of Darkness is not for them".
Well that's not so much a question as a
demand, but SJWs can't tell the difference, which might explain why they see asking questions as an attack. And one of the reasons they see RPGs as recruiting tools is because that's exactly how they use them. Regardless, the important takeaway here is how the list of excluded persons was subtly expanded from Nazis to include, well, everybody who thinks SJWs are full of shit.
So who exactly would be included in
that group?
So S'mon is right, Gaming for all is
not the objective. What Paizo is doing here is doubling down on their attempts to appeal exactly the same market which includes ex-employees like Jessica Price who
still accuse them of being an unsafe place for women. Because once you're labeled problematic, you have to do twice as much to prove you're not. And by continuing to cater to that segment, they're not just alienating a far larger one, but actively excluding them, which ironically they think will help them
expand their market.
That's just crazy talk, and this may very well be the beginning of Paizo's irrelevancy. Because the key to their success was publishing a system people were already familiar with when WotC decided to do exactly the same thing they are now, and chase a market which resulted in alienating the majority of their existing customers.
Quote from: Dimitrios;1055501Yes. The flattened progression curve was the only thing about 3e that I changed immediately right out of the box. Everyone has always known that the game plays very differently at high levels. That wasn't an issue when high level play was rare. By flattening the curve, WotC ensured that playing around level 20 would suddenly become common, but I don't think they really thought through the implications of that.
3es curve isnt as bad as 4e. But in comparison its still darn fast. Faster than an A/2e Thiefs levelling. Though interestingly 3e actually slows down the early levelling up to about level 10. But then speeds it up afterwards.
Heres my updated comparison chart.
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/imagepagezoom/img/fRGubcFqhofVG2ytFNQs0QmvY5Q=/fit-in/1200x900/filters:no_upscale()/pic4279913.png)
Quote from: Dimitrios;1055501Yes. The flattened progression curve was the only thing about 3e that I changed immediately right out of the box. Everyone has always known that the game plays very differently at high levels. That wasn't an issue when high level play was rare. By flattening the curve, WotC ensured that playing around level 20 would suddenly become common, but I don't think they really thought through the implications of that.
So did you also make it so that Fighters didn't adventure past 10th level, unlike the other classes, because they had a keep with NPCs they had to manage?
Quote from: Motorskills;1055488I was slightly surprised to see XP in 5e at all
A lot of GMs don't like calculating XP, but IME most players very much enjoy being awarded it and often (not always) quite resent GM-fiat levelling. Certainly I find that games with XP tend to be longer lasting and have a stronger sense of earned progression. People who think levels are a 'content pacing mechanism' rather than a player reward for successful play tend to have no use for XP. So eg Pathfinder Adventure Paths with an expected & required content progression benefit less from XP than do sandbox games.
Another negative consequence of fast leveling, particular when you're playing an Paizo or WotC adventure path, is the ridiculously rapid advancement of the PCs in game world time. A group of callow newbs save the village from goblins. They investigate the source of the attacks and return four days later in game time as proficient, veteran warriors and practiced mages. Another week of investigating ruins in the wilds beyond, and they return as heroic ass-kickers, more powerful than the local lord and wizened master wizard. It's just fucking dumb.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055557Another negative consequence of fast leveling, particular when you're playing an Paizo or WotC adventure path, is the ridiculously rapid advancement of the PCs in game world time. A group of callow newbs save the village from goblins. They investigate the source of the attacks and return four days later in game time as proficient, veteran warriors and practiced mages. Another week of investigating ruins in the wilds beyond, and they return as heroic ass-kickers, more powerful than the local lord and wizened master wizard. It's just fucking dumb.
Yeah Hoard of the Dragon Queen is REALLY bad for this. By the time you finish you are about 7th or 8th level and have had 0 contact with any of the higher ups in the factions. Then Rise of Tiamat picks up and you are supposed to be big movers and shakers but no one has any idea who you are or whether you are full of BS. As if Neverember or Silverhand would give a wet fart about your characters.
Yeah but it's D&D. Surely if that kind of thing really bothers you, you go play Runequest or something.
Quote from: Haffrung;1055557Another negative consequence of fast leveling, particular when you're playing an Paizo or WotC adventure path, is the ridiculously rapid advancement of the PCs in game world time. A group of callow newbs save the village from goblins. They investigate the source of the attacks and return four days later in game time as proficient, veteran warriors and practiced mages. Another week of investigating ruins in the wilds beyond, and they return as heroic ass-kickers, more powerful than the local lord and wizened master wizard. It's just fucking dumb.
I agree. I'm loving my Stonehell campaign's advancement rate; after exactly 1 year of real time & 18 months game time, the longest lasting PC Mordred Midwinter of Avalon has gone from 3rd (went 1st-3rd over a few previous/prequel sessions & weeks) to just hitting 8th level, another PC Bright Star the catfolk started at 1st in November 2017, ca 16 months of game-time, and has also reached 8th level. Most PCs play about every 1-2 weeks (closer to 1 week than 2) and game time normally matches real time; a character like Bright Star has developed competency and renown at something approaching a credible (for fantasy) rate. I find doing it this way, as EGG recommended back in the 1e DMG, has had huge benefits for stability and longevity of the game, and it gets ever richer over time as more 'stuff' accrues.
This megadungeon/sandbox play at real time = game time feels the exact opposite of AP play, which has its roots in stuff like the AD&D Slavers series.
Quote from: TJS;1055564Yeah but it's D&D. Surely if that kind of thing really bothers you, you go play Runequest or something.
I don't think it has always been part of D&D. If you use Gygax's admonition that game time should equal real time you'll typically get a year or so from 1st to 9th level, assuming weekly play, in pre-3e and (I'm finding) in 5e too.
One of the main problems is the more or less removal of level training downtime and healing downtime. Though that has fluctuated from edition to edition. Level training for example is not in BX but is in AD&D for example. It is present as an option in 5e. Whereas healing downtime is present in most editions but is vastly underplayed in 5e to the point of practically being gone since a long rest heals all.
Quote from: S'mon;1055545A lot of GMs don't like calculating XP, but IME most players very much enjoy being awarded it and often (not always) quite resent GM-fiat levelling. Certainly I find that games with XP tend to be longer lasting and have a stronger sense of earned progression. People who think levels are a 'content pacing mechanism' rather than a player reward for successful play tend to have no use for XP. So eg Pathfinder Adventure Paths with an expected & required content progression benefit less from XP than do sandbox games.
I've run leveling about every way it is possible to run it. One of the few things that my groups have insisted upon is that we use XP. (They are usually up for whatever I want to try, in mechanics.) They don't care about the exact formula, as they trust me to work that out in a satisfactory way, but they want to be awarded XP for things that happen in the game, and then level from that.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1055480The real problem is that many treat the books as a source of validation and legitimacy, which is why trans characters were apparently unwelcome in D&D until the book explicitly said they were. So having a book which explicitly gives them permission to adopt the political beliefs they already hold and expel anyone who doesn't share those views is exactly what they're after.
But the corollary of that very idea is precisely what spoils it. Because it's an individual(s) in a mental state filled with such self-loathing that they're using a political ideology to reverse that self-loathing for their own ends and ultimately project it out onto everyone that does not think or believe as they do.
It's evidentiary that the RPG industry is now like this, as are: movies, comics, academia, business etc.
When the reality is - inclusivity is not really what they're after. They want implicit representation as a *norm* which they're *not normal* in the sense of actual cultural or numerical reality. BUT nothing in the game prevents anyone from doing that at their table. The problem is that they take the stance that by not implicitly granting this non-reality everyone is against them. When in reality it's in their head.
I'm no more insulted or "oppressed" that every Fantasy setting doesn't have Asian content in it. I can make my own if I should so choose. I think they can too. But having to tell someone what they have a right to do/not do at their table by implicit mandate is a little insulting to the intelligence of those that require it...
Isn't this the "bigotry of low-expectations" that Mike Gershon was talking about in the Post?
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1055601I've run leveling about every way it is possible to run it. One of the few things that my groups have insisted upon is that we use XP. (They are usually up for whatever I want to try, in mechanics.) They don't care about the exact formula, as they trust me to work that out in a satisfactory way, but they want to be awarded XP for things that happen in the game, and then level from that.
I think most players don't dare tell the GM that, same as many or most won't dare tell him her 'no fudging' or 'no railroading' - but I think all three are the most common attitudes, probably by quite a big margin. It always seems to be GMs who say "My players don't care about XP/fudging/railroading" - I pretty well never see anyone say "As a player I demand to be fudged, railroaded, and levelled by fiat!" :D
Quote from: TJS;1055564Yeah but it's D&D. Surely if that kind of thing really bothers you, you go play Runequest or something.
Training rules (1 week per level), or encouraging other downtime activity gives D&D campaigns a more natural pace. The 1st-16th level story driven epic campaign where the PCs are on the clock to save the world right from the get-go has only recently become the norm in D&D.
Quote from: S'mon;1055608I think most players don't dare tell the GM that, same as many or most won't dare tell him her 'no fudging' or 'no railroading' - but I think all three are the most common attitudes, probably by quite a big margin. It always seems to be GMs who say "My players don't care about XP/fudging/railroading" - I pretty well never see anyone say "As a player I demand to be fudged, railroaded, and levelled by fiat!" :D
Speaking as someone who's mostly been playing, I can take either XP or milestones--but I've grown to
hate the bloated, overly fiddly XP tracking of D&D. :)
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1055617Speaking as someone who's mostly been playing, I can take either XP or milestones--but I've grown to hate the bloated, overly fiddly XP tracking of D&D. :)
I thought you were the guy who never played? >:)
Quote from: Haffrung;1055609Training rules (1 week per level), or encouraging other downtime activity gives D&D campaigns a more natural pace. The 1st-16th level story driven epic campaign where the PCs are on the clock to save the world right from the get-go has only recently become the norm in D&D.
Least that wasn't the case in Tyranny of Dragons since the PCs do alot of travel and anywhere from weeks to months may be spent just getting from point A to point B. Then back.
Havent had a chance to look it over yet but how much of a deadline were the PCs on in Princes of the Apocalypse? Curse of Strahd doesnt seem to have a deadline though?
Quote from: S'mon;1055620I thought you were the guy who never played? >:)
Well, the game has been on hiatus for about a year. :)
Quote from: Spinachcat;1055039The RIGHT!!! The worthlesss fucks at Paizo think imaginary people who aren't at your table have RIGHTS to control YOUR game!!!
I told you all this would happen.
Speed of Leveling is a big question that needs to be answered by the table.
In general, I find players like fast leveling, even when it makes little sense in game time. I really liked the solution from 13th Age where you got a piece of a level (HP, Atk bonus, Spells, Skills) after each adventure but you generally had 4 adventures per level getting 1/4th of the next level's goodies each time. Thus, you didn't have to wait for the big jump.
I don't use XP anymore. I haven't had a player group interested in tracking it. They much prefer either X adventures per level scaling upward in adventures required, or a flat X adventures = next level.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1055804In general, I find players like fast leveling, even when it makes little sense in game time.
What do you mean by fast?
I have had players comment when running Pathfinder that 1-2 sessions it was taking per level (up to about 9th) was too fast.
I have had players comment when running 5e that the 8-10 sessions it was taking to get from 5th to 6th (when other PCs were ca 3rd level, ie playing lower level stuff) felt slow.
Not seen any complaints at around 5 sessions/level, though I think people would prefer to level up from 1st after about 3-4 sessions at most.
Quote from: S'mon;1055016OK I downloaded the pdf and found the exact wording:
People of all identities and experiences have a right to be
represented in the game, even if they're not necessarily
playing at your table.
Sorry, they don't deserve to be represented, they have a RIGHT to be represented - ALL of them. :-O
Do they mean this as in they have a right to be in the core text, or do they mean that it's a moral imperative to include them at the table?
edit: either way, I'd say every demographic has as about much 'right' to be in the core game as any other demographic does.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1055811Do they mean this as in they have a right to be in the core text, or do they mean that it's a moral imperative to include them at the table?
The issue is that because of the vague wording, if someone REALLY wanted to point the sheer stupidity and has more money than sense, then they could easily sue Paizo in the ground with this. But let's face it, no one will do that.
Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1055811edit: either way, I'd say every demographic has as about much 'right' to be in the core game as any other demographic does.
Gaming has always been diverse, it's just that it wasn't socially acceptable. Now that it is, the undesirables need to leave.
Except that it was the undesirables who created this sort of gaming in the first place.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055899Gaming has always been diverse, it's just that it wasn't socially acceptable. Now that it is, the undesirables need to leave.
Except that it was the undesirables who created this sort of gaming in the first place.
Star Wars and Marvel are hit bad with this too. RPGs are just seeing the tip of the iceberg yet. Hard to say how screwed up it will eventually get. But the current instances are not heartening at all.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055899The issue is that because of the vague wording, if someone REALLY wanted to point the sheer stupidity and has more money than sense, then they could easily sue Paizo in the ground with this. But let's face it, no one will do that.
I dunno.....It might be a fun case for Small Claims Court. :D
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055899Gaming has always been diverse, it's just that it wasn't socially acceptable. Now that it is, the undesirables need to leave.
Except that it was the undesirables who created this sort of gaming in the first place.
^This^
So much this.
Quote from: S'mon;1055806What do you mean by fast?
Like slow, but totally the opposite! :D
My OD&D does 1 level / finished adventure. Usually that's 2-3 sessions. I max OD&D at 10th level and there's usually significant downtime between adventures.
Quote from: S'mon;1055806Not seen any complaints at around 5 sessions/level, though I think people would prefer to level up from 1st after about 3-4 sessions at most.
My players would freak-the-fuck-out if they played 20 hours without a new level. But my OD&D is high mortality and level capped so fast levels is the reward for survival.
Also, I doubt I've DM'd much D&D in the past 20 years that didn't start at 3rd level or higher. Maybe just 4e and the 5e playtests.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1055942My players would freak-the-fuck-out if they played 20 hours without a new level. But my OD&D is high mortality and level capped so fast levels is the reward for survival.
Also, I doubt I've DM'd much D&D in the past 20 years that didn't start at 3rd level or higher. Maybe just 4e and the 5e playtests.
I normally allow Raise Dead (max 8 raises per PC) and tend to have pretty low permanent mortality; dozens of PCs & many dozens of sessions in Stonehell over the past year and I only count 3 perma-deaths, with one of those voluntary - the player had a choice of raising her elf Fighter PC Hatala, or raising & adopting NPC Nemesis the amazon as her new PC; she went with Nemesis.
I started an OD&D/S&W campaign at 1st recently, also a 1e/OSRIC campaign at 1st, and a 4e D&D one at 1st last year. My 5e game initially started at 1st but currently starts PCs at 5th, and really 5e is the ruleset where I am most inclined to start PCs above 1st level unless I really want the PCs to feel like complete novices. 5e at 3rd is good for moderately experienced characters, 5e at 5th for badass but mortal characters.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1055794I told you all this would happen.
Yeah, but, come on, we don't listen to you!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055899Gaming has always been diverse, it's just that it wasn't socially acceptable. Now that it is, the undesirables need to leave.
Concisely put and profoundly accurate.
Quote from: soltakss;1056127Yeah, but, come on, we don't listen to you!
Some people did. Maybe more should start now.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1055899The issue is that because of the vague wording, if someone REALLY wanted to point the sheer stupidity and has more money than sense, then they could easily sue Paizo in the ground with this. But let's face it, no one will do that.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow. What would be the argument of the lawsuit?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1056592I'm sorry, but I don't follow. What would be the argument of the lawsuit?
Because by the wording EVERYONE is allowed a voice. That includes bad voices. If you excluded someone because of that then Paizo could be liable as its their rules enforcement.
Theyd weasel out of it of course. But by the wording of those rules of conduct all sorts of trouble could happen if someone were to really try.
Quote from: Omega;1056601Because by the wording EVERYONE is allowed a voice. That includes bad voices. If you excluded someone because of that then Paizo could be liable as its their rules enforcement.
Theyd weasel out of it of course. But by the wording of those rules of conduct all sorts of trouble could happen if someone were to really try.
This is some bizarre legal thinking. Paizo isn't liable to anyone for telling people to be socjus-Inclusive, or for being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is not a tort.
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1055522...That's just crazy talk, and this may very well be the beginning of Paizo's irrelevancy...
Paizo is already irrelevant. They just do not know it yet.
Quote from: S'mon;1056618This is some bizarre legal thinking. Paizo isn't liable to anyone for telling people to be socjus-Inclusive, or for being hypocritical. Hypocrisy is not a tort.
Apparently you havent seen some of the weird-ass contortions people have gone through to sue companies. Its Paizo's rules.
Quote from: Omega;1056601Because by the wording EVERYONE is allowed a voice. That includes bad voices. If you excluded someone because of that then Paizo could be liable as its their rules enforcement.
Theyd weasel out of it of course. But by the wording of those rules of conduct all sorts of trouble could happen if someone were to really try.
I really, really don't think you'd have a case there, except maybe in organized play events. But not in games you run in your home, where you can just utterly ignore the rules. Even in organized play, they'd just argue you have no requirement to play the game.
In this day and age where you can be sued for just looking at someone? All it takes is a player with the money and the urge and someone dumb enough to give them a reason.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1057157I really, really don't think you'd have a case there, except maybe in organized play events. But not in games you run in your home, where you can just utterly ignore the rules. Even in organized play, they'd just argue you have no requirement to play the game.
Maybe not in your country (Aren't you in someplace almost sane in South America or something?) but in North America? Oh, no, you can be sued into oblivion for not having the right politics. We're willing to change LAWS so we can convict 'wrong thinkers'.
I think this whole lawsuit tangent is stupid. Mockery is more effective.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057195Maybe not in your country (Aren't you in someplace almost sane in South America or something?) but in North America? Oh, no, you can be sued into oblivion for not having the right politics. We're willing to change LAWS so we can convict 'wrong thinkers'.
I really don't think that in the US you could sue someone for a voluntary game.
EDIT to add: In Canada, you might just be able to send someone to the kangaroo-court Human Rights Tribunal for 'hate speech' or something like that, I'll admit.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1057698I really don't think that in the US you could sue someone for a voluntary game.
EDIT to add: In Canada, you might just be able to send someone to the kangaroo-court Human Rights Tribunal for 'hate speech' or something like that, I'll admit.
They've changed sexual assault laws to exclude exculpatory evidence. Because of one guy they wanted to nail, but the women's text messages destroyed the case, so our Prime Minister enacted a bill to remove that.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1057878They've changed sexual assault laws to exclude exculpatory evidence. Because of one guy they wanted to nail, but the women's text messages destroyed the case, so our Prime Minister enacted a bill to remove that.
Wait, what? I never heard of this. What bill is that?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058150Wait, what? I never heard of this. What bill is that?
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/page-1.html (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/page-1.html)
The short of it, by using the term Victim it's assuming the accused is guilty. It also removes any ability to review any evidence AFTER the act that may shed light on whether or not there was consent involved. At this point, it's passed. And now a woman who decides that last night's drunken hates sex that she initiated, and then texted the guy to have it again, can claim rape and more or less the guy is guilty, despite the fact that there's texts and e-mails that could claim otherwise.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1058157http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/page-1.html (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/page-1.html)
The short of it, by using the term Victim it's assuming the accused is guilty. It also removes any ability to review any evidence AFTER the act that may shed light on whether or not there was consent involved. At this point, it's passed. And now a woman who decides that last night's drunken hates sex that she initiated, and then texted the guy to have it again, can claim rape and more or less the guy is guilty, despite the fact that there's texts and e-mails that could claim otherwise.
Well, that's just insane. Has this actually happened though, where the bill has been used that way in a case thus far that you know of?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058509Well, that's just insane. Has this actually happened though, where the bill has been used that way in a case thus far that you know of?
I've not heard of anything involving a major celebrity, although recently, the Prime Minister has been accused of sexual harassment, I believe.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1058157http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/page-1.html (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-23.7/page-1.html)
The short of it, by using the term Victim it's assuming the accused is guilty. It also removes any ability to review any evidence AFTER the act that may shed light on whether or not there was consent involved. At this point, it's passed. And now a woman who decides that last night's drunken hates sex that she initiated, and then texted the guy to have it again, can claim rape and more or less the guy is guilty, despite the fact that there's texts and e-mails that could claim otherwise.
I read it; it doesn't seem too different from the US victims rights law, although the right to request anonymity as a witness would violate the US Constitution (if the request were granted). Significantly, it does no more than give the victim rights to request stuff, and have things considered, and so on, but with a lengthy list of things it is not to interfere with. I'm not even sure what provision would achieve what you're all worked up about; maybe having the victim's privacy considered, but that's at the discretion of the prosecutor, as far as I can see, and prosecutors all over have a history of hiding exculpatory evidence from defendants.
Well, this is all getting off topic, but it would be interesting to see what happens with a test case of this.
But really, that's enough of this side-track.