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.

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!

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.