TheRPGSite

I'm sure you guys have heard about the restart of Chivalry and Sorcery.   From their official social media, I have seen that Britania Games is aggressively and repetitively preaching and pushing an argument of Portland Starbucks social diversity in the European medieval world.  Though there is nothing wrong with that narrative in itself, it's the aggressiveness and repetitive in your face intolerance with which it is done on their social platform.  It becomes quite old and boring.  Anyone who objects to the incessant repetition or posts any material which is uncomfortable to their narrative is labeled as being against diversity by the moderator.  They have also further stated the "White Supremists" are big fans and admirers of medieval genre.  Anyone who questions anything about this narrative or objects to its spoon feeding on their platform is arbitrarily censored by way of accusations and ejected.

Any direct quotes or links to support this claim?

We had a thread a few months ago about how Chivalry & Sorcery shit upon itself and its fandom. That's fine. It's a dead game that wants to pander to some online freaks. And if they're gonna make their game like Portland Oregon, it better have lots of mentally ill people shitting in the streets so they can achieve that grand goal of authenticity.

Fuck'em.

If anybody wants to play a "Medieval Authentic" RPG, they can buy Lion & Dragon (https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1118852We had a thread a few months ago about how Chivalry & Sorcery shit upon itself and its fandom. That's fine. It's a dead game that wants to pander to some online freaks. And if they're gonna make their game like Portland Oregon, it better have lots of mentally ill people shitting in the streets so they can achieve that grand goal of authenticity.

Fuck'em.

If anybody wants to play a "Medieval Authentic" RPG, they can buy Lion & Dragon (https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X).

Greetings!

*Laughing* Yeah, really, Spinachcat! How relevant is an ancient, marginal game like Chivalry & Sorcery? It isn't like they have legions of fans. Even *more so* if they want to get in line to present *yet another* Portland shithole game, how fucking relevant are they?

Fuck 'em is right.

I *might* have been interested in purchasing a book or two from them. I have an old edition of the main book from way back. But guess what? If they want to wallow in fucking Portland they can choke on that liberal shithole. I won't give them a dime, my friend!:D

Lion & Dragon is a much better choice for certain!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

C&S is a game that could have held a decent fan base over time.  There's a lot to like there.  As for Brittania's new edition, well, they're banking on approval and sales from a certain segment of the market and trying to avoid being targeted by the attack dogs over there.  I'm curious how that'll work out for them.  My guess is that a math heavy, simulationist system isn't going to fly with the progressive sorts.

Quote from: David Johansen;1118861C&S is a game that could have held a decent fan base over time.  There's a lot to like there.  As for Brittania's new edition, well, they're banking on approval and sales from a certain segment of the market and trying to avoid being targeted by the attack dogs over there.  I'm curious how that'll work out for them.  My guess is that a math heavy, simulationist system isn't going to fly with the progressive sorts.

Greetings!

Hey there, David Johansen! I tend to agree. I remember back in the day--I think it was sometime in the 80's, for sure. The book had a green, aqua-like coloured cover, but was all black and white on the interior. Small print-size, lots of obscure-looking, complicated charts and tables. I remember reading through it, and appreciating the detail and passion for medieval stuff, history and realism. However, none of the rest of the group I hung with were remotely interested at the time. That, combined with the book's obscurity and lack of availability, lack of supplements and support, resulted in it being discarded as a system. I still have the book, somewhere here in my library, but it never caught on, and has just been something of an "Indie" curiosity through the years in my neck of the woods. I do recognize that the book and system had some interesting and solid strengths, and could have potentially become considerably more. Kind of sad, really. I love historical and medieval stuff, of course. There seems to be a sort of information and complexity threshold though, in the larger market. A lot of detail and options and history is seen as good, and yet, provide just whatever that "too much" is, and it falls off a cliff.:D

Whatever new Portland nonsense they are chasing after I don't suspect will bode well for them. Providing a solid product, and a strong system, by itself has many challenges to become viable and prosperous. Add layers of wallowing in the Portland shithole culture just seems to condemn the book to an even faster and crushing doom.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1118851Any direct quotes or links to support this claim?

Hi Hedgehobbit.  I'm not on their forum anymore so I don't have access to them.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1118852We had a thread a few months ago about how Chivalry & Sorcery shit upon itself and its fandom. That's fine. It's a dead game that wants to pander to some online freaks. And if they're gonna make their game like Portland Oregon, it better have lots of mentally ill people shitting in the streets so they can achieve that grand goal of authenticity.

Fuck'em.

If anybody wants to play a "Medieval Authentic" RPG, they can buy Lion & Dragon (https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X).

It has shit upon its fandom.  It has implied that fans of the medieval period are mostly white supremists.

Quote from: Iron Cross;1118879Hi Hedgehobbit.  I'm not on their forum anymore so I don't have access to them.

I can't even find their forums. The only page I've found for Britannia Games hasn't been updated since 2003.

Their game is weak to begin with and always only appealed to a niche market.  Now they're shitting on that market.  One of their authors has even stated that he doesn't care if he annoys members of the fan base.

Facebook

Quote from: David Johansen;1118861I'm curious how that'll work out for them.

It looks to me like the tide has turned and rejecting this SJW outrage is actually better for you in the long run. Look at Escape from Tarkov, an obscure mil-sim shooter made by a tiny company. Yet one offhand comment about never having playable female character leads to the predictable outrage which causes game to shoot to the top of the most played charts. Even passing Fortnight at one point.

Quote from: Iron Cross;1118884Their game is weak to begin with and always only appealed to a niche market.  Now they're shitting on that market.  One of their authors has even stated that he doesn't care if he annoys members of the fan base.

If you have a "fanbase" of about 3 guys, and there are, say, double digits of SJWs who will be totally impressed by your brave defiance of your fanbase, maybe enough to buy your book... then I guess this is a smart marketing move.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up - I was vaguely thinking about taking a look at this but I'll pass.

C&S had a very active and loyal fan base.  The third edition green book from the nineties was pretty divisive as it moved to an integrated skill system from a variety of notes on specific advantages of specific classes scattered through the book.  I'm not sure about second, it was a boxed set and supposedly better organized. I owed first but never played it, played third a fair bit when it came out but when it changed hands and was dead for a while before fourth edition I moved on to Rolemaster Standard System.  I didn't buy into fourth edition because I already had third, wasn't playing it, and liked RMSS better.  More Middle Earth, less medival I guess, but also a better structure game wise.

The thing is that third edition really caught the early web-hate of fans who didn't like the changes.  At the time Ed Simbalist and Wilf Bakhaus were still involved so it wasn't just a bunch of new guys sticking the name on their homebrew.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1118883I can't even find their forums. The only page I've found for Britannia Games hasn't been updated since 2003.

Facebook

Sooner or later, one of those newer "fans" will attack the product because the word "Chivalry" is misogynist. There will be a rabid round of discussion about what the new name should be. Make sure your popcorn supply is topped off.

Do we really need three simultaneous threads complaining about the people who make Chivalry & Sorcery?

Quote from: Bren;1118904Do we really need three simultaneous threads complaining about the people who make Chivalry & Sorcery?

What is the appropriate number of threads?

Looking at the dates it's just that somebody is bumping old threads.

Quote from: David Johansen;1118911Looking at the dates it's just that somebody is bumping old threads.

Then why are people creating new threads?  Since the OP complaint is about 'aggressively and repetitively pushing an argument' it seems that this board could set an example by putting everything in the same place.  

Quote from: Iron Cross;1118849They have also further stated the "White Supremists" are big fans and admirers of medieval genre.  Anyone who questions anything about this narrative or objects to its spoon feeding on their platform is arbitrarily censored by way of accusations and ejected.

Why is 'white supremacist' in quotes (other than the incorrect spelling)?  The term has a definition and everything.

QuoteWhite supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them.

There are organizations that espouse this belief and proudly declare that they are, in fact, white supremacists.  

Not everybody who likes medieval history is a white supremacist, but I can guarantee you that you find more white supremacists liking medieval European history than medieval Islamic history.  There's a certain...cachet...in an argument that Europeans aren't just superior now, but have ALWAYS been superior.  Anyone who is a white supremacist has to defend the claim that integration of different societies has made us worse off than we were. Since the medieval period was one of very little diversity, they want to hold it up as an example of 'superior culture'.  

I am a student of history, and I find such claims absurd.  Setting aside that the medieval period covers roughly a full millennium and that China was more technologically sophisticated in just about every metric you want to use during that period, many white supremacist groups have to reconcile the fact that the Catholic church was dominant during the time and they don't actually like Catholics.  But surely you can see how the image of a Christian crusader crushing hordes of infidels as they capture the Holy Land would appeal to a white supremacist?  

Of course, I'm not the only one who noticed (https://www.history.com/news/how-hate-groups-are-hijacking-medieval-symbols-while-ignoring-the-facts-behind-them).  It's not hard to find documentation about both why white supremacists like medieval iconography and how badly they understand it.  

I mean, they even insist on calling the Battle flag of Virginia used during the Civil War the 'Confederate Flag'.  That's like calling the flag of Michigan the 'American Flag'.  It's an American flag, but not the American Flag.  

I mean, I guess not using symbols accurately isn't the worst thing that white supremacists do, but can't all agree that it is a bad thing?

Quote from: Iron Cross;1118849I have seen that Britania Games is aggressively and repetitively preaching and pushing an argument of Portland Starbucks social diversity in the European medieval world.  Though there is nothing wrong with that narrative in itself, it's the aggressiveness and repetitive in your face intolerance with which it is done on their social platform.

Does the 5e game itself also contain much of this preaching? I was considering picking it up for research value but I am largely disinclined these days to reward that kind of advocacy, or to slog through it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1118921Then why are people creating new threads?  Since the OP complaint is about 'aggressively and repetitively pushing an argument' it seems that this board could set an example by putting everything in the same place.  

I'm pretty sure it started with the one new thread and the other threads were subsequently bumped.  But yes, someone is beating their drum loudly.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1118921Why is 'white supremacist' in quotes (other than the incorrect spelling)?  The term has a definition and everything.

These are known as scare quotes   : quotation marks used to express especially skepticism or derision concerning the use of the enclosed word or phrase

To be fair the term gets thrown around almost as loosely as Nazi these days.

Quote from: David Johansen;1118934To be fair the term gets thrown around almost as loosely as Nazi these days.

Pretty much every term has been thrown around and overused to the Nth degree that they lose real meaning and start becoming jokes. And not funny jokes either.

Meanwhile these same sociopathic justice warriors are dredging up old words that had lost their power to harm and are diligently re-empowering them. Thank you ever so much you lunatics.

Quote from: Omega;1118935Pretty much every term has been thrown around and overused to the Nth degree that they lose real meaning and start becoming jokes. And not funny jokes either.

Meanwhile these same sociopathic justice warriors are dredging up old words that had lost their power to harm and are diligently re-empowering them. Thank you ever so much you lunatics.

Greetings!

You know, the Liberals and SJW's like to invent new words or definitions. It is boggling, and also nefarious, how they proceed to create drama and some manufactured moral crisis, or a social crises, that then of course mushrooms into a huge social debate and conflict--and then, low and behold, the SJW clowns then announce that *They* have the solution to the tragic problem confronting us; naturally, this supposed "solution" typically involves more slander, hate and demonization of someone, usually white, Christian, conservatives for one alleged sin or another; and of course subsequent formations of committees and special counsels, an appropriation of huge amounts of funding; and a barrage of new laws and regulations gathering more power to said committee or whatever agency of the federal government, and further restricting the freedom of American citizens and a corresponding increased criminalization and mechanism for social, legal, and economic disenfranchisement.

There's a particular term used for this sophisticated kind of "crisis manufacturing" and subsequent strengthening of government power, and further restriction of liberty and freedom. I forgot at the moment what it is, but it is a definite term and a policy or strategy that the globalists and the Liberals really love employing to advance their agenda. Conservatives, relatively speaking, have been hammered by this particular tactic in the culture war, and have lost battle after battle from it, and only in recent times with the internet and alternative media, conservative inroads into internet media, have even a halfway decent defense against this process and strategy been successfully mounted.

More certainly needs to be done to fight against this. It's the whole mantra of shrieking about how everyone and anyone that doesn't swallow what the Liberals believe must be a Nazi and a white supremacist. All is designed to create this emotionally panicked attitude where people just bow down to the Liberal tyranny. It is really quite insidious how they seek to manipulate and control masses of people.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Iron Cross;1118881It has shit upon its fandom.  It has implied that fans of the medieval period are mostly white supremists.

Of course they're white supremacists! But you gotta use the Official Twitter "Here's how know if somebody is a white supremacist" Test

1) Are they white?
If the answer is yes or no, proceed to question 2.

2) Do they gobble down all the SJW bullshit?
If yes, they are NOT a white supremacist.
If no, they are definitely a white supremacist Nazi misogynist naughty-thinker!!!!!!
 
See? That simple test solves everything.

Quote from: Marchand;1118889If you have a "fanbase" of about 3 guys, and there are, say, double digits of SJWs who will be totally impressed by your brave defiance of your fanbase, maybe enough to buy your book... then I guess this is a smart marketing move.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up - I was vaguely thinking about taking a look at this but I'll pass.

It's a very poor marketing move actually.  The SJWs are all about being Alice in Wonderland in D&D 5th edition.  WOC has that market segment solidly locked down.  C&S will never be able to complete with the simplicity and hip factor of D&D 5e.  What it should have done is cultivated its original fan base which are the grognards and expanded it to get new people who find 5e stupid and want a more Game of Thrones or historical legend experience in a game.   What they've done instead is alienate many people who had an appreciation for the original game and were going to be good customers and even some of its backers.  Stupid business move.  WOC will crush them.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1118945Of course they're white supremacists! But you gotta use the Official Twitter "Here's how know if somebody is a white supremacist" Test

1) Are they white?
If the answer is yes or no, proceed to question 2.

2) Do they gobble down all the SJW bullshit?
If yes, they are a white supremacist. (edit add:  but are aware of their problematic nature and trying to correct it. )
If no, they are definitely a white supremacist Nazi misogynist naughty-thinker!!!!!!
 
See? That simple test solves everything.

Fixed that for you 'cat. :D

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1118926Does the 5e game itself also contain much of this preaching? I was considering picking it up for research value but I am largely disinclined these days to reward that kind of advocacy, or to slog through it.

Download the basic rules and judge for yourself. The tone and tenor is the same as the core books.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

Quote from: estar;1118969Download the basic rules and judge for yourself. The tone and tenor is the same as the core books.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

It's really not preachy in the Core AFAICS. Nor in Xanathar's. The 5e adventures start to get icky once Darth Crawford takes full control and abolishes the Imperial Senate ....or puts Mearls in the shed out back.

I got and did a quick scan of chivalry and sorcery 5e. I did notice sections on people of color and women. Will read those later, but real medieval history wasn't nearly as pale and mannish as media and some of the writings that date back to the 17th century would have you believe

Quote from: estar;1118969Download the basic rules and judge for yourself. The tone and tenor is the same as the core books.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

Sorry, should have been more specific; I meant the Chivalry and Sorcery 5E game.  D&D 5E I don't really have much interest in. Thanks, though!

Quote from: estar;1118969Download the basic rules and judge for yourself. The tone and tenor is the same as the core books.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

Right, theres like all of one line in the PHB and thats it.

Other books... Well thats another story and as for what their staff occasionally push, thats a totally different story. So far its been pretty minor really compared to some other companies.

Quote from: TNMalt;1118979real medieval history wasn't nearly as pale and mannish as media and some of the writings that date back to the 17th century would have you believe

It wasn't full of African-Americans - the only racial Diversity SJWs actually seem to care about - either.

Just plain Africans since America wasn't colonized yet. But they were around as traders and such.

Quote from: S'mon;1119000It wasn't full of African-Americans - the only racial Diversity SJWs actually seem to care about - either.

Greetings!

Yeah, really! Just like there have been occasional white people over there in far eastern Asia, in China. In the vast ocean of Chinese people, over the centuries, who gives a fuck that a few white people showed up on the fringes now and then?

The same thing about black Africans in fucking Europe. Or white people down in most of Africa, certainly sub-Saharan Africa. Europe was still White, just like Africa was black. Why is this concept so fucking difficult for these morons to understand?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: TNMalt;1119005Just plain Africans since America wasn't colonized yet. But they were around as traders and such.

Sub-Saharan West Africans, the ancestors of modern African-Americans, were not around in medieval Europe as traders and such. To all intents and purposes they were not around at all. Arabs took slaves from the east African coast, but they didn't get to Europe. In the west Arabs were raiding western Europe for slaves, and there was basically no interaction between western Europe and sub-Saharan west Africa until the end of the Middle Ages, post-Reconquista.

Quote from: S'mon;1119039Sub-Saharan West Africans, the ancestors of modern African-Americans, were not around in medieval Europe as traders and such. To all intents and purposes they were not around at all. Arabs took slaves from the east African coast, but they didn't get to Europe. In the west Arabs were raiding western Europe for slaves, and there was basically no interaction between western Europe and sub-Saharan west Africa until the end of the Middle Ages, post-Reconquista.

A lot of people seem to want a setting that smears together everything from King Arthur to the Victorians, in which case all the documented Tudor- or Elizabethan-era black people in England matter. There are so many bad "abandoned mansion" modules with pseudoVictorian mansions, or even "fantasy city" supplements full of 19th century industries & conceits.

I have to deal with what my players want, but I'm personally more interested of late in worldbuilding with a bronze or iron age feeling, in which case all the documented Roman-era black people in England matter. :)

Quote from: SHARK;1119006Yeah, really! Just like there have been occasional white people over there in far eastern Asia, in China. In the vast ocean of Chinese people, over the centuries, who gives a fuck that a few white people showed up on the fringes now and then?

The same thing about black Africans in fucking Europe. Or white people down in most of Africa, certainly sub-Saharan Africa. Europe was still White, just like Africa was black. Why is this concept so fucking difficult for these morons to understand?

China is 8,000 miles away from Western Europe -- that's quite remote. Whereas Africa is right next to Europe, 8 miles distant at its nearest point. Parts of Europe were occupied by Africans -- and parts of Africa by Europeans -- throughout the medieval period. That's a completely different case than Europe and China. There was frequent trade and migration through Spain of many people.

The comparison is completely unlike. You qualify about sub-Saharan Africans -- but by making that distinction just makes clearer that there's no hard line. Northern Africans mixed with both sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans as well as Arabs.

Quote from: S'mon;1119039Sub-Saharan West Africans, the ancestors of modern African-Americans, were not around in medieval Europe as traders and such. To all intents and purposes they were not around at all. Arabs took slaves from the east African coast, but they didn't get to Europe. In the west Arabs were raiding western Europe for slaves, and there was basically no interaction between western Europe and sub-Saharan west Africa until the end of the Middle Ages, post-Reconquista.

But this claim of "no interaction" ignores all of northern Africa. SHARK claims "Europe was still White, just like Africa was black" -- but there was plenty of mixing throughout northern Africa, Spain, and Italy.

As I recall from my old 2nd edition copy of Chivalry & Sorcery -- it had options for varying cultures in it, notably in the magic system, which had pagan shaman and Jewish cabalists as well as more mainstream Christian Hermetic magicians and alchemists. I haven't read the 5th edition yet, but I'd be curious to hear more about how they expanded options.

Quote from: jhkim;1119049But this claim of "no interaction" ignores all of northern Africa.

Which AFAIK is mostly ethically Arab. But every time people bring up how north Africa is within spitting distance of Europe what they mean is that therefore Africans (as in "black" people) must have been common. But that isn't quite the race that dominates that portion of Africa.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119051Which AFAIK is mostly ethically Arab. But every time people bring up how north Africa is within spitting distance of Europe what they mean is that therefore Africans (as in "black" people) must have been common. But that isn't quite the race that dominates that portion of Africa.

The continent of Africa has a monolithic culture, it is in no way diverse whatsoever.

Quote from: SHARK;1119006Greetings!

who gives a fuck that a few white people showed up on the fringes now and then?

Marco?

Quote from: jhkimBut this claim of "no interaction" ignores all of northern Africa.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119051Which AFAIK is mostly ethically Arab. But every time people bring up how north Africa is within spitting distance of Europe what they mean is that therefore Africans (as in "black" people) must have been common. But that isn't quite the race that dominates that portion of Africa.

That's exactly my point. Dividing things into "black" and "white" -- with Europe being white and Africa being black is wrong.

It's ignoring northern Africa along with medieval Spain and Italy.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1118905What is the appropriate number of threads?

1 seems like plenty. 3 is an overdose.

Quote from: Naburimannu;1119044all the documented Roman-era black people in England matter. :)

There was that one black Legionary in Britain who startled the Emperor (which Emperor, I don't recall), but no one from sub-Saharan West Africa. Unless you get your history from BBC shows I guess! And there was no Roman England, since the English invaded post-Roman Britain. :D

Quote from: jhkim;1119049The comparison is completely unlike. You qualify about sub-Saharan Africans -- but by making that distinction just makes clearer that there's no hard line. Northern Africans mixed with both sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans as well as Arabs.

But that's just not true. On the Atlantic coast there was extremely little mixing between sub-Saharan Africa and north/supra-Saharan Africa. There was more mixing in north-east Africa, with Nilo-Saharan populations somewhat clinal.

I don't quite get why the focus keeps getting diverted specifically to Atlantic coastal sub-Saharan West Africa. Seems arbitrary and unjustifiably limiting to me. It's not like nobody else in Africa qualifies as "black."

Quote from: Omega;1118992Right, theres like all of one line in the PHB and thats it.

Other books... Well thats another story and as for what their staff occasionally push, thats a totally different story. So far its been pretty minor really compared to some other companies.

Occasionally?!  It's about every few days!!  Every few days this guy Commisar Andy Staples feels the need to lecture and preach on their forum about diversity in medieval character building and if you're not into it or present any material which is inconvenient to his narrative, he becomes accusative and labels you as "against diversity" overall and suspect of white supremacy because you like the medieval genre.  He even kicks people out.  Who needs that. Fuck em is right.  Because of their obtuseness and marketing stupidity WOC will crush them in the competitive market like I said.

Quote from: Zirunel;1119141I don't quite get why the focus keeps getting diverted specifically to Atlantic coastal sub-Saharan West Africa. Seems arbitrary and unjustifiably limiting to me. It's not like nobody else in Africa qualifies as "black."

Because in the TV shows, movies and RPG art, that is who you see. That is who SJWs (& US black Afro-centrists) care about. They generally aren't aware that eg Ethiopians look nothing like Nigerians. They want Morgan Freeman as Hannibal, and Beyonce as Cleopatra. They aren't interested in a realistic depiction of ethnic diversity in the Roman Empire, when eg Egypt was a good deal whiter than it is now (after 1300 years of Arab slave raiding).

Also, sub-Saharan Africans don't care about being 'black', except in a few frontier areas like Sudan, where everyone looks USA-black, but the northerners see themselves as 'white Arabs' and see the South Sudanese as 'black'. In this sense race really is a social construct.

Quote from: Iron Cross;1119143Occasionally?!  It's about every few days!!  Every few days this guy Commisar Andy Staples feels the need to lecture and preach on their forum about diversity in medieval character building and if you're not into it or present any material which is inconvenient to his narrative, he becomes accusative and labels you as "against diversity" overall and suspect of white supremacy because you like the medieval genre.  He even kicks people out.  Who needs that. Fuck em is right.  Because of their obtuseness and marketing stupidity WOC will crush them in the competitive market like I said.

You and Omega are talking about different things.
He was talking about what could be found in the D&D books (which is not the topic of this thread).

You are talking about social media posts by the developers of C&S5.

Quote from: S'mon;1119144They want Morgan ... Beyonce as Cleopatra.

I'd go for that.

What I don't want is a historically accurate Cleopatra with a goiter.

Beyonce would not make a very "realistic" Cleopatra. Her skin tone may be closeish, but the cast of face seems wrong. More to the point, she would surely be delivering her lines in unrealistic English, not proper Koine Greek.

So yeah, realism would be thrown out the window. Totally unacceptable.

Could she pull it off from an acting point of view? Maybe. Claudette Colbert also did not physically resemble Cleopatra, and I don't think she spoke a word of Greek in the whole movie, so wildly unrealistic. But I thought she made a charming and delightful Cleopatra, so maybe Beyonce could pull it off too.  

In any case, Hollywood casting decisions are another arbitrary and irrelevant diversion from the topic. So what is the problem with having the odd black PC in a European medieval rpg? Sure, I can imagine snowflakey character concepts that would be a real stretch, but more generally, if your medieval Europe includes cities (unrealistic if it didn't), then the occasional black PC/NPC should be as plausible as the occasional Jewish PC/NPC.

Not that it matters terribly, but Cleopatra was a Ptolemaic, which means she wasn't even genetically Egyptian, (let alone sub-Saharan African), but rather Macedonian.   The ruling class of Egypt for almost 300 years probably did look more like Claudette Colbert than Beyonce, and this clear cultural division between ruling class and ruled wasn't that uncommon.  Think about the distinction between the French speaking Normans and the Anglo-Saxons in England, which is why our names for animals are Germanic (cow, pig) but our names for the food that comes from those animals are French (beef, pork).  

Nobles were OTHER than the common people, sometimes not just in terms of taste and education, but often down to genetics and language.  The ancient world WAS diverse, but not in the same sense as the modern world.  It's diversity was more like many small distinct "micro-nations" than one large society.  Cross-overs happened, but they would have been odd and remarkable individuals. The modern "diversity uber alles" crowd really wants sameness and ubiquity.  They want to erase the actual social distinctness, and hence real diversity, of other times and places.

Quote from: Brendan;1119162Not that it matters terribly, but Cleopatra was a Ptolemaic, which means she wasn't even genetically Egyptian, (let alone sub-Saharan African), but rather Macedonian.   The ruling class of Egypt for almost 300 years probably did look more like Claudette Colbert than Beyonce, and this clear cultural division between ruling class and ruled wasn't that uncommon.  Think about the distinction between the French speaking Normans and the Anglo-Saxons in England, which is why our names for animals are Germanic (cow, pig) but our names for the food that comes from those animals are French (beef, pork).  

Nobles were OTHER than the common people, sometimes not just in terms of taste and education, but often down to genetics and language.  The ancient world WAS diverse, but not in the same sense as the modern world.  It's diversity was more like many small distinct "micro-nations" than one large society.  Cross-overs happened, but they would have been odd and remarkable individuals. The modern "diversity uber alles" crowd really wants sameness and ubiquity.  They want to erase the actual social distinctness, and hence real diversity, of other times and places.

I think it is at least mildly important, and I think we all understand this. I expect s'mon specifically cited Beyonce to highlight the incongruity of casting a "black" woman to play a Macedonian Greek woman. We get it. We do have a pretty good idea what Cleopatra looked like, and no, not really Beyonce, nor Claudette Colbert. Rhea Perlman might be a better choice than either if you just want the face to be right. But maybe Rhea Perlman with Beyonce's olive skin tone.

As for elites "realistically" being different from their subjects, absolutely. Sometimes different in origins, sometimes not.  But almost always different culturally. The sine qua non of being among the elite is your ability to move in international circles that your subjects would find exotic, or even alien. You speak the lingua franca, whatever it may be, whether koine Greek, Latin, French, nowadays English, whatever. You share the cultural pursuits and interests of foreign elites, maybe more than you share the interests and pursuits of your own subjects. That is one (But only one) reason I think it is interesting for rpgs to have multiple languages, not just "common." But none of that is necessarily connected to "race," nor need it necessarily be connected to race in an rpg setting.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119051Which AFAIK is mostly ethically Arab. But every time people bring up how north Africa is within spitting distance of Europe what they mean is that therefore Africans (as in "black" people) must have been common. But that isn't quite the race that dominates that portion of Africa.

Northern Africa is mostly Arabic-speaking, although you hear the older languages now and then, but people of Arabian descent are a minority. Berbers et al, are not Blacks but they aren't Arabs either.

Quote from: Zirunel;1119141I don't quite get why the focus keeps getting diverted specifically to Atlantic coastal sub-Saharan West Africa. Seems arbitrary and unjustifiably limiting to me. It's not like nobody else in Africa qualifies as "black."

There is more human genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world. President Obama wasn't at all closely related to African-Americans, for example. Obviously, one can call his father's Luo people Black, because that has no precise meaning, but they are genetically distant from West Africans.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1119175Berbers et al, are not Blacks but they aren't Arabs either.

Berbers are extremely white - they're lighter than the great majority of Italians. Some Gulf Arabs are quite dark, but Caucasian of course (except a few descended from African slaves). But outside Arabia most cultural 'Arabs' aren't really of Arab ancestry. Plenty of Levantines look lighter than Italians, too - that whole 'black Jesus' thing was ridiculous.

Quote from: Zirunel;1119170I think it is at least mildly important, and I think we all understand this. I expect s'mon specifically cited Beyonce to highlight the incongruity of casting a "black" woman to play a Macedonian Greek woman. We get it. We do have a pretty good idea what Cleopatra looked like, and no, not really Beyonce, nor Claudette Colbert. Rhea Perlman might be a better choice than either if you just want the face to be right. But maybe Rhea Perlman with Beyonce's olive skin tone.

Having just Googled Beyonce ...her skin tone does rather resemble that of the Khoi & San peoples of SW Africa. Conceivably some ancient Egyptians may have had a similar skin tone, given some physical similarities, although we don't really know, and there doesn't seem to be genetic evidence in support so this is just speculative at best. Certainly not Cleopatra, though. Cleopatra was Greek, and Greeks are, again, lighter skinned than most Italians, never mind lighter than Beyonce.

Quote from: Iron Cross;1119143Occasionally?!  It's about every few days!!

Meant 5e D&D.

Quote from: S'mon;1119195Berbers are extremely white - they're lighter than the great majority of Italians. Some Gulf Arabs are quite dark, but Caucasian of course (except a few descended from African slaves). But outside Arabia most cultural 'Arabs' aren't really of Arab ancestry. Plenty of Levantines look lighter than Italians, too - that whole 'black Jesus' thing was ridiculous.

Some, or even many, Berbers could pass for European sure, but many, especially the Tuareg Berbers, could pass for sub-saharan West African. It's a stretch to make a blanket claim that "Berbers are extremely white."

Anyhoo, once again, what's your point re rpgs?

Quote from: Zirunel;1119208Anyhoo, once again, what's your point re rpgs?

This thread basically has no point RE: RPGs other than pointing out the ridiculousness of trying to be inclusive to the point of ridiculous when presenting an implied campaign setting. Modern stupidity about "diversity" makes zero fucking sense when applied to the real world.

Quote from: Brad;1119223This thread basically has no point RE: RPGs other than pointing out the ridiculousness of trying to be inclusive to the point of ridiculous when presenting an implied campaign setting. Modern stupidity about "diversity" makes zero fucking sense when applied to the real world.

Yes.

Re fantasy, I'm pretty tolerant, and have included some Afrocentrist style black kingdoms in my own fantasy settings, eg Neria in my Willow Vale/Yggsburgh setting is a sort of Rastafarian fantasy version of Ethiopia meets Prester John, with plate armoured West African looking Knights of the Unconquered Sun. But I like some kind of nod to it making sense. No one complains about the black/London-mixed race characters in A Game of Thrones, because they are explained as a particular ethnicity in-universe. Whereas in Netflix Witcher the random black human peasants, dryad (queen only, lesser dryads white), elves etc is jarring because it doesn't appear to make any sense.

Quote from: S'mon;1119196Certainly not Cleopatra, though. Cleopatra was Greek, and Greeks are, again, lighter skinned than most Italians, never mind lighter than Beyonce.

Cleopatra's patriline was pure Macedonian, but aren't both her mother and grandmother uncertain-but-likely-Egyptian? (Both father and grandfather are known to have multiple concubines, and there are arguments I find plausible that some weren't Greek; more generally there's supposedly a history of intermarriage between the Macedonian ruling classes and the Egyptian religious classes?)

Quote from: Naburimannu;1119260Cleopatra's patriline was pure Macedonian, but aren't both her mother and grandmother uncertain-but-likely-Egyptian? (Both father and grandfather are known to have multiple concubines, and there are arguments I find plausible that some weren't Greek; more generally there's supposedly a history of intermarriage between the Macedonian ruling classes and the Egyptian religious classes?)

If you want to know what Roman era Egyptians looked like, we have plenty of depictions, esp funerary. They looked a lot like modern Egyptians, a bit lighter on average going by the art. Thus is supported by DNA testing of remains which shows less sub-Saharan introgression than today.

Quote from: lordmalachdrim;1119146You and Omega are talking about different things.
He was talking about what could be found in the D&D books (which is not the topic of this thread).

You are talking about social media posts by the developers of C&S5.

Let's get back on topic again.  I encourage anyone to go on their FB site and experience first hand their fanaticism for political correctness and accusative attitude.

Better still, can anyone give me a run down on the mechanical changes?  It's still skillscape right BSC + PSC = TSC with opposition's PSC subtracted for parries.  If you want to know why I try so hard to avoid abreviations and jargon in my games you need look no farther than C&S 3e.

Quote from: Iron Cross;1119262Let's get back on topic again.  I encourage anyone to go on their FB site and experience first hand their fanaticism for political correctness and accusative attitude.

Well I looked, but saw no evidence for fanatical political correctness or accusative attitude. Mind you, I don't do the Facebook thing, so there is a lot I can't view. Maybe the stuff you are complaining about is in comments or their private C&S group?

Screen grabs or something would be helpful.

Quote from: Zirunel;1119269Well I looked, but saw no evidence for fanatical political correctness or accusative attitude. Mind you, I don't do the Facebook thing, so there is a lot I can't view. Maybe the stuff you are complaining about is in comments or their private C&S group?

Screen grabs or something would be helpful.

It's in their Facebook forum.

Are you talking about the Chivalry & Sorcery 5th Edition group on facebook? Because I can't find anything on the Brittannia Game Designs Ltd facebook page.

Ignoring the controversy for a moment...

What do they mean exactly by "diversity"? Ethnic diversity, sexual diversity, neurodiversity?

That's all well and good, but how does this distinguish the campaign setting from every other campaign setting?

If you change at the straight white male characters to something else but everything otherwise plays out exactly the same, then how is that anything other than superficial/cosmetic paintjob/window dressing/etc?

I'm seeing this odd trend to "normalize" "diversity." I totally support equal rights for everyone, but I question the utility of pretending that differences don't exist at all. I feel like it does people a disservice to treat us all like colorless sexless loveless blobs. Firstly, it feels way too early to start acting so utopian when we are still far from reaching a utopia and injustice still runs rampant worldwide. Secondly, I fear this attitude will result in harmful cultural erasure against marginalized groups.

To some degree we already have that problem in fiction right now. E.g. "why did you have to write this character as a [insert sexual orientation] [insert physical phenotype] [insert sex and/gender]?" Why do we have to write characters with the qualities of a sexual orientation, a physical phenotype, and a sex and/or a gender identity? If the choices are all equally arbitrary and you might as well roll dice, then why not just write all characters as grey sexless loveless blobs?

If you're writing a character who ticks a diversity check box, then you're implicitly doing so either to attract that demographic per Marketing 101, to change the trajectory of the plot compared to a different trait in the same story's context, or to make a political statement.

In my estimation, it's logically impossible to normalize differences between people. Either you acknowledge differences or not. You can't have it both ways. In some cases it can be outright dangerous, such as in gynecology. We have gynecologists because women have different health needs than men. The relative minority of people with DSDs (differences of sexual development) have even more particular needs. In fact, genetic testing has shown that all different phenotypical populations on this planet have slightly different health needs. If it's important enough to need specialized fields of medicine, then it probably needs acknowledgement by society whenever it would be relevant.

These differences cause people to think and behave differently, too. A lot of that difference is due to environmental circumstances (e.g. prejudice, social class, wealth, culture, education, nutrition, etc), but some of it is due to neurological differences. It is estimated at 15% of the population is neurodivergent, depending on what you count. That's not including the differences in cognition due to gender, sexual attraction, romantic attraction (which is a distinct attraction), etc.

People from different backgrounds don't experience and consider the world in the same way. You can't "normalize" those differences. That's why a lot of writing guides say you need to do research or consult a consultant if you want to accurately represent the lives of people whose backgrounds are very different from your own. Note I said "accurately," and depending on what you're writing then your audience may not care about the inaccuracies. Realistic contemporary fiction is where this would be most important since your audience lives in the modern reality, and thus this falls into marketing toward specific demographics. Historical fiction with inaccuracies and anachronisms will earn ire only from people who know enough to notice it.

These are many different desires, not one size fits all. A desire for diversity to be normalized, i.e. treated as purely cosmetic. A desire for the lives of people from different backgrounds to be represented accurately. A desire for historically marginalized groups to have increased representation compared to historical averages. Etc. Notice how there's potential conflicts between some of these desires?

People aren't identical. While everyone deserves equality under law, that doesn't equate to forcing everyone to confirm to some abstract ideal of "normality." Forcing square pegs into round holes is a recipe for alienating your citizens, not making them happy.

And now I'm rambling incoherent nonsense. I hope somebody manages to find a message buried in all that. Sorry for that, I'm tired from a long day and a lack of sleep.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1119391What do they mean exactly by "diversity"?

Skin color, gender and sexuality. AKA, diversity as defined by modern identity politics.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1119391That's all well and good, but how does this distinguish the campaign setting from every other campaign setting?

Allegedly, this campaign setting won't trigger the freakjobs in Portland, Seattle or Twitter.

But of course, such a goal is impossible. The Twitterati will always find transgressions against ideological purity.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1119391If you change at the straight white male characters to something else but everything otherwise plays out exactly the same, then how is that anything other than superficial/cosmetic paintjob/window dressing/etc?

Stop talking sense. It's totally waaaaaycist to suggest that turning Bob the Dwarf into Gay Bob the Berber Dwarf is anything less than STUNNING AND BRAVE which must be capitalized entirely to show how profoundly progressive their changes affect not just their pissant RPG, but entire known universe beyond.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1119391Ignoring the controversy for a moment...

What do they mean exactly by "diversity"? Ethnic diversity, sexual diversity, neurodiversity?

That's all well and good, but how does this distinguish the campaign setting from every other campaign setting?

If you change at the straight white male characters to something else but everything otherwise plays out exactly the same, then how is that anything other than superficial/cosmetic paintjob/window dressing/etc?

I'm seeing this odd trend to "normalize" "diversity." I totally support equal rights for everyone, but I question the utility of pretending that differences don't exist at all. I feel like it does people a disservice to treat us all like colorless sexless loveless blobs. Firstly, it feels way too early to start acting so utopian when we are still far from reaching a utopia and injustice still runs rampant worldwide. Secondly, I fear this attitude will result in harmful cultural erasure against marginalized groups.

To some degree we already have that problem in fiction right now. E.g. "why did you have to write this character as a [insert sexual orientation] [insert physical phenotype] [insert sex and/gender]?" Why do we have to write characters with the qualities of a sexual orientation, a physical phenotype, and a sex and/or a gender identity? If the choices are all equally arbitrary and you might as well roll dice, then why not just write all characters as grey sexless loveless blobs?

If you're writing a character who ticks a diversity check box, then you're implicitly doing so either to attract that demographic per Marketing 101, to change the trajectory of the plot compared to a different trait in the same story's context, or to make a political statement.

In my estimation, it's logically impossible to normalize differences between people. Either you acknowledge differences or not. You can't have it both ways. In some cases it can be outright dangerous, such as in gynecology. We have gynecologists because women have different health needs than men. The relative minority of people with DSDs (differences of sexual development) have even more particular needs. In fact, genetic testing has shown that all different phenotypical populations on this planet have slightly different health needs. If it's important enough to need specialized fields of medicine, then it probably needs acknowledgement by society whenever it would be relevant.

These differences cause people to think and behave differently, too. A lot of that difference is due to environmental circumstances (e.g. prejudice, social class, wealth, culture, education, nutrition, etc), but some of it is due to neurological differences. It is estimated at 15% of the population is neurodivergent, depending on what you count. That's not including the differences in cognition due to gender, sexual attraction, romantic attraction (which is a distinct attraction), etc.

People from different backgrounds don't experience and consider the world in the same way. You can't "normalize" those differences. That's why a lot of writing guides say you need to do research or consult a consultant if you want to accurately represent the lives of people whose backgrounds are very different from your own. Note I said "accurately," and depending on what you're writing then your audience may not care about the inaccuracies. Realistic contemporary fiction is where this would be most important since your audience lives in the modern reality, and thus this falls into marketing toward specific demographics. Historical fiction with inaccuracies and anachronisms will earn ire only from people who know enough to notice it.

These are many different desires, not one size fits all. A desire for diversity to be normalized, i.e. treated as purely cosmetic. A desire for the lives of people from different backgrounds to be represented accurately. A desire for historically marginalized groups to have increased representation compared to historical averages. Etc. Notice how there's potential conflicts between some of these desires?

People aren't identical. While everyone deserves equality under law, that doesn't equate to forcing everyone to confirm to some abstract ideal of "normality." Forcing square pegs into round holes is a recipe for alienating your citizens, not making them happy.

And now I'm rambling incoherent nonsense. I hope somebody manages to find a message buried in all that. Sorry for that, I'm tired from a long day and a lack of sleep.

I don't think you're just rambling. We can argue about whether, say, a black character is potentially plausible in a quasi-realistic C&S European setting (and I believe the answer is broadly yes), but at the end of the day it has to matter. Somehow. If it really doesnt matter in the setting, then insisting that your character is black is as meaningful as insisting they are blood type B-, or have a third nipple, or a certain anal circumference rating.  Who cares. It only matters if the setting (and/or the game mechanics) makes it matter.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1119391Ignoring the controversy for a moment...

What do they mean exactly by "diversity"? Ethnic diversity, sexual diversity, neurodiversity?

We have no idea what "they" mean, or even if they mean anything at all.

This whole thread is built on a weak foundation. We are supposed to believe that the developers of the latest edition of C&S are taking some kind of outrageous stand on "diversity, " and yet, despite multiple requests from multiple posters (beginning with post #2) to document what stand these developers are taking, we have seen nothing. Nothing at all. Absent any corroboration, it seems likely this thread is only pretending to be about RPGs, and in reality is just a political post stirring the pot about "SJWs." In which case it belongs in another subforum.

I am genuinely interested in seeing and discussing what outrages the developers of C&S are promoting about their game, but so far, ain't no there there.

Quote from: TNMalt;1118979I got and did a quick scan of chivalry and sorcery 5e. I did notice sections on people of color and women. Will read those later, but real medieval history wasn't nearly as pale and mannish as media and some of the writings that date back to the 17th century would have you believe

It also  is not the poc  or feminist utopia the SJW NPCs want and want to retcon history into.  None of the settlers of Iceland were black lesbian paraplegics like they would have us believe nor demand from an RPG set in such a a setting.

Quote from: Gagarth;1119512It also  is not the poc  or feminist utopia the SJW NPCs want and want to retcon history into.  None of the settlers of Iceland were black lesbian paraplegics like they would have us believe nor demand from an RPG set in such a a setting.

Yeah but is that what they believe or demand? Specifically the C&S developers? I can believe maybe it is, but so far I've seen no evidence for any of that. I'll ask again, please share what you got!

Quote from: Zirunel;1119511We have no idea what "they" mean, or even if they mean anything at all.

This whole thread is built on a weak foundation. We are supposed to believe that the developers of the latest edition of C&S are taking some kind of outrageous stand on "diversity, " and yet, despite multiple requests from multiple posters (beginning with post #2) to document what stand these developers are taking, we have seen nothing. Nothing at all. Absent any corroboration, it seems likely this thread is only pretending to be about RPGs, and in reality is just a political post stirring the pot about "SJWs." In which case it belongs in another subforum.

If we didn't have all these stirring the pot conservative click-bait threads in this forum we would have far fewer posts, which would underline the increasing irrelevance of this forum in regards to matters related to actual gaming. It's becoming the fun house mirror image of TBP.

Quote from: Zirunel;1119503I don't think you're just rambling. We can argue about whether, say, a black character is potentially plausible in a quasi-realistic C&S European setting (and I believe the answer is broadly yes), but at the end of the day it has to matter. Somehow. If it really doesnt matter in the setting, then insisting that your character is black is as meaningful as insisting they are blood type B-, or have a third nipple, or a certain anal circumference rating.  Who cares. It only matters if the setting (and/or the game mechanics) makes it matter.

I'm sick of arguments over whether it makes sense to have dark skinned characters in fantasy. It's fantasy! We have Nyambe Adventures! I'm sick of lazy settings written by white liberals where you have black kings of Not!Europe, while ignoring the continent of Africa exists and has numerous kingdoms with histories stretching back millennia. Seriously, the princess Andromeda was explicitly from either Africa or India according to Greek myth, but you wouldn't know it from Hollywood. Nyambe Adventures is nearly two decades old now and nobody but me seems to be singing praises for remembering the Sword & Soul genre.

So I'm writing a fantasy setting to give the middle finger to both the racists and the white liberals.

I'm writing this fantasy setting based on StarGate SG-1 of all inspirations. It has thousands of planets inhabited by humans of all world real world phenotypes and beyond. There are counterparts of real historical civilizations and more: Wakanda planets, Inuit planets, Middle Kingdom planets, Vedic planets, Norse planets, Brazilian planets, Egyptian planets, etc. These planets interact through countless portals. Socio-politics and socio-economics play key roles just as on Earth. There are societies which endorse racialized slavery and burn homosexuals at the stake, and there are societies where slavery makes no such distinctions and sexuality is fluid. There are matriarchies, patriarchies, and equalitarian societies.

The various humanoid/demihuman/halfbreed/whatever races add another complexity into this. Elves, dwarves, little people, orcs, aasimars, tieflings, forgeborn, dragonspawn, beastfolk, etc. Think racism was difficult before? Imagine how it gets when you introduce racism against fantastical beings.

Imagine, if you will, orcs that are just as intelligent and capable as humans. The difference, besides general appearance, is that all orcs (at least from planet XYZ) are hermaphrodites. Both male and female at all times and, in lean times, capable of parthenogenesis. From the human perspective, they're treated as dudes simply due to their appearance as muscular and hirsute. How would these orcs view the human preoccupation with sex and gender?

When they're not, you know, killing ankhegs that are harassing farming village #3648217. This is probably a better discussion for general fantasy fiction than RPGs. That other thread where the adventurers defeat the army of man-eating Christmas trees by singing carols at them is probably a good indicator that RPGs aren't the greatest tool for dark and serious philosophical exploration. Surrealism, certainly! I would love to see more surreal fantasy in that vein.

Quote from: Bren;1119519If we didn't have all these stirring the pot conservative click-bait threads in this forum we would have far fewer posts, which would underline the increasing irrelevance of this forum in regards to matters related to actual gaming. It's becoming the fun house mirror image of TBP.

Yup it's hit the point where I rarely post here anymore.

Quote from: Bren;1119519If we didn't have all these stirring the pot conservative click-bait threads in this forum we would have far fewer posts, which would underline the increasing irrelevance of this forum in regards to matters related to actual gaming. It's becoming the fun house mirror image of TBP.

With one important difference. This thread wasn't closed and the participants banned for "Not being a good fit for the forums."

For myself, I've not had much to contribute because it does seem like a tempest in a teapot over a game I'm not interested in. So like an adult, I mostly ignore it. There's plenty of other threads about gaming.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1119522I'm sick of arguments over whether it makes sense to have dark skinned characters in fantasy. It's fantasy! We have Nyambe Adventures! I'm sick of lazy settings written by white liberals where you have black kings of Not!Europe, while ignoring the continent of Africa exists and has numerous kingdoms with histories stretching back millennia. Seriously, the princess Andromeda was explicitly from either Africa or India according to Greek myth, but you wouldn't know it from Hollywood. Nyambe Adventures is nearly two decades old now and nobody but me seems to be singing praises for remembering the Sword & Soul genre.

So I'm writing a fantasy setting to give the middle finger to both the racists and the white liberals.

Assuming those are two different and distinct categories.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1119391Ignoring the controversy for a moment...

What do they mean exactly by "diversity"? Ethnic diversity, sexual diversity, neurodiversity?

Going by the standard of 'diversity' as represented by other woke rpg companies and MSM this means that 55%+ plus of major NPCS  should be female and 75% should be  POC no matter the setting.  Every settlement detailed, and all illustrations,  should also have similar ratios along with the fact that Asian (of both varieties),Black and Latinos should all be represented.  So the inhabitants of your a 9th century settlement in Iceland should look something like this.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4084[/ATTACH]

Quote from: S'mon;1118971It's really not preachy in the Core AFAICS. Nor in Xanathar's. The 5e adventures start to get icky once Darth Crawford takes full control and abolishes the Imperial Senate ....or puts Mearls in the shed out back.

Which adventures have been Rainbow Connection-ed?

Does Mearls have any involvement with the adventures? I thought he was basically just thinking up any old crap that other people, such as the Rainbow Connection, try to spin into what passes for gold at WotC (ie, he writes bad rules and other people fix them).

Quote from: Zirunel;1119503I don't think you're just rambling. We can argue about whether, say, a black character is potentially plausible in a quasi-realistic C&S European setting (and I believe the answer is broadly yes), but at the end of the day it has to matter. Somehow. If it really doesnt matter in the setting, then insisting that your character is black is as meaningful as insisting they are blood type B-, or have a third nipple, or a certain anal circumference rating.  Who cares. It only matters if the setting (and/or the game mechanics) makes it matter.

It absolutely matters to players that they can set the physical characteristics of their character, even when those characteristics don't matter in any mechanical way.  I don't think I can count the number of players that have wanted an unusual physical characteristic like 'lavender eyes' or 'blue hair' or 'iridescent skin'.  The idea of playing a character that is a form of wish fulfillment is hardly controversial.  Having characters that are impossibly strong by mundane standards is well supported; having characters with a non-standard appearance is certainly worth considering. It's a minor concession to a player about something that has a major impact on how much they enjoy and invest in the game.  

Quote from: Gagarth;1119546So the inhabitants of your a 9th century settlement in Iceland should look something like this.

I don't think your costuming is at all right.  

In any case, there are shows that are pseudo-historical that don't 'force diversity' if it wouldn't make sense.  I think the closest chow to what you're describing might be Outlander.  It is set in 18th century Scotland (not 9th century Ireland) and I don't think they have a character 'of color' until the show moves to the United States.  

Do you have an counterexample of where a historical show was completely 'brown-washed' and white characters were changed to people of color?  I can provide a few dozen examples of historical shows and movies where 'the good guys' were changed to be Americans when they were supposed to be British/Canadian/Australian, or where a real-life person of color was recast as a white person, or where a white person was cast as a PoC using makeup.  I like Breakfast at Tiffany's, but Mickey Rooney's role is cringe-inducing.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1119559It absolutely matters to players that they can set the physical characteristics of their character, even when those characteristics don't matter in any mechanical way.  I don't think I can count the number of players that have wanted an unusual physical characteristic like 'lavender eyes' or 'blue hair' or 'iridescent skin'.  The idea of playing a character that is a form of wish fulfillment is hardly controversial.  Having characters that are impossibly strong by mundane standards is well supported; having characters with a non-standard appearance is certainly worth considering. It's a minor concession to a player about something that has a major impact on how much they enjoy and invest in the game.  

I take your point about wish fulfillment. It is kind of baked into the whole rpg concept, so there's nothing wrong with helping players achieve that. In fact, it is the whole point.

However, my point (and I think BoxCrayonTales') is that if the setting completely normalizes, say, blue hair, lavender eyes, and iridescent skin, and those things are no longer unusual physical characteristics , then they will likely not offer the same satisfaction as forms of wish fulfillment for players who want a  "non-standard appearance."

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1119559In any case, there are shows that are pseudo-historical that don't 'force diversity' if it wouldn't make sense.  I think the closest chow to what you're describing might be Outlander.  It is set in 18th century Scotland (not 9th century Ireland) and I don't think they have a character 'of color' until the show moves to the United States.  

Do you have an counterexample of where a historical show was completely 'brown-washed' and white characters were changed to people of color?  I can provide a few dozen examples of historical shows and movies where 'the good guys' were changed to be Americans when they were supposed to be British/Canadian/Australian, or where a real-life person of color was recast as a white person, or where a white person was cast as a PoC using makeup.  I like Breakfast at Tiffany's, but Mickey Rooney's role is cringe-inducing.

Certainly, we haven't been given any examples of C&S doing that. I agree, if there are examples, someone should share them

Quote from: Zirunel;1119563However, my point (and I think BoxCrayonTales') is that if the setting completely normalizes, say, blue hair, lavender eyes, and iridescent skin, and those things are no longer unusual physical characteristics , then they will likely not offer the same satisfaction as forms of wish fulfillment for players who want a  "non-standard appearance."

I think a lot of people want to have a particular unusual characteristic without making it the major feature of the game.  More importantly, if one player wants to have an unusual characteristic, that doesn't mean every OTHER player wants to make the game all about that.  

I just watched Magnificent Seven and Return of the (Magnificent) Seven - Yul Brynner does a bang-up job in his role as a hard-boiled cowboy living on the fringes of society but still willing to do the right thing.  It's an unusual casting choice - Yul Brynner was born in (what later became) the Soviet Union and is a mix of German/Swiss/Mongolian/Slavic peoples - not exactly what you first imagine when you think of 'Cowboys and Indians'.  Thankfully, the movie doesn't focus on every passerby inquiring about his heritage and parentage.  In the second movie there is a scene about heritage, but it's someone else bringing up the fact that he's half Irish and half Mexican and not fitting in is part of why he's there to begin with.  In fact, questions of identity and 'who you choose to be' are relatively central to the themes of the sequel.  I think a D&D game does well to follow the pattern - we don't have any control of the circumstances of our birth but we forge our own destiny - and the world accepts that. The idea of a  peasant rising to become a hero and become king is at least as ridiculous as a  person in a historically racist period being judged by their deeds rather than their ancestry.  

But isn't that always the way?  People, even RACIST PEOPLE recognize and make exceptions for....exceptional...people.  A D&D adventurer, by dint of willing to take on danger that others won't always proves that they're exceptional.  You volunteer to save someone's life I doubt they'll insist on waiting until someone else more to their liking comes along - they may not let you marry their daughter in their gratitude but they'll probably at least treat you like a human being.

Quote from: Zirunel;1119511We have no idea what "they" mean, or even if they mean anything at all.

This whole thread is built on a weak foundation. We are supposed to believe that the developers of the latest edition of C&S are taking some kind of outrageous stand on "diversity, " and yet, despite multiple requests from multiple posters (beginning with post #2) to document what stand these developers are taking, we have seen nothing. Nothing at all. Absent any corroboration, it seems likely this thread is only pretending to be about RPGs, and in reality is just a political post stirring the pot about "SJWs." In which case it belongs in another subforum.

I am genuinely interested in seeing and discussing what outrages the developers of C&S are promoting about their game, but so far, ain't no there there.

It's already been pointed out they're pushing this stuff on their Facebook page. I made a comment directly about the issue before the KS closed and got a lot of push back, so I no longer bother to check out the C&S page or the Britannia Games one.

Quote from: Bren;1119519If we didn't have all these stirring the pot conservative click-bait threads in this forum we would have far fewer posts, which would underline the increasing irrelevance of this forum in regards to matters related to actual gaming. It's becoming the fun house mirror image of TBP.

And yet you replied to this thread...and no one was banned. Exactly how is this some sort of Bizzaro TBP when no one is hardly banned? Also, this thread is absolutely about actual gaming; an RPG I have played and still play is being morphed into something I don't particularly care for in the latest addition simply to appease a group of people who really don't give a fuck about it in the first place. It's just activism for the sake of appearances and has no functional relevance to the game whatsoever. Are we just supposed to ignore people taking a property we enjoy and turning it into their warped vision of reality?

I think, all in all, I'd be worried if C&S had as large a fanbase as D&D. But AFAICT, there's a lot less than 100k people playing it globally. Let them have it.

Quote from: Brad;1119567It's already been pointed out they're pushing this stuff on their Facebook page. I made a comment directly about the issue before the KS closed and got a lot of push back, so I no longer bother to check out the C&S page or the Britannia Games one.



And yet you replied to this thread...and no one was banned. Exactly how is this some sort of Bizzaro TBP when no one is hardly banned? Also, this thread is absolutely about actual gaming; an RPG I have played and still play is being morphed into something I don't particularly care for in the latest addition simply to appease a group of people who really don't give a fuck about it in the first place. It's just activism for the sake of appearances and has no functional relevance to the game whatsoever. Are we just supposed to ignore people taking a property we enjoy and turning it into their warped vision of reality?

Greetings!

Excellent, Brad. You know, your commentary made me think of something else, too. Why do some people here get all twisted because other people here discuss the Liberal tyranny? It shouldn't be a surprise. If you don't like Conservative politics, attitudes, and discussion--there are many places full of liberals that welcome other liberals. Try having the discussions we have here *anywhere* else, and see what happens, you know? TBP, EN-World, and many, many other sites.

In so many such places, liberal attitudes are considered normal, and liberal's bloviating about their beliefs is acceptable and applauded.

Here though is one island where Conservatives and others can feel free to think, and speak, and talk, and yet, even here we have some people that want us to shut the fuck up.

That pisses me off, you know, my friend? Keep up the good fight, Brad!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1119576Here though is one island where Conservatives and others can feel free to think, and speak, and talk, and yet, even here we have some people that want us to shut the fuck up.

Anyone can post whatever they want here, as long as it's about gaming. That's the entire point of this site per Pundit. It isn't my fault that SJWs have infiltrated so many areas of culture that it is literally impossible to talk about as something as insignificant as gaming without at least being forced to mention this sort of crap from time to time. Plus, there are a bunch of SJWs that post on this site, IN THIS VERY THREAD, so WTF are you supposed to do? If everyone who posted here completely avoided anything remotely resembling politics, the SJWs would overrun the board in a couple weeks. At least here they get some push-back, but somehow being able to express alternative opinions equates to "white nationalist echo chamber" to people on TBP. Posters like Bren want to seem themselves as morally superior for not wanting to engage in addressing these issues, but still be able to complain in the very threads they don't want to exist. You can't have it both ways; either don't post in the threads or accept the fact all this crap is due to a bunch of fascist leftists masquerading as freedom fighters dictating how games must be written and played, NOT some conservative, libertarian, or classical liberals bitching about a-historical nonsense cluttering up their pseudo-medieval RPG.

Quote from: Brad;1119582Anyone can post whatever they want here, as long as it's about gaming. That's the entire point of this site per Pundit. It isn't my fault that SJWs have infiltrated so many areas of culture that it is literally impossible to talk about as something as insignificant as gaming without at least being forced to mention this sort of crap from time to time. Plus, there are a bunch of SJWs that post on this site, IN THIS VERY THREAD, so WTF are you supposed to do? If everyone who posted here completely avoided anything remotely resembling politics, the SJWs would overrun the board in a couple weeks. At least here they get some push-back, but somehow being able to express alternative opinions equates to "white nationalist echo chamber" to people on TBP. Posters like Bren want to seem themselves as morally superior for not wanting to engage in addressing these issues, but still be able to complain in the very threads they don't want to exist. You can't have it both ways; either don't post in the threads or accept the fact all this crap is due to a bunch of fascist leftists masquerading as freedom fighters dictating how games must be written and played, NOT some conservative, libertarian, or classical liberals bitching about a-historical nonsense cluttering up their pseudo-medieval RPG.

Greetings!

Fucking beautiful, Brad! Goddamn, that is spot the fuck on. I couldn't have described it better, my friend.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I've been tempted a few times to point out that this thread is pretty useless without receipts, and doesn't have any. So, fuck it, I'll go ahead and say it.

I'll also note that Iron Cross is brand new and showed up here with an axe to grind, no receipts, and a suspiciously allusionary moniker. Is Iron Cross really distressed, or is Iron Cross posting b8?

I'm a lifelong, bleeding-heart, out-of-touch, latte-sipping liberal and registered Democrat, and I've been meditating quite a bit on O'Sullivan's Law, and would like to lift my glass to Brad and SHARK. Cheers, mates.

It's pretty sad -- and a loss to gaming -- if a game called Chivalry and Sorcery has indeed veered so off course that it thinks half its name is "problematic" and wants to rant about $CURRENT_YEAR far-left politics.

Fuck if I know how to fix it, other than to play more, post more, treat people as individuals, and write good shit. God knows I'm trying to do all of that, and for the most part everyone else on TheRPGSite seems to be doing so as well.

May we all be united by our love of gaming, see brilliance clearly wherever it may occur, and be able to argue out the rest. And don't take the b8 m8s.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1119559It absolutely matters to players that they can set the physical characteristics of their character, even when those characteristics don't matter in any mechanical way.  I don't think I can count the number of players that have wanted an unusual physical characteristic like 'lavender eyes' or 'blue hair' or 'iridescent skin'.  The idea of playing a character that is a form of wish fulfillment is hardly controversial.  Having characters that are impossibly strong by mundane standards is well supported; having characters with a non-standard appearance is certainly worth considering. It's a minor concession to a player about something that has a major impact on how much they enjoy and invest in the game.  




I don't think your costuming is at all right.  

In any case, there are shows that are pseudo-historical that don't 'force diversity' if it wouldn't make sense.  I think the closest chow to what you're describing might be Outlander.  It is set in 18th century Scotland (not 9th century Ireland) and I don't think they have a character 'of color' until the show moves to the United States.  

Do you have an counterexample of where a historical show was completely 'brown-washed' and white characters were changed to people of color?  I can provide a few dozen examples of historical shows and movies where 'the good guys' were changed to be Americans when they were supposed to be British/Canadian/Australian, or where a real-life person of color was recast as a white person, or where a white person was cast as a PoC using makeup.  I like Breakfast at Tiffany's, but Mickey Rooney's role is cringe-inducing.

This is the goal you asshole and it is lot easier to obtain in an RPG than a scripted live action drama but they are working on it or have you never heard of an inclusion rider. Once inclusion riders get in-bedded the ratios will increase.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1119533Assuming those are two different and distinct categories.

Snap.

I agree with IP post links because if one is going to accuse a company of being too SJW it's on Iron Cross to provide the links. And no " go to their Facebook" is not enough. It's not my job to do so.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1119589I've been tempted a few times to point out that this thread is pretty useless without receipts, and doesn't have any. So, fuck it, I'll go ahead and say it.

I'll also note that Iron Cross is brand new and showed up here with an axe to grind, no receipts, and a suspiciously allusionary moniker. Is Iron Cross really distressed, or is Iron Cross posting b8?

I'm a lifelong, bleeding-heart, out-of-touch, latte-sipping liberal and registered Democrat, and I've been meditating quite a bit on O'Sullivan's Law, and would like to lift my glass to Brad and SHARK. Cheers, mates.

It's pretty sad -- and a loss to gaming -- if a game called Chivalry and Sorcery has indeed veered so off course that it thinks half its name is "problematic" and wants to rant about $CURRENT_YEAR far-left politics.

Fuck if I know how to fix it, other than to play more, post more, treat people as individuals, and write good shit. God knows I'm trying to do all of that, and for the most part everyone else on TheRPGSite seems to be doing so as well.

May we all be united by our love of gaming, see brilliance clearly wherever it may occur, and be able to argue out the rest. And don't take the b8 m8s.

I'm not posting bate.  I'm posting what I believe to be a legitimate issue on a free speech forum.  Anyone who wants to verify what I have posted should join the Chivalry and Sorcery FB forum and check it out and judge for themselves.  Stop trying to deligitimize me.

Quote from: sureshot;1119624I agree with IP post links because if one is going to accuse a company of being too SJW it's on Iron Cross to provide the links. And no " go to their Facebook" is not enough. It's not my job to do so.

I'm gonna have to agree with this--not that I mind complaining about SJW nonsense or criticizing ridiculous trends. But if you're gonna make accusations about someone or some org, specific examples with actual evidence is preferable to strong assurances that someone somewhere in a social media post that you are NOT gonna post said something + trust me, now go look for it. Otherwise it's just wild speculation and empty whining.

So asking someone who is accusing a company of being to SJW to post a link to the company site is  to "delegitimize" someone. It is not on us to trust the poster when they throw out such accusstions. Nor on us to nend over backwards looking for the forum.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1119559It's a minor concession to a player about something that has a major impact on how much they enjoy and invest in the game.  

Letting a player have iridescent skin and blue hair in a game of Chivalry and Sorcery isn't exactly a minor concession. It would destroy any pretense that the game is set in a historical time period. If a player is asking for something like this, then they aren't invested in the actual game that you are sitting down to play. That's really the core issue.

That you can't count the number of players with these types of demands shows a general problem with snowflakism. Rather than "wish fulfillment" being about playing a character capable of and willing to achieving great things, they wish simply to stand out from the crowd in the most superficial way possible. Again, the fact that you specify that these changes "don't matter in any mechanical way" means that the players want the benefit of being unique and distinct without the downside of being strange and weird.

Quote from: Iron Cross;1119635Anyone who wants to verify what I have posted should join the Chivalry and Sorcery FB forum and check it out and judge for themselves.  Stop trying to deligitimize me.

There's no way in hell I'm going to create a Facebook account in order to dig through the posts of some company's FB page just to try and find something you claim to be there. Screen shots or it didn't happen.

Quote from: Iron Cross;1119635Anyone who wants to verify what I have posted should join the Chivalry and Sorcery FB forum and check it out and judge for themselves.  Stop trying to delegitimize me.

Skepticism of assertions in the absence of actual provided evidence isn't delegitimization. I don't particularly want to join a Facebook forum because it would require reactivating my Facebook membership, which I deactivated eight years ago and have not missed.  Capturing and providing a few screenshots is generally not considered an unreasonable ask.

For what it's worth, I don't myself disbelieve you, simply because these days most RPG publishers will simply put up a greengrocer's sign in lip service to Wokeness rather than risk controversy. But if Britannia Games in particular is making more of it than a simple greengrocer's sign, I wouldn't mind seeing more examples of this without having to even temporarily go on record under my real name as a member.

Quote from: Iron Cross;1119635I'm not posting bate.  I'm posting what I believe to be a legitimate issue on a free speech forum.  Anyone who wants to verify what I have posted should join the Chivalry and Sorcery FB forum and check it out and judge for themselves.  Stop trying to deligitimize me.

You deligitimize yourself. I have been watching this thread because I am interested in the SJW lunacy in RPGs. But so far, this has been really weak tea. A few complaints with no direct evidence.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1119640Letting a player have iridescent skin and blue hair in a game of Chivalry and Sorcery isn't exactly a minor concession.

The game isn't to my taste, but the way that they combine elemental spells having a character with a 'magical mishap' in his or her past ins't exactly game-breaking.  Regarding the people I've played with, some are inspired by D&D directly, others came to fantasy from anime, others from fiction like Lord of the Rings, etc.  If you have a good group, it's pretty easy for the anime player to imagine himself with spiky blue hair and everyone else imagining him like Aragorn in Lord of the Rings - it doesn't have to be an issue unless you want it to be an issue.  The degree that you want it to be an issue is subject to discussion with the player and the DM.  Being automatically 'kill on site' or having everyone try to burn you as a witch might be more extreme than the player likes - but maybe they do want strange looks and distrust.  Once again, I can't begin to count the number of players I've had who wanted to be a mysterious loner in a dark hood with trust issues.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1119651The game isn't to my taste, but the way that they combine elemental spells having a character with a 'magical mishap' in his or her past ins't exactly game-breaking.  Regarding the people I've played with, some are inspired by D&D directly, others came to fantasy from anime, others from fiction like Lord of the Rings, etc.  If you have a good group, it's pretty easy for the anime player to imagine himself with spiky blue hair and everyone else imagining him like Aragorn in Lord of the Rings - it doesn't have to be an issue unless you want it to be an issue.  The degree that you want it to be an issue is subject to discussion with the player and the DM.  Being automatically 'kill on site' or having everyone try to burn you as a witch might be more extreme than the player likes - but maybe they do want strange looks and distrust.  Once again, I can't begin to count the number of players I've had who wanted to be a mysterious loner in a dark hood with trust issues.

I think you are right that many players will want some kind of shtick that sets them out from the common druck. Yes they want to be different, and as you say, the mysterious loner who doesn't quite fit in is a popular character concept. I've seen that one as well.

It's also fair to say that iridescent skin or blue hair on a pc would break immersion for most gms and players in a "medieval authentic" type game. Lavender eyes are possible, of course, and in a more fantasy setting, all of these may be possible.

In any case, some shticks will be setting-appropriate, and some won't. That is where we get into the weeds in discussions like this, and we especially get into those weeds in historical settings. In a pure fantasy setting, there is far more latitude to say blue hair, proudly trans, whatever, sure. It's in the historical settings where people will get defensive and argue about what is historically accurate or plausible. Immersion is more easily broken in an historical setting people believe they actually know something about. People care about fantasy, but they care even more about their preconceptions of history.

Which is where we find ourselves now. Complicated by the fact that we have been given no evidence that the developers of this particular edition of C&S are promoting any immersion-breaking stuff whatsoever.

Personally, I believe the paradox that BoxCrayonTales presented for us is actually even more interesting, since it extends beyond history and applies to fantasy too, but whatever. Perhaps another thread.

EDITED TO ADD: ps I agree that going out of your way to punish players for whatever their distinctive shtick is OTT. it should be more nuanced. You want to be different? Fine. There's upsides, there's downsides. The PC should expect to encounter both.

Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1119589I've been tempted a few times to point out that this thread is pretty useless without receipts, and doesn't have any. So, fuck it, I'll go ahead and say it.

I'll also note that Iron Cross is brand new and showed up here with an axe to grind, no receipts, and a suspiciously allusionary moniker. Is Iron Cross really distressed, or is Iron Cross posting b8?

I'm a lifelong, bleeding-heart, out-of-touch, latte-sipping liberal and registered Democrat, and I've been meditating quite a bit on O'Sullivan's Law, and would like to lift my glass to Brad and SHARK. Cheers, mates.

It's pretty sad -- and a loss to gaming -- if a game called Chivalry and Sorcery has indeed veered so off course that it thinks half its name is "problematic" and wants to rant about $CURRENT_YEAR far-left politics.

Fuck if I know how to fix it, other than to play more, post more, treat people as individuals, and write good shit. God knows I'm trying to do all of that, and for the most part everyone else on TheRPGSite seems to be doing so as well.

May we all be united by our love of gaming, see brilliance clearly wherever it may occur, and be able to argue out the rest. And don't take the b8 m8s.

Greetings!

Thank you, my friend. You do me honour! My salute to you as well, Insubordinate Polyhedral!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Ok so far digging through the facebook page I've only found two articles from Mr. Staple's Blog that seem lean in iron cross' view. I just don't care enough to do his job for him to really dig any further.

http://www.penultimateharn.com/blog/?p=249
http://www.penultimateharn.com/blog/?p=256

Quote from: lordmalachdrim;1119670Ok so far digging through the facebook page I've only found two articles from Mr. Staple's Blog that seem lean in iron cross' view. I just don't care enough to do his job for him to really dig any further.

http://www.penultimateharn.com/blog/?p=249
http://www.penultimateharn.com/blog/?p=256

Greetings!

DIG! DIG! DIG!:D

Even if such at Britannia is entirely true and accurate, what is it we are supposed to do about it? Chaosium seems to be pretty drunk on SJW nonsense, as well. *shrugs* Chaosium is a modest company. C&S is a relatively obscure game. Don't buy their products. Speak with your wallet. If they gulp down the SJW Kool-Aid, let them choke on it. Let them burn!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1119651The game isn't to my taste, but the way that they combine elemental spells having a character with a 'magical mishap' in his or her past ins't exactly game-breaking.  Regarding the people I've played with, some are inspired by D&D directly, others came to fantasy from anime, others from fiction like Lord of the Rings, etc.  If you have a good group, it's pretty easy for the anime player to imagine himself with spiky blue hair and everyone else imagining him like Aragorn in Lord of the Rings - it doesn't have to be an issue unless you want it to be an issue.  The degree that you want it to be an issue is subject to discussion with the player and the DM.  Being automatically 'kill on site' or having everyone try to burn you as a witch might be more extreme than the player likes - but maybe they do want strange looks and distrust.  Once again, I can't begin to count the number of players I've had who wanted to be a mysterious loner in a dark hood with trust issues.

Jesus you're a fucking clown...

Looks like Evil Hat is up to their old tricks again Virtue Signalling like crazy:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4087[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4088[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4089[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Shasarak;1119678Looks like Evil Hat is up to their old tricks again Virtue Signalling like crazy:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4087[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4088[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4089[/ATTACH]

Wouldn't "diverse and inclusive" mean everyone and not just their SJW fans.

I also find it baffling how many pussies play games with such super-dark shit then bitch to the ends of the Internet about how unsettling it is.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1119679Wouldn't "diverse and inclusive" mean everyone and not just their SJW fans.

I also find it baffling how many pussies play games with such super-dark shit then bitch to the ends of the Internet about how unsettling it is.

I know, it is like finding out the Cthulhu is a misogynistic transphobic homophobic nazi white male armed with AK47s.  Ahh, I failed my San Check!

It's even simpler:

-A game with demons ripping out of the flesh of children born from incest between hell-born, genderless mages who drink the blood of viral vampires?

Good RP.

-A game with white men in a historically accurate medieval setting?

Triggered into a safe space while demanding said game (and its creators) be cancelled.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1119647You deligitimize yourself. I have been watching this thread because I am interested in the SJW lunacy in RPGs. But so far, this has been really weak tea. A few complaints with no direct evidence.

Ratman is correct. Most of us enjoy ridiculing SJWs, but you 've provided us with nothing to see. "Join Facebook to find out" is a non-starter. And to be honest,  those blog posts were fascinating.

Common courtesy would be for the OP to have posted links to the offending material, or at least examples of it.  At the very least, a few screenshots of the stuff.  Why has the OP refused to post any links, or anything really?  Is this some sort of 'vaguebooking' the kids are all into these days? Or does the OP lack even the rudimentary ability to link to anything?  He/she has been asked multiple times for links too.   Say, it it a sock puppet for someone?  I bet that it is.  I wonder who?

I don't think that I have ever encountered a C&S player in all my years in RPGs ( over 40).  What is/was its appeal again?

Evil Hat and Chaosium are scum. You hate HPL? Wanna bitch about how horrid he was? Cool, don't use his work. Create your own horror setting or use the work of authors who are SJW approved. But to make money off HPL's creations and then shit on him? Fuck them.

The worthless garbage of Evil Hat and Chaosium are always happy to mine dollars out of the Mythos and HPL's stories...and mysteriously those tasty dollars are never tainted with HPL's naughty wrongthink. What fucking hypocrites.

Quote from: Franky;1119689Common courtesy would be for the OP to have posted links to the offending material, or at least examples of it.  At the very least, a few screenshots of the stuff.  Why has the OP refused to post any links, or anything really?  Is this some sort of 'vaguebooking' the kids are all into these days? Or does the OP lack even the rudimentary ability to link to anything?  He/she has been asked multiple times for links too.   Say, it it a sock puppet for someone?  I bet that it is.  I wonder who?

Either the OP is too afraid to do so or more likely way too lazy to do so. The first because they want to play both sides while not really committing to either. We had some SJWs who used to come here and complain about the treatment of their favored rpg companies because if they did on their usual SJW moderated forums they would be banned. Only to turn on this forum when it was convenient for them to make brownie points with their fellow SJws. While also accusing us of being the worst rpg forum on the Internet. More the second where and what gets me is that somehow we are at fault for asking for links or screenshots when the OP knows damn well he would have been asked to provide them. So eother he provides them or he is talking out of his delegimatized behind.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1119699Evil Hat and Chaosium are scum. You hate HPL? Wanna bitch about how horrid he was? Cool, don't use his work. Create your own horror setting or use the work of authors who are SJW approved. But to make money off HPL's creations and then shit on him? Fuck them.

The worthless garbage of Evil Hat and Chaosium are always happy to mine dollars out of the Mythos and HPL's stories...and mysteriously those tasty dollars are never tainted with HPL's naughty wrongthink. What fucking hypocrites.

Well it seems many "woke" rpg companies are hypocrites look at Paizo who suddenly became woke even before 2E PF by including  god or servant of one who targeted children. I think Folca was the name https://images.app.goo.gl/nfRjsNErUkHQvK876 and the of course the god made an appearance in new book just as the new IT movie was hitting theaters what a shocking coincidence. Of course the fans ripped them a new one and seemed surprised by the reaction. Anyway Woke fans think that somehow they will join a gaming group and start dictating new terms on what the players and DMs will use at the table during a campaign. Or what a player and DM reads in their homes simply by walking in off the street.

Join a campaign with undead as the main enemies and sJW XYZ is triggered by undead change the whole campaign or ELSE! Carry HPL or similar others your a terrible racist, white privileged person take them off the shelves and burn them or ELSE! Or that is the false impression given by the echo chamber style moderation. Thankfully reality and forum is much different.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1119559It's a minor concession to a player about something that has a major impact on how much they enjoy and invest in the game.  

Except that such players do not (usually) game alone, and that 'minor concession' might have a major negative impact on how much other players enjoy and invest in the game. If my group is playing a game in the American Old West and I allowed a player to make a character with 'lavender eyes, blue hair, and iridescent skin,' I think many of my players would be less than pleased especially if I was expected to make the world just accept such as being normal.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1119699Evil Hat and Chaosium are scum. You hate HPL? Wanna bitch about how horrid he was? Cool, don't use his work. Create your own horror setting or use the work of authors who are SJW approved. But to make money off HPL's creations and then shit on him? Fuck them.

The worthless garbage of Evil Hat and Chaosium are always happy to mine dollars out of the Mythos and HPL's stories...and mysteriously those tasty dollars are never tainted with HPL's naughty wrongthink. What fucking hypocrites.

   I understand wanting to distance oneself from Lovecraft's more odious opinions, but the phrasing feels less like distancing and more like self-righteous condemnation. One thing I'd like answered: what makes Cthulhu & co. so compelling that you're willing to exploit the work of a man you hold in such disdain?

Quote from: Shasarak;1119678[ATTACH=CONFIG]4088[/ATTACH]

"We're all about inclusion. Except for people we disagree with."

Yeah...

Quote from: HappyDaze;1119712Except that such players do not (usually) game alone, and that 'minor concession' might have a major negative impact on how much other players enjoy and invest in the game. If my group is playing a game in the American Old West and I allowed a player to make a character with 'lavender eyes, blue hair, and iridescent skin,' I think many of my players would be less than pleased especially if I was expected to make the world just accept such as being normal.

It also enables lack of creativity and unwillingness to commit to the theme of the game world. In my experience players who insist on making characters with rainbow hair, weird eyes and other out of place characteristics aren't so much exercising a need to play such characters, but substituting in-depth and compelling character concepts with superficial traits that look "cool", usually as a result of their lack of experience with RPGs or knowledge of game world. They have no clue how to create a compelling character or backstory, or think in terms of the game world so they add a bunch of weird traits instead.

These are often also the type of players who are likely to end up making sweeping changes to character's appearance or background midway into the game cuz some weird random thing occurred to them after play had already started, as illustrated in this old D&D parody video, in the part where one of the players suddenly decides to change their character's eye color.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-leYc4oC83E&feature=sharehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-leYc4oC83E&feature=share

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1119713One thing I'd like answered: what makes Cthulhu & co. so compelling that you're willing to exploit the work of a man you hold in such disdain?

Snarky answer: It's precisely because they hold him in disdain that they want to exploit his work rather than simply expand and honour it. The best revenge on someone you hate is to take his ideas and twist them to serve your ends rather than his.

Serious answer: The notion of a universe so epically, incomprehensibly vast and full of terrible things that it threatens your very sanity is an awesome frisson no matter what your politics.

Harsh answer: The real horror of Lovecraft's vision isn't an incomprehensively vast universe full of terrible things. The real horror of Lovecraft's vision is that nothing we believe about ourselves -- not our ideals, values, dreams, hopes, visions, religions, philosophies, civilizations, art, acts of kindness or love, anything at all -- means anything. So SJ advocates who condemn Lovecraft for his racism are, to some extent, making the same "mistake" that religious people (like me) who reject him for his atheism are: the whole horror of Lovecraft's vision is that moral motivations of any kind are inherently meaningless, because the universe can't and doesn't care about them.

Now I personally don't mind about someone taking only so much of HPL's vision as they want and no more: art is the ultimate salad bar. But getting on one's moral high horse about what's taken and what's left behind has a terrible tendency to become just another greengrocer's sign (I know I'm beating that image to death these days but I really am finding it quite relevant). Not to mention just striking me as ultimately a little "bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you" ungrateful.

But that raises the further question--why not take inspiration and create one's own antimythology, rather than being beholden to Lovecraft's work? The spirit is one thing; you don't necessarily need Cthulhu and the gang, and the baggage that brings with it, to do similar works in the same vein.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1119721But that raises the further question--why not take inspiration and create one's own antimythology, rather than being beholden to Lovecraft's work? The spirit is one thing; you don't necessarily need Cthulhu and the gang, and the baggage that brings with it, to do similar works in the same vein.

I think partly it's because launching a new universe requires building a new audience, and it's so much easier and cheaper simply to co-opt an existing one by exploiting all the old beloved trappings, even if they're eventually going to lose their flavour because you're sneaking in new and "improved" mental nutrition under them. (That's why the Doctor had to become a woman rather than simply launching a spinoff series about Romana; why Jane Foster had to become Thor, not just a Valkyrie knockoff.)

Now that said, there are plenty of people doing exactly this, i.e. creating work in the cosmic horror spirit of Lovecraft without bothering to hit any of his particular thematic notes or public-domain images. But the problem with that -- and this is the second reason -- is that launching the new is only part of the process; you have to directly "answer" the old as well to really undermine and discredit it, so you can't just create your own cosmic horror stories to show off the "good" ideas, you have to write stories that are deliberate and subversive reworkings of the "bad" ones to make sure your audience gets it.  Fisking your opponent's manifesto is just as important as writing your own, and it, too, is easier and often more fun besides.

Quote from: Franky;1119689Common courtesy would be for the OP to have posted links to the offending material, or at least examples of it.  At the very least, a few screenshots of the stuff.  Why has the OP refused to post any links, or anything really?  Is this some sort of 'vaguebooking' the kids are all into these days? Or does the OP lack even the rudimentary ability to link to anything?  He/she has been asked multiple times for links too.   Say, it it a sock puppet for someone?  I bet that it is.  I wonder who?

I don't think that I have ever encountered a C&S player in all my years in RPGs ( over 40).  What is/was its appeal again?

I knew one once. At least he kept after us to try the game. But he wasn't willing to run it and everyone who wanted to run games was already running "D&D," much of it wildly house-ruled. He also couldn't explain what he liked about it. He became known as "C&S," just as another guy was always called "RQ" but RQ ran some good RuneQuest campaigns over the years.

I suspect that HP Lovecraft's work being in the public domain is a big factor as well. No one has to pay a licensing fee for the Cthulhu stuff.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1119647You deligitimize yourself. I have been watching this thread because I am interested in the SJW lunacy in RPGs. But so far, this has been really weak tea. A few complaints with no direct evidence.

Don't believe me then.  I really don't care.  Other people in this thread and others have verified what I’m saying but If you want to be a lawyer for SJW companies.  Suit yourself.  It's your problem.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1119713I understand wanting to distance oneself from Lovecraft's more odious opinions, but the phrasing feels less like distancing and more like self-righteous condemnation. One thing I'd like answered: what makes Cthulhu & co. so compelling that you're willing to exploit the work of a man you hold in such disdain?

Ooooh, can I play?

- HPL has a high quality, highly lauded and public domain library of content that is easier to use than simply copying some successful, modern IP (and thus avoid getting sued), when you lack any original ideas of your own
- Slightly different, but you can call anything "Lovecraftian" to try to pull eyes to whatever garbage you are trying to sell
- Calling out his opinions as evil gets you more attention from the angry bees on the internet, and that's all that matters when your primary goal is getting clicks
- You can dodge being called out on quality / lack of originality by claiming your work is in response to the racism of Lovecraft, and any call outs are obviously because sour apple / racism / evil white man villainy
- When self interest is all that matters, views that would otherwise be held to be incompatible suddenly make sense
- HPL isn't going away, and his works are getting more and more attention from Hollywood, computer game companies and other industries that make loads more money

In other words, much like young models that will ride the desiccated living corpse of Mick Jagger.

Quote from: Iron Cross;1119730Don't believe me then.  I really don't care.  Other people in this thread and others have verified what I'm saying but If you want to be a lawyer for SJW companies.  Suit yourself.  It's your problem.

Manwut?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1119738Manwut?

   You forget one of the Prime Laws of Internet Discourse, Ratman: "If you disagree with me at all, you are on the side of the Enemy." :)

Quote from: Iron Cross;1119730Don't believe me then.  I really don't care.  Other people in this thread and others have verified what I'm saying but If you want to be a lawyer for SJW companies.  Suit yourself.  It's your problem.

And on this day, Wednesday January 22, 2020, pointing out proper argumentation practices, such as Burden of Proof and proving evidence to backup your claims and provide concrete examples of WTF you're even talking about became being a "Lawyer for SJW companies".

So, Iron Cross, are you and have been a Chivalry & Sorcery fan?  Where did you come in and what's your history?

There's a lot that I like about C&S and I'd go as far as saying that I think that every last version of C&S is infinitely superior to any version of D&D. (just not a fan okay)

So how does C&S 5 mechanically represent the SJW cause?  I'd like a lot of the tools from Bireme and Galley to the miniatures rules.  I'm afraid I found the Skill scape system was a little too easily abused and people were one shotting the supposedly scary trolls at first level a little too much for my tastes.

Does Britannia have a reprint of the original red book or second edtion materials available?

Quote from: sureshot;1119710Well it seems many "woke" rpg companies are hypocrites look at Paizo who suddenly became woke even before 2E PF by including  god or servant of one who targeted children. I think Folca was the name https://images.app.goo.gl/nfRjsNErUkHQvK876 and the of course the god made an appearance in new book just as the new IT movie was hitting theaters what a shocking coincidence. Of course the fans ripped them a new one and seemed surprised by the reaction. Anyway Woke fans think that somehow they will join a gaming group and start dictating new terms on what the players and DMs will use at the table during a campaign. Or what a player and DM reads in their homes simply by walking in off the street.

Now hang on sureshot, lets get this accusation straight.  Paizo published a Demon Lord that targeted children and that makes them "woke"?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1119738Manwut?

Dude's handle is Iron Cross...

Quote from: Shasarak;1119744Now hang on sureshot, lets get this accusation straight.  Paizo published a Demon Lord that targeted children and that makes them "woke"?

I think the accusation is hypocrisy--Paizo pretends to wokeness on the one hand but creates stuff like Folca on the other. Personally, I thought Paizo was worryingly fiend-happy back in the 3.5 days, so I'm not surprised by either. ;)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1119746I think the accusation is hypocrisy--Paizo pretends to wokeness on the one hand but creates stuff like Folca on the other. Personally, I thought Paizo was worryingly fiend-happy back in the 3.5 days, so I'm not surprised by either. ;)

There are definitely woke people within Paizo, you can see the personal pronoun brigade for sure.  On the other hand it is not legitimate to accuse them of being hypocrites when they have Demons that do stuff that Demons in main stream Movies do.  Or that anyone with half a brain would expect a Demon to do.  And Folca is pretty weak sauce considering all of the mental compulsion spells from the core handbook that a Pedophile mage could use.

Quote from: David Johansen;1119742So, Iron Cross, are you and have been a Chivalry & Sorcery fan?  Where did you come in and what's your history?

There's a lot that I like about C&S and I'd go as far as saying that I think that every last version of C&S is infinitely superior to any version of D&D. (just not a fan okay)

So how does C&S 5 mechanically represent the SJW cause?  I'd like a lot of the tools from Bireme and Galley to the miniatures rules.  I'm afraid I found the Skill scape system was a little too easily abused and people were one shotting the supposedly scary trolls at first level a little too much for my tastes.

Does Britannia have a reprint of the original red book or second edtion materials available?

This kind of stuff right here is why it's fucking annoying reading this book:

A Persecuting Society
While it is easy to demonstrate the error of those
who claim there were no black people or women
warriors in medieval Europe, no one can claim
medieval society was tolerant. Quite the opposite.
Historian R. I. Moore termed the Middle Ages
a "persecuting society" and traced the origins of
medieval intolerance to the middle of the 10th
century. While modern racism is a product of the
Renaissance and Early Modern Periods, other forms
of prejudice existed throughout the period covered
by Chivalry & Sorcery.
Anti-Semitism was rife in medieval Europe, which
saw mass murders of Jews, forced identification
through badges and specific clothing, and
segregation of both permitted profession and of
housing. Various monarchs protected the Jews when
it suited them and abandoned or expelled them
when that suited them. This aspect of medieval
intolerance still resonates today.
The medieval church regarded sex outside marriage
as a sin and reserved special ire for intimate samesex
relationships. While people in the past did not
regard sexuality in modern terms – no one before
the 20th century would recognise the labels of
homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual – same-sex
acts were listed in penitentials, often in salacious
detail. There is good evidence of an active, if
underground, gay scene in 11th and 12th century
France, at least for men. Church officials, including
bishops, wrote gay poems, and there was a thriving
underworld of male brothels. Only one love poem
between women is known. Same-sex relationships
seem to have been tolerated by the Church, at least
if kept discrete, until the Third Lateran Council
of 1179. After this homosexuality began to be
associated with heresy, witchcraft and paedophilia;
punishments for same-sex relationships became
more severe. Ultimately, homosexuality was one of
the charges used to discredit the Knights Templar in
1306. This iintolerance also resonates today.
Medieval society was clearly patriarchal. In
Christian theology Eve, the First Woman, was
responsible for tempting Adam, the First Man, into
sin. At the same time, it revered the Virgin Mary;
the misogynistic idea of women as madonnas
or temptresses was common. Islam has no such
theological basis; in Surah 2, The Cow, Satan
tempted Adam and Eve together to eat of the fruit
of the forbidden tree. Nevertheless, Islamic society
was also patriarchal. While women in the Middle
Ages ran businesses, took up arms, managed estates,
and cultivated land, they did so in the shadow of
patriarchal society.
Other kinds of medieval persecution – that of lepers
and heretics – hold less power today but were
prevalent in the medieval mind. Often, forms of
otherness were conflated – leprosy was considered
an outward reflection or heresy or sexual sins;
stories sometimes accused lepers and Jews of
working together to commit crimes against society.
Groups considering introducing such prejudices
into their games – whether historical or fictional -
should discuss them beforehand and set boundaries
everyone in the group is comfortable with. Groups
may also consider a mechanism such as an X-card
for use in play, allowing players to indicate when
the game is moving into areas they do not wish it
to. Sean K Reynolds' and Shanna Germain's Consent
in Gaming (Monte Cook Games, 2019) offers an
excellent discussion of why this is important, and
techniques and tools to ensure everyone in the game
is comfortable with the tone and content of the
game. It's a free PDF available from DrivethruRPG
and Monte Cook Games' websites.

Greetings!

Oh, geesus. That right there makes me want to throw the book to my dog and watch him shit on it.

That's what that book deserves. C and S can choke on a trainload of shit. You can tell they are fucking brainwashed by SJW-ism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Brad;1119751Nevertheless, Islamic society was also patriarchal.

You think? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Brad;1119751This kind of stuff right here is why it's fucking annoying reading this book:

A Persecuting Society
While it is easy to demonstrate the error of those
who claim there were no black people or women
warriors in medieval Europe, no one can claim
medieval society was tolerant.

While it is easy to build up and then savagely attack a straw man, no one can make a piece of political propaganda disguised as pseudo academic rambling without relying on them.

Jesus Christ! That framing.

Thanks for at least posting some type of example of what these complaints are about, since the OP couldn't be bothered.

It's amazing how many women were dual wielding katanas in the middle ages, destroying armies with their vaginas, owning property and running businesses while being pregnant and barefoot and were still oppressed by the patriarchy...

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1119756It's amazing how many women were dual wielding katanas in the middle ages, destroying armies with their vaginas, owning property and running businesses while being pregnant and barefoot and were still oppressed by the patriarchy...

Greetings!

Oh, man. That writing in the C and S book is so terrible, so smug with SJW propaganda it almost makes me feel like laughing hysterically at some drooling moron. It's mind boggling.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Brad;1119751This kind of stuff right here is why it's fucking annoying reading this book:

A Persecuting Society

Is that quote from C&S 5E?  I can see what people are griping about if it is.  That said, if that's the only section addressing the topic in the entirety of over 600 pages, it seems easy enough to skip past or scribble over.

Personally I think it could have been addressed much more quickly and comprehensively, maybe something like this as a single brief sidebar:

"Ostracism: Mediaeval European civilization was a lot more open than the modern West about hostility to strangers and outsiders of any variety, whatever the particular quality that made them so; this can range from armed adventurers wandering into town to those who, however good their reasons, refuse their assigned place in -- and thus threaten -- the order of things. Even when such outsiders were tolerated in certain times and places, such tolerance was disquietingly prone to being revoked in times of crisis and public fear, or merely for political convenience when a handy scapegoat was needed or an opportunity for profit presented itself. Some outsiders, like lepers or war refugees of an opposing power, could not hope for public acceptance of any kind short of isolated housing that met the bare minimum needs of survival.  Some players may enjoy the challenge of playing a PC who will have to face such social ostracism on a more or less regular basis, as long as they're made aware of what it will entail; others may have no interest in such things being a part of their game even if it doesn't affect their PCs personally at all.  As always, whenever considering a potential PC whose gameplay may put a damper on others' fun (and this does include character concepts which essentially require the GM to change the game's cultural setting in order to work), common discussion beforehand is strongly recommended."

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1119745Dude's handle is Iron Cross...

Indeed.  I was thinking of suggesting to OP that perhaps if he didn't want to be perceived as a white supremacist then maybe he shouldn't base his online identity around symbolism associated with white supremacists.  But that's none of my business.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1119759Is that quote from C&S 5E?  I can see what people are griping about if it is.  That said, if that's the only section addressing the topic in the entirety of over 600 pages, it seems easy enough to skip past or scribble over.

Personally I think it could have been addressed much more quickly and comprehensively, maybe something like this as a single brief sidebar:

"Ostracism: Mediaeval European civilization was a lot more open than the modern West about hostility to strangers and outsiders of any variety, whatever the particular quality that made them so; this can range from armed adventurers wandering into town to those who, however good their reasons, refuse their assigned place in -- and thus threaten -- the order of things. Even when such outsiders were tolerated in certain times and places, such tolerance was disquietingly prone to being revoked in times of crisis and public fear, or merely for political convenience when a handy scapegoat was needed or an opportunity for profit presented itself. Some outsiders, like lepers or war refugees of an opposing power, could not hope for public acceptance of any kind short of isolated housing that met the bare minimum needs of survival.  Some players may enjoy the challenge of playing a PC who will have to face such social ostracism on a more or less regular basis, as long as they're made aware of what it will entail; others may have no interest in such things being a part of their game even if it doesn't affect their PCs personally at all.  As always, whenever considering a potential PC whose gameplay may put a damper on others' fun (and this does include character concepts which essentially require the GM to change the game's cultural setting in order to work), common discussion beforehand is strongly recommended."

Greetings!

Excellent, Stephen! Amazing how you can write something that is informative, interesting, and thoughtful, without any of the SJW bullshit, and absolute moronic interpretation of history. But these C and S people...my god, the stupidity in the writing is so eye-rollingly huge, you know? Why don't these idiots have the common sense you have? And these people make money writing drivel, Stephen!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

QuoteSame-sex relationships seem to have been tolerated by the Church, at least if kept discrete, until the Third Lateran Council of 1179.

  Uh huh. Despite the fact that St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah comes from a century before this?

  I suspect this is rooted in something a lot of people don't get about Church councils--they often act defensively, defining and reinforcing a point because it's recently come under threat.

Quote from: SHARK;1119761Amazing how you can write something that is informative, interesting, and thoughtful, without any of the SJW bullshit, and absolute moronic interpretation of history. ...Why don't these idiots have the common sense you have?

I suspect quite a lot of people I know would do a spit-take if they heard someone say I had common sense, but I'll take what I can get. :D Much obliged for the kind words.

And to be fair, there's a case to be made that people caring too much about a particular issue -- for which people can have very good reasons -- is precisely why those people's first drafts, or indeed possibly any drafts, on the topic shouldn't be passed through without detached review.  But these games all tend to be labours of love, so detached reviews are hard to come by anyway.

The point remains: Even assuming the longer original text, if that's the only comment on the basic issue in the game, it doesn't seem like it would render the product unusable. If there's a lot more of it and it pops up every few pages or so, on the other hand, that might be cause for me to rethink my purchase plans.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1119756It's amazing how many women were dual wielding katanas in the middle ages, destroying armies with their vaginas, owning property and running businesses while being pregnant and barefoot and were still oppressed by the patriarchy...

I'm glad that you acknowledge that, because while it is easy to demonstrate the error of those who claim there were no women dual wielding katanas in medieval Europe, no one can claim that they weren't also simultaneously barefoot, pregnant and oppressed by the Patriarchy(tm) while skillfully spinning that Japanese steel. And to imply otherwise would be racist.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1119759Is that quote from C&S 5E?  I can see what people are griping about if it is.  That said, if that's the only section addressing the topic in the entirety of over 600 pages, it seems easy enough to skip past or scribble over.

Personally I think it could have been addressed much more quickly and comprehensively, maybe something like this as a single brief sidebar:

"Ostracism: Mediaeval European civilization was a lot more open than the modern West about hostility to strangers and outsiders of any variety, whatever the particular quality that made them so; this can range from armed adventurers wandering into town to those who, however good their reasons, refuse their assigned place in -- and thus threaten -- the order of things. Even when such outsiders were tolerated in certain times and places, such tolerance was disquietingly prone to being revoked in times of crisis and public fear, or merely for political convenience when a handy scapegoat was needed or an opportunity for profit presented itself. Some outsiders, like lepers or war refugees of an opposing power, could not hope for public acceptance of any kind short of isolated housing that met the bare minimum needs of survival.  Some players may enjoy the challenge of playing a PC who will have to face such social ostracism on a more or less regular basis, as long as they're made aware of what it will entail; others may have no interest in such things being a part of their game even if it doesn't affect their PCs personally at all.  As always, whenever considering a potential PC whose gameplay may put a damper on others' fun (and this does include character concepts which essentially require the GM to change the game's cultural setting in order to work), common discussion beforehand is strongly recommended."

Nice sidebar text, but you forgot to throw in some jabs at people objecting to the notion that women warriors and black people were commonplace in medieval Europe, then work in some defense of Islam while simultaneously acknowledging that they were also patriarchal to shut down any objections to that defense, and finish it off with a recommendation to some downloadable woke propaganda disguised as game aids.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119766I'm glad that you acknowledge that, because while it is easy to demonstrate the error of those who claim there were no women dual wielding katanas in medieval Europe, no one can claim that they weren't also simultaneously barefoot, pregnant and oppressed by the Patriarchy(tm) while skillfully spinning that Japanese steel. And to imply otherwise would be racist.



Nice sidebar text, but you forgot to throw in some jabs at people objecting to the notion that women warriors and black people were commonplace in medieval Europe, then work in some defense of Islam while simultaneously acknowledging that they were also patriarchal to shut down any objections to that defense, and finish it off with a recommendation to some downloadable woke propaganda disguised as game aids.

Greetings!

Preach on, VisionStorm!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Reading that excerpt, I don't really disagree with anything stated. One can easily skip the advice in the last paragraph if you're not into those approaches.

This really amounts to an overblown melodramatic response to an equally melodramatic virtue signaling. If you don't want to buy into the faux-alarmist bullshit of the faux-SJW crowd, stop reacting to it. If you like the game, play it. Support it. You don't have to make your C&S = Chicanery and Sensibility unless you want it to. Maybe those of us here with some reason left could be the adults in the room?

To the idea that "You stupid racists, Medieval Society was so diverse, although persecutory and we won't stand for your Whitesplaining it all away" -

So our solution is to then insert a bunch of minorities and then persecute them? Is that helping? At face value, watching a bunch of white people hand-wringing the guilt out of their pores and tripping over their dropped-pants trying to pay intellectual restitution via an RPG setting should be a simple warning unto itself. It's fucking absurd. If you don't want to be victimized by virtue signaling bullshit, check out the Pundit's works (Lion & Dragon, et al). He doesn't need to rewrite history so special people will buy it.

This whole thing would be much more conceivable as a "problem" if C&S was a good game or people were playing it...

So, regarding the "Persecuting Society" sidebar -- it seems to me that this is the exact opposite of the previous claims. In prior posts, it was said that C&S was portraying medieval Europe as unrealistically diverse -- like having majority women and non-whites in medieval Iceland. (Gagarth's Post #82 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41620-Chivalry-and-Sorcery-Tyranny-of-SJWs&p=1119546&viewfull=1#post1119546))

The "Persecuting Society" section is mostly about how medieval Europe was *not* tolerant and diverse.

Quote from: Brad;1119751This kind of stuff right here is why it's fucking annoying reading this book:

So a bit more than Palladium's disclaimers about magic not being real?  Is it persistant or sporadic?  And again, what are the mechanics like?

At any rate it's nice to see some actual content to discuss.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1119759Is that quote from C&S 5E?  I can see what people are griping about if it is.  That said, if that's the only section addressing the topic in the entirety of over 600 pages, it seems easy enough to skip past or scribble over.

Should anyone engage in a carnal act with the
demon the demon may attempt to seize their soul;
the victim must make willpower roll at –20 or die
instantly. In a campaign more historically correct
than politically correct the GM may wish to extend
this power to a woman engaged in an affair; it was
generally socially acceptable for a man to have an
affair whereas it was a serious sin for a woman. A
Demon of Lust is incapable of using any of their
powers on one who is truly in love with another. A
Demon of Lust can climb (10 PSF%) but prefers to
fly over obstacles; they cannot swim though they
cannot drown.

This kind of stuff is just littered through the book...like, wtf man? IDGAF what some modern fuckface thinks, I care what medieval people thought; there is no need to preface every single thing that is "questionable" with some sort of "hey, we know this is not cool with you, but these people were fucked up, man" sidebar.

Again...irritating. You're reading the book, it's alright (although...fuck these mechanics. I was not a fan in 3rd/Rebirth, even less of a fan now), then they just throw this kind of crap in there, which breaks any sort of immersion. Yes, you can skip and ignore, but it's goddamn annoying. I get it, people in the past were assholes, but at least they didn't proselytize about their fucking moral superiority 24/7.

Quote from: David Johansen;1119772So a bit more than Palladium's disclaimers about magic not being real?  Is it persistant or sporadic?  And again, what are the mechanics like?

At any rate it's nice to see some actual content to discuss.

Persistent...it's 600+ pages, and it crops up constantly. The mechanics are Skillskape, essentially, with Rebirth sensibilities. Again, I am not a fan, but there COULD be a decent game in here. Honestly, though, if you're going to play C&S, go full 1st/2nd, or just play something like Lion & Dragon. Trying to modernize this game is futile because you're gonna lose all the flavor.

If anyone is interested, I can post an actual review.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119766Nice sidebar text, but you forgot to throw in some jabs at people objecting to the notion that women warriors and black people were commonplace in medieval Europe, then work in some defense of Islam while simultaneously acknowledging that they were also patriarchal to shut down any objections to that defense, and finish it off with a recommendation to some downloadable woke propaganda disguised as game aids.

That's in the fine print.

Quote from: trechrironThis really amounts to an overblown melodramatic response to an equally melodramatic virtue signaling.

That's not inaccurate, but it's a little reductionist. It's not so much the virtue signal itself as the attitude it betrays.

If part of the reason one likes the game Chivalry & Sorcery at all is its evocation of a fascinatingly different era of history -- albeit a highly romanticized, fantasticized version thereof -- which is nonetheless the root of our own, then realizing that the people producing the game are approaching that historical age with a sense of apologizing for it at best and actively deconstructing it at worst is, I think, a valid red flag. As I noted back in my first post, I'm tired of that approach, and ceasing to reward it is a useful method of discouraging it.

Likewise, the way I understand the complaints about the "emphasis on diversity" is not so much objecting that the game acknowledges the existence of minorities not generally depicted at centre stage of history, and often exceptionally persecuted into the bargain, but that the game's designers are apparently going out of their way (in community promotion, if not yet confirmed in the game itself) to argue that these groups and their struggles should be given at least as much "stage time" in the average campaign as any more classic knights-hunting-dragons narratives. Moreover, the strong implication is that this isn't merely a potential dramatic interest but a moral imperative (because that's what SJ advocacy always boils down to). BadWrongFun was an aggravating accusation when it came from one group of gamers about another over a common interest; I've lost all patience for it if it's a pre-emptive, morally personal implication from the game's very designers.

If I'm wrong, and all that's actually there is a couple of forum posts and the occasional sidebar in 600 pages of text, I'll freely admit it; any evidence to this point is welcomed. But if I'm not wrong, I hope this clarifies why I don't consider my annoyance at the possibility an overreaction.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1119774If part of the reason one likes the game Chivalry & Sorcery at all is its evocation of a fascinatingly different era of history -- albeit a highly romanticized, fantasticized version thereof -- which is nonetheless the root of our own, then realizing that the people producing the game are approaching that historical age with a sense of apologizing for it at best and actively deconstructing it at worst is, I think, a valid red flag. As I noted back in my first post, I'm tired of that approach, and ceasing to reward it is a useful method of discouraging it.

Thank you for distilling exactly what my opinion of this game is so succinctly; it's difficult to objectively approach something you have a lot of personal investment in.

C&S is all about balls-to-the-wall "medieval wargaming." It isn't historically accurate, but it definitely is accurate to whatever the romantic literature of the era claimed was true. Constantly admonishing people for daring to enjoy that literature because it was racist/sexist/religious/whatever is annoying. It's not like I can't ignore this crap, but I shouldn't have to, nor should I have to apologize for liking it in the first place. Again, not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, but it's just...disappointing. Like finding out your favorite football player beats his wife. You just want to throw your hands up and wish it wasn't true.

Quote from: Shasarak;1119744Now hang on sureshot, lets get this accusation straight.  Paizo published a Demon Lord that targeted children and that makes them "woke"?

As AC pointed out they are all about being Woke then publish something like the Folca which is anything but. Being Woke as long as it does not interfere with them making a money. The Folca was created to take advantage of the IT remake hitting theaters. It's not King Pennywise the clown the similarities are too much of a coincidence. Considering how much they preach about being Woke and too many of their fans on their forum are the same the Folca was huge mistake on their part imo.

Shasarak a question you can answer do you know why some of the creatures in the 2E PF Bestiary have had their names changed? Derro is spelled Dero. The Ankheg seems to have another name as well.

Quote from: sureshot;1119778As AC pointed out they are all about being Woke then publish something like the Folca which is anything but. Being Woke as long as it does not interfere with them making a money. The Folca was created to take advantage of the IT remake hitting theaters. It's not King Pennywise the clown the similarities are too much of a coincidence. Considering how much they preach about being Woke and too many of their fans on their forum are the same the Folca was huge mistake on their part imo.

DnD including popular tropes? **cough**hobbits**cough** Well that certainly would be unusual to include a famous Demon Clown.

Look if sureshot accuses Paizo of being woke and then Paizo turns around and produce a pedo demon clown then you can not then call them on their hypocrisy of not meeting your expectations of their wokeness.

QuoteShasarak a question you can answer do you know why some of the creatures in the 2E PF Bestiary have had their names changed? Derro is spelled Dero. The Ankheg seems to have another name as well.

That is so that Paizo can make Dero miniatures without having to worry if WotC is going to sue them for infringing on their IP if they make Derro miniatures.  There is a non zero chance a lawyer may argue that the OGL only covers written material.

I still think Paizo are hypocrites  imo but that is just me. Woke just not that much when it comes to wanting to lose money. Thanks for answering  my question. Hopefully Paizo can pull it off. Or at least smart enough to make the Dero minis and other similar monster minis different. The whole it looks like a Derro but nudge nudge wink wink it's Dero may cause IP issues. I'm  no expert and am probably wrong.

Quote from: Brad;1119773Persistent...it's 600+ pages, and it crops up constantly. The mechanics are Skillskape, essentially, with Rebirth sensibilities. Again, I am not a fan, but there COULD be a decent game in here. Honestly, though, if you're going to play C&S, go full 1st/2nd, or just play something like Lion & Dragon. Trying to modernize this game is futile because you're gonna lose all the flavor.

If anyone is interested, I can post an actual review.

I suppose I could tollerate it if the system was good.  I'd need specifics on the mechanical changes.  I already have third edition so if there isn't more good material in there I don't need it.

I've written my own medievalish rpg anyhow.   What I like about C&S is its dedication to being an rpg, campaign system, and wargame all integrated.  Third failed in this.  Maybe I'll get up to Sentry Box and see if they still have the 2e box sometime.

Quote from: Brad;1119223This thread basically has no point RE: RPGs other than pointing out the ridiculousness of trying to be inclusive to the point of ridiculous when presenting an implied campaign setting. Modern stupidity about "diversity" makes zero fucking sense when applied to the real world.

We could have a fantasy world where "races" are distinguished mostly by hair colour.

Elves are blonde, of course. Humans are brown-haired. Hobbits are black-haired. Orcs are gingers.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1119784Elves are blonde, of course.

#AllElvesAreRacistNazis

Change my mind.

Well, in The Hobbit, they did kidnap dwarves and hold them for ransom in a dungeon. We could have an Elf Crime Tribunal.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1119786Well, in The Hobbit, they did kidnap dwarves and hold them for ransom in a dungeon. We could have an Elf Crime Tribunal.

Well in Dwarf Forterss an elf did eat an entire army... He became the elf king after that I believe. :eek:

But take a look at the history for Thunder Rift. In that elves and dwarves hated eachother. But during a long emergency joint operation quest a dwarf and elf fell in love. Got married. And had a kid. This cause various elves and dwarves totally against this to band together and kill the family. The abject shame of this act actually shocked both races into peace with eachother. Uneasy as it is sometimes. This is how you present stuff like this without bludgeoning the reader over the head.

Quote from: David Johansen;1119782I've written my own medievalish rpg anyhow.

Is that the one linked in your sig?

Quote from: Brad;1119773If anyone is interested, I can post an actual review.

I'd read that.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1119797Is that the one linked in your sig?

Yup, I've got a decent bit of a campaign guide written and have plans to simplify the professions to 3 in blocks and categories.  It wouldn't make high level characters quite as balanced as currently you can just multiply the allocations by the level and there's stuff that's just geting one point per level.  But from the perspective of building first level characters it makes more sense.

Quote from: Brad;1119773If anyone is interested, I can post an actual review.

Only if you promise Epic LOLZ.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1119784Orcs are gingers.

You are a terrible, terrible person. :)

Quote from: David JohansenSo a bit more than Palladium's disclaimers about magic not being real? Is it persistant or sporadic? And again, what are the mechanics like?

At any rate it's nice to see some actual content to discuss.

Quote from: Brad;1119773Persistent...it's 600+ pages, and it crops up constantly. The mechanics are Skillskape, essentially, with Rebirth sensibilities. Again, I am not a fan, but there COULD be a decent game in here. Honestly, though, if you're going to play C&S, go full 1st/2nd, or just play something like Lion & Dragon. Trying to modernize this game is futile because you're gonna lose all the flavor.

If anyone is interested, I can post an actual review.

I doubt I'd be interested in C&S 5th personally, but I am curious. I have the old FGU 2nd edition, and I do feel that it's excellently flavorful, but I also felt the mechanics were a complete mess - varying from cumbersome to just unworkable. So streamlining the mechanics seems like a positive to me. When I last ran an authentic-ish medieval campaign (over a decade ago), I ended up using RuneQuest / BRP, and just coming up with house rules for the magic.

Quote from: Gagarth;1119546[ATTACH=CONFIG]4084[/ATTACH]

Is the fellow on the right doing the black version of the circle game?  ;-P

Quote from: lordmalachdrim;1119670Ok so far digging through the facebook page I've only found two articles from Mr. Staple's Blog that seem lean in iron cross' view. I just don't care enough to do his job for him to really dig any further.

http://www.penultimateharn.com/blog/?p=249
http://www.penultimateharn.com/blog/?p=256

Thank you for this. No, it was never your job to do the digging. If the outrage brigade had beef with the game it was their job to show why. They refused to do so, you didnt. So again thank you. At least we now have something to work with.

I've looked through the first link you gave, and at first blush, the takeaways seem to be that in the Middle Ages, black people existed, and that women, albeit very rarely, could fight. I wouldn't care to challenge either of those concepts.

I do see a very defensive tone here, like the writer expects blowback, and/ or has a further agenda, and I can understand if that's what puts people's backs up.   So far the alleged "if you disagree with me you are a white supremacist" line seems to be lacking, but that said, there is a tone there I find rather disagreable.

Anyway, let's see what shows up in the next link. That one looks to be to be about "genderqueer" in the Middle Ages. Maybe juicier.

Maybe they'll be inclusive about the rampant bestiality that church confession records supposedly show.

Quote from: David Johansen;1119925Maybe they'll be inclusive about the rampant bestiality that church confession records supposedly show.

That the one involving the giant sword wielding snail? :eek:

Quote from: Zirunel;1119882If the outrage brigade had beef with the game it was their job to show why. They refused to do so, you didnt. So again thank you. At least we now have something to work with.

I literally posted two quotes from the book itself; wtf else do you want?

With SJW cultists it is never enough.

Quote from: Omega;1119967With SJW cultists it is never enough.

Step one: Make european character who is woke and religiously devoted to diversity.
Step two: Have character lead colonization efforts in africa to combat black supremacy there and increase diversity.
Step three: Import black slaves to europe to increase european diversity.
Step four: Begin planning a similar enlightenment campaign into china to combat asian supremacy there just before blue haired GM's head explodes.
Step five: Feign shock after evil black klansmen lynch your character for diluting their blood and soil.
Step six: Post-humonously proffit from woke martyr status with next character by selling che type tabards featuring your characters face to woke monks cloistered in privileged european systems of oppression.

Thats only till they declare you were 'appropriating' someones culture and/or 'selling out to the MAN' because you are of that culture.

Failing that you are damed for being a man.
Damned for being a trans-sexual man. (Thats allready happening)
Damned for being a woman because obviously you arent a lesbian.
Damned for being a lesbian woman because you are pretending to be a man and only real lesbians can pretend to be a man and you arent one of the elite and JESUS CHRIST these people are abjectly insane!

No... really. You cant win. Ever.

Back on topic. Such as it was.

What was the point of this new edition? Why not just reprint the original?

The current company/team as far as I can tell did not get involved until 4th ed and probably don't have permission from the original authors to just reprint the old books. 4th ed seems to have been a beta run to get the game back into existence and this as to be the "full" version and available in print at retailers.

Beyond that who knows.

Quote from: lordmalachdrim;1119983The current company/team as far as I can tell did not get involved until 4th ed and probably don't have permission from the original authors to just reprint the old books. 4th ed seems to have been a beta run to get the game back into existence and this as to be the "full" version and available in print at retailers.

Beyond that who knows.

Ah, that makes sense then. Pretty common really when a publisher somehow gets ahold of a game IP. But for whatever reason, not the game itself.

Britannia started out with Dragon Reaches of Marakush a third party setting for C&C 3e.  Right around then 3e had gotten out the core 3 books and then stalled hard.  I've heard there was a falling out between the creators over stuff.  Not sure which stuff but Britannia wound up buying the property and put out fourth to deal with the complaints fans had about third.  They got out a handful of supplements and a box of miniatures or two and then died out.  I'm guessing the market just wouldn't support it by then.

Anyhow, 3e introduced a unified percentile dice mechanic where you got a stat bonus and a level bonus and different classes got a discount on the cost of the skills.  It's actually fairly nice and the extra effect d10 rule is pretty functional.  The action point system was a bit too convoluted and the magic system was flavorful but the spell list wasn't.  So, it wasn't exactly C&S but it was a good evolution.  The only problem was that a decent munchkin could build very powerful characters, even at first level.  It's mitigated by the non-heroic stat setting but the heroic setting makes really broken characters quite possible.

Oh well, please tell my Britannia ditched the heroic character build option.  Really, I love the grounded and detailed approach, the integrated campaign and wargame mechanics.  Third never got quite that far, I don't think fourth did either.  It's the wargame end they missed.

Quote from: Omega;1119982Back on topic. Such as it was.

What was the point of this new edition? Why not just reprint the original?

Basically money, as per usual. I don't see a lot of rule changes, but sometimes reading the pdf gives me headaches, so I can't say for sure what rules got changed.

Well damn.

Remember, if you want a Medieval Authentic RPG that looks at the medieval world through the eyes of the people that lived it, instead of through the eyes of 2020 Seattle hipster-socialists, you can always buy Lion & Dragon (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/226022/Lion--Dragon?term=lion+dragon)!

Hi there all,

I am a HUGE fan of C&S early editions but 3rd, 4th and it seems now 5th is a waste of time? I have played and GM'd 2nd edition since it first came out in 1983 and still GM it every Friday night to this day.

I am confused by all this drama about SJW's and all the rest. Can someone please let me know clearly what this is all about? Sorry if I sound ignorant but I love C&S and mastered it and it seems there is a cloud hanging over the newer version these days. I want to know what has happened?

PS Yeas I am old school, I am from GenX and I say what I mean and mean what I say. I personally don't give a flying (you know what) about political correctness and all that woke crap - I do not hold back as a GM and will roleplay any situation with no forethought to anyone's sensitivities and even my younger Millennial players love my brash no holds bared style of GM'ing.

Forodin

Quote from: Forodin on April 09, 2022, 12:20:54 PM
I am confused by all this drama about SJW's and all the rest. Can someone please let me know clearly what this is all about? Sorry if I sound ignorant but I love C&S and mastered it and it seems there is a cloud hanging over the newer version these days. I want to know what has happened?

As undramatically as possible, the publishers of the 5th edition of C&S have added a fair bit of text throughout the "fluff" of the game that goes on about the difference between mediaeval and modern social sensibilities, both in complimentary (Mediaeval Europe had a broader cross-cultural and multi-ethnic exposure than assumed) and critical ways (they were more prone to group prejudices and persecution, often violently so). Look in this thread for the post about "A persecuting society" to get the idea.

If you really love the game for its own sake the Woke stuff is ignoreable. Myself I don't like to give money to people who can't keep politics I don't like out of their game.

If you're going to write Medieval Fantasy Clone Number 5487, you need a better premise than, "We thought diversity and racism hasn't been covered before."

I've literally got 20+ fantasy RPG PDFs in my phone right now, some of which are very straightforward about being proactive about rare sexual orientations & non-traditional relationships. 

Does your game do something more than 6 ability characteristics and using a fixed armor class for defense during a sword fight?   No?  Then have fun.   I've got  plenty else to keep me busy for a while. 

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 09, 2022, 01:13:02 PM

Quote from: Forodin on April 09, 2022, 12:20:54 PM
I am confused by all this drama about SJW's and all the rest. Can someone please let me know clearly what this is all about? Sorry if I sound ignorant but I love C&S and mastered it and it seems there is a cloud hanging over the newer version these days. I want to know what has happened?

As undramatically as possible, the publishers of the 5th edition of C&S have added a fair bit of text throughout the "fluff" of the game that goes on about the difference between mediaeval and modern social sensibilities, both in complimentary (Mediaeval Europe had a broader cross-cultural and multi-ethnic exposure than assumed) and critical ways (they were more prone to group prejudices and persecution, often violently so). Look in this thread for the post about "A persecuting society" to get the idea.

If you really love the game for its own sake the Woke stuff is ignoreable. Myself I don't like to give money to people who can't keep politics I don't like out of their game.

Pretty much this and the sames been going on and on and on about any game set before 2010. Though now looks like they are digging up the goalposts in prep for the 2030 wave of this mental disease.

Pulp era 1920 and Victorian era settings have this in their openers more and more and more. Warnings about how WACIST EVERYONE was back then and how THIS game will really real solve all the problems! HONEST!

Rinse repeat ad nausium.

Quote from: Forodin on April 09, 2022, 12:20:54 PMI have played and GM'd 2nd edition since it first came out in 1983 and still GM it every Friday night to this day.

Wow!

What keeps you and your crew so excited about C&S all these decades?

And what's special about C&S 2nd edition?

Hi all,

ty for the explanation on the drama. I was never a fan of C&S 3rd or 4th editions because they went away from the core of what 1st and 2nd editions was all about. Dropping the blows system for AP points annoyed me among other things. I have to be honest here, I am many of my friends are old school, we take the piss out of each other so horrifically via insults, personal attacks and so on that most younger people would blush or run away screaming (I am sure there are plenty others here just like us). It is a term of endearment for us to insult each other and the more we do so the closer we are to each other which others outside the group might not understand. So for us "Political Correctness" in non-existent. No topic is off limits, no storyline is taboo, nothing is off the table at our games table. Our younger millennial players had to get used to this and now they find it refreshing and their own minds have changed to be more like us old farts. They abuse and insult each other with the best of us now. So for me I could not get into 4th edition C&S even though I have a good relationship with Steve Turner over there at C&S, I even had him as part of our C&S private group on FB for a long time and I tried to convince him to create 5th edition with a return to the core concepts of 1st and 2nd editions. He basically refused and the more I got to know him and his close circle the more I knew I did not like where 5th was heading. He even at times tried to pull me up over copyright issues because of the work I was doing over the decades for 2nd edition for my own group and telling me that publishing this work on FB was going against his copyright ownership etc. In the end I quietly removed him from the group, changed the name of the group and made it totally private so he could not find us and talk like that. He had no right as far as I was concerned to make even small threats to me for my own IP for a dead game that was over 35 years old at the time.

As for C&S 2nd edition and why we still play it is because for us it did what no other Fantasy RPG did back in the 1980's (as far as we knew), it had a plethora of rules for individual combat that was lacking from every other system we knew of. We did play AD&D back in 1980-83 and also basic and expert and loved them, we had countless sessions and enjoyed D&D so much. We also played Palladium and Stormbringer etc. But when we began to play C&S in 1983 our gaming world and experience changed literally over night. For example in AD&D you had to roll a D20 to hit based on your level and the AC of the foe. This meant at low level the chance to hit was often 20, 19-20 or 18-20 and players got frustrated with constant missing etc. With C&S your chance to hit was based on your level but even more so was based on your PCF (Personal combat Factor) which was formulated based on the weapon you used, several other attribute factors and your class etc. The end result was your actual "To Hit" number on a D20 which might be from 1-10 or 1-12 ETC. The enemies AC had no say in the matter. You just struck and if you rolled under the number on a D20 you hit. Also, if you rolled low enough you could score a critical hit of even a bash. If you hit the foe would roll dice to try to absorb as much of the hit as possible to reduce weapon damage to flesh. This is called the DAC (Damage Absorption Capacity) of the armour, the armour acted like real armour based on its strength (AC) and its ability to take a pounding.

On top of all of that each player had to keep track of their character's armour, which deteriorated as it was damaged. The more your armour absorbed the more it deteriorated until it could no longer protect you or was repaired at an armourers (which cost money). This made players have to keep money aside to repair armour. The more protection the armour gave you the more costly is is to repair. This created a great care in players to maintain their armour and constantly keep it maintained.

So much of C&S we found was superior to any other system at the time, the Clerical Rules we loved, the Magic rules as well and the encounter tables, Monster profiles and so much more. However, when 3rd edition came out a lot of what we loved started to change, and C&S was no longer what we felt was core and faithful to the original. C&S 2nd edition is a VERY complex system and is difficult to master and I dare say many groups discarded it quickly after the initial box opening. I almost felt that way myself back in 1983 but we started to make characters, played a simple version of the system and slowly and gradually added in more of the deeper more complex rules as we went over a period of maybe 2-3 years. By the mid 80's we had it running at full steam with all of the complexity it had to offer and never looked back. That I believe was how we saved the system from collecting dust and ignored. We took it slowly and added to it as we went.

It is hard to really explain the level of devotion and love we have for the game but I can tell you that over the past 39 years I have had probably 50 or more players sit at my table and play C&S with a smaller core of 8-12 players who are life long friends who are the core of the group. The players who have played in my C&S group over al that time are unanimous in saying that C&S 2nd edition is the most realistic combat simulation they have ever played because if the grittiness, fear and horror the system provides for combat. I have had players tell me the experience is like watching a gory fight scene in a fantasy or medieval movie with all the blood, hacking, bleeding, bashing, and exhaustion you see in those films. One player I remember even told me that he could almost feel every hit when he was struck, and what the pain might feel like but also the jubilation he felt when he triumphed over some tough foe that came close to killing him. This might sound a little dramatized but I can assure you I got this a lot from players, and still do. If I ever even contemplate wanting to GM a different system I get shouted down. This is how devoted they all are to C&S 2nd edition.         

My biggest issue with C&S 5th is due solely to my interactions with Andy Staples who is a cool-aid drinking far left activist.

Quote from: lordmalachdrim on April 10, 2022, 12:48:59 PM
My biggest issue with C&S 5th is due solely to my interactions with Andy Staples who is a cool-aid drinking far left activist.

Oh my God, yes! He'd climb his soapbox and go on and on about women doing great shit in history. I kept thinking - we know this, dude. Calm down. It was nonstop with him pointing out diversity.

The very same week I first encountered D&D back in 1981 a kid with a locker near mine had a copy of Chivalry & Sorcery. He told me it was like D&D but better.

I didn't see that game again until years later when I scored a copy on eBay (yeah, THAT much later!) and, well, it wasn't better than D&D. Far from it.

QuoteI was never a fan of C&S 3rd or 4th editions because they went away from the core of what 1st and 2nd editions was all about.

Were these differences purely mechanical, or were they changes in the style and atmosphere of the implied settings?

ETA: And what's your opinion of the "updated 1st edition" Red Book?

First edition was essentially a class and level game albeit a disorganized and quirky one.  It's been a few years since I had a copy but it was built around specific subsystems with modifiers for classes in the subsystems rather than gathered together in one place.

Third edition is the only one I played.  It's a percentile skill game where your class reduces the cost of certain skills.  It's better organized and clearer than first edition, I never got second edition so I can't really speak to it, my understanding is that it's a reorganized first edition that's got larger type.

First edition is incredibly densely packed.  It's got everything including miniatures battle rules crammed in there.  And you can play a balrog if you want because balrogs are totally medieval authentic :D  Really it's pretty much Ed Simbalist and Wilf Blakhaus putting their D&D house rules into a big red book.

But here's the thing about third edition, despite sharing characteristic names and a basic medieval ethos it's a completely different game more structured, more rigid, and probably "better" in many respects though the magic system lost a lot of flavor.  I left it for Rolemaster Standard System.  But first edition's charm is largely lost.  I didn't do fourth edition because I felt it came too soon after third.  And fifth, well, I'd rather have a copy of first at this point you know?

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 10, 2022, 11:22:39 PM

QuoteI was never a fan of C&S 3rd or 4th editions because they went away from the core of what 1st and 2nd editions was all about.

Were these differences purely mechanical, or were they changes in the style and atmosphere of the implied settings?

ETA: And what's your opinion of the "updated 1st edition" Red Book?

Many of the changes from 2nd edition to 3rd and so on were indeed mechanical but the essence of C&S was lost because many sections were left out or re-written. Black Magic was deleted. All references to Tolkien were also omitted (you can understand why), the original C&S combat blows system was deleted and replaced by an AP system which sucked. and many more changes were implemented. The result was that 3rd failed, 4th failed and now 5th is failing I believe. I am not saying that 1st and 2nd were great sellers, far from it, the level of complexity of these versions and the way they were written was not great. But neither was the original D&D system in any great and perfect format either in the late 70's. However, with 2nd edition much of the chaos of 1st edition was cleaned up, reformatted and typeset in a MUCH better format with many subtle tweaks that really helped the system, not replace it with different mechanics etc. If you played a basic version of 2nd edition first and then gradually added in more of the complex elements over time you could easily master the system but sadly many player groups did not do this. C&S 2nd edition failed because players did not like the complexity and did not try to ease their way into the system. I know this because I have spoken to many players since 1983 who explained this very issue to me over the years.

My belief is that 2nd edition is the REAL version of C&S, the first edition was haphazard, chaotic, confusing with VERY small font all crammed into ONE big red book. The ideas and rules were great as a reference source but to many players it failed to catch their attention as a complete system. 3rd edition was an attempt to modernise C&S back in the early 2000's but it too failed because of the reasons I outlined previously and players were not sold on its worth. 4th edition was an attempt to try to re-write 3rd edition into the same 3 book format as was 2nd edition to bring back some nostalgia for the 1983 2nd edition but it failed because they gutted it and it no longer felt like old school C&S, it was just a revamped split up version of 3rd. And we all know how 5th is going, or not going.

The great thing about 2nd edition is that it is still VERY old school, clunky, has holes, gritty, has demon summoning, Black Magic, Tolkien references all the way through it even down to the Necromancers and their pursuit of the Rings of Power etc. For obvious reasons this was all taken out of later versions to the detriment of the system. It is very hard to explain why it is so loved by my group over the years, I wish I could have all of you who are intrigued make characters and go through a session or two run by me to show you first hand why I believe it is such a good system. But I know you can indeed find PDF version of 2nd edition all over the internet (if you look hard enough) and try it for yourself. It is worth the effort and I can think of no other system that would provide such a realistic and gritty portrayal of individual combat. This was the part of the system that set it apart from AD&D at the time but many groups did not want that much realism in their combat and I di understand that. However, I know many AD&D players from that time who did make C&S characters and did play in my group who were amazed at the depth of the combat rules. The feedback comments I kept getting was; "I am glad you GM'd this system for me and explained the combat sequence and choreography of it because if I and my group tried to do this ourselves were would have given up, its way too complex". I had many of these players actually convert to C&S after playing a few sessions and their AD&D and Palladium groups faded away.

What makes it even better is that even though I played C&S in my own world, which was massive and very detailed eventually we switched to Harnworld as the setting. I loved this world and bought all the books back in the day and we switched to Harn by the late 80's early 90's. Harn is a gritty medieval world setting which suited C&S's gameplay style and we never looked back, still play there today every Friday night to this day. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyBgKarU5yg&t=5s
   

Quote from: thomden on April 10, 2022, 04:14:33 PM
The very same week I first encountered D&D back in 1981 a kid with a locker near mine had a copy of Chivalry & Sorcery. He told me it was like D&D but better.

I didn't see that game again until years later when I scored a copy on eBay (yeah, THAT much later!) and, well, it wasn't better than D&D. Far from it.

Sounds like you got a copy of the 1st edition, the RED book? Yeah that is the problem. Compared to other games back in the early 80's C&S might have looked great for many and many like me believed it was a better system (at the time). But I am the first to admit that C&S failed because it was far too complex, poorly typeset, clunky, and many other issues. AD&D had a much larger budget and backing, much easier to play and as we all know took off and never looked back. The guy who told you its like D&D only better would have believed what he said at the time and probably mastered its complexity like I did. There is only a small core of C&S players left in this world sadly but those core players have one thing in common, and that is a love for an old system that provided an experience they understood and enjoyed. Many players bought the system but disliked it, could not understand it or liked the more glossy coloured books of other systems rather than the drab black and white books of C&S. This all comes down to marketing, budget etc.

2nd edition was a MUCH better system than 1st to understand, comprehend and play.

Anyway, this is just my humble opinion, I am sure your reasons for not liking it would depend on what you desire in an RPG and your experiences etc.

Its much the problem of any complex RPG. That complexity is often not the boon the designers thought it was and is more oft going to drive off potential players.

Similar example for me is SPI's Universe RPG. I really liked alot of its systems and the detail. But also realize that it is way the heck more complex than most players are going to like. Theres alot of things to work through during chargen alone and if you are not used to SPI or Metagaming's organization system its going to be a potentially even more confusing read than it really is.

That said. Once done you have a PC that is alot more detailed than 90% of any other RPG out there. You know what gravity index they are comfortable in, what terrain/environments they are used to, and so on.

But Traveller and Star Frontiers get the job done much smoother and with fewer moving parts. Especially Star Frontiers. Which makes them far more appealing RPGs at the entry level.

If you're familiar with Harnworld, are you familiar with Harnmaster? If so, how does Harnmaster 1e combat (things were simplified in 2e and 3e) compare to C&S 2e?

Quote from: Iron Cross on January 11, 2020, 07:00:40 PM
...Britania Games is aggressively and repetitively preaching and pushing an argument of Portland Starbucks social diversity in the European medieval world.  Though there is nothing wrong with that narrative in itself...

Straighten up, stop slouching. There is a lot wrong with that narrative. It is a lie.