Quote from: jhkim;1038995Is this lazy writing unless there is a story-important reason for her to be Rentsch's lover?

It depends if the module is meant to be run as a story or as a simulation. If it's meant to be a story (A leads to B, B leads to C, and that plot has meaning) then yes, it's lazy writing if there's no reason for it. Extraneous might be a better word (see Chekov's Gun.)

But if it's a simulation, then it's valuable. Let's say you're running this as a sandbox. The players could use that information in a variety of ways. They could attend Dala and Dick's wedding. They could plan the wedding. If Dala was a man, the PC's could demand that the local baker (a devotee of St. Cuthbert) decorate the wedding cake. Or defend his right not to. (META!) Or if they were of an evil mind, they could kindnap Dick and demand ransom from Dala. Or vice versa.  

I'm inclined to think more info is better, especially since OSR is all about the sandbox. I'm also inclined to think it's interesting to include a gay couple in a module, and a short phrase at the end of the description is a perfect way to do it.

It feels so vicariously exciting to be living in the SF Bay Area, what apparently is the modern "Berlin of the Cold War" culture war, with these alt-right uprisings, gay police/mafia, SJW lockdown, MAGA, antifa, incels...

Actually, it's mostly expensive. With horrible traffic. And great changeable weather and food. But you all make it seem so cloak & dagger, so interesting! Please continue. It sounds so ready-made for an RPG setting!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039077So how do you that when everything around you wants to?

Don't. Just because there are a bunch of people making everything around you political doesn't mean you have to buy into that worldview. Just do your own thing. Dust off your Viking Hat and wear that motherfucker with pride.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039077That's where you're wrong.  Silicon Valley is a bastion of the Extreme Left.  Google being a prime source of it, as well as being one of the largest companies.

Twenty years ago, maybe.  These days Silicon Valley is filled to bursting with Randroids and dudebros.  My sister lives just over the hills, and is a self-described "free range granola cruncher."  She's also a therapist and spends her time dealing with people.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042I think your idea has tremendous merit. The variable NPC identities to set the issue at hand is very creative. In some ways, it reminds me of the Traveller adventures in 76 Patrons where you rolled 1D6 to see how certain aspects the base adventure were radically changed.

Thank you very much. I think that 76 Patrons and (Classic) Traveller in general has still loads to offer: I really like adding the random d6 roll (roll or choose)

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042I wouldn't use your idea ONLY because my table is explicitly about an escape from real world politics.

Indeed I agree. I would also use it to offer alternatives to a whole bunch of backrounds and plots. One example is the old origin of the abomination/monster: i.e. 1) extraterrestreal 2) demon: 3) ancient scientific experiment 4) magical experiment 5)  dark fae 6) wrath of God.

Another might  be the nature of elves/magic/orcs etetera.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042Of course, if a GM did change a gay or trans NPC and posted about it online, I'm sure RPG.net would burn bright from the chained panty explosions.

This is what I hoped to avoid with the use of modules explicitly providing the options of different themes. If the module clearly states that there are, let's say 6 different ways of running the adventure (s) then there is little chance of the DM becoming the target of scorn.

After all, if the inclusion of a gay couple at the heart of the adventure like the one I described earlier is political, then to rewrite them as heterosexual could be seen to be even more political: I think the term is "erasure".

Providing the option on black and white with a "roll d6 or choose" at the top would allow GMs to run an adventure with the theme of his choice or to roll a d6 and step outside his/her comfort zone, perhaps. I would include the d6 so as to further avoid accusations  of "erasure".

Let's compare:

SJW: "Why is the heir to the barony not gay?"
GM: "I changed it."
SJW: "Homophobe!"


with

SJW: "Why is the heir to the barony not gay?"
GM: "I rolled a 2"
SJW: "....."

Quote from: jhkim;1038991People using a module do have choices - they can not buy the module at all, or they can change what is in the module, or use it as written.

Quote from: jhkim;1038991I don't personally like it.  If I read a module that had sections like "Well you could do (a) or (b) or (c)." - I might still buy it, but it would mostly likely decrease the likelihood of my buying it. As a GM, I am perfectly aware that I can change the content of the module to fit my campaign - so it would put me off as wasted space.

Please consider the last point above and then tell me if you still think that it is a waste of space.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1039101Twenty years ago, maybe.  These days Silicon Valley is filled to bursting with Randroids and dudebros.  My sister lives just over the hills, and is a self-described "free range granola cruncher."  She's also a therapist and spends her time dealing with people.

Sadly, no.  James Damore, a former Google engineer that used science to prove his thesis, and was actually TRYING to get MORE women into STEM, by explain how men and women differ, got fired by people who didn't actually read his little memo.  And every single article coming from there is written in such a way that paints him as THE misogynist villain.

Read the memo, it's actually well written, thoughtful and trying to get more women IN STEM by explaining what women have shown to prefer in terms of works.

Silicon Valley is Political Extreme Left, whether or not you want to believe, it is.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1039112Sadly, no.  James Damore, a former Google engineer that used science to prove his thesis, and was actually TRYING to get MORE women into STEM, by explain how men and women differ, got fired by people who didn't actually read his little memo.  And every single article coming from there is written in such a way that paints him as THE misogynist villain.

Read the memo, it's actually well written, thoughtful and trying to get more women IN STEM by explaining what women have shown to prefer in terms of works.

Silicon Valley is Political Extreme Left, whether or not you want to believe, it is.

It's not like Zuckerburg didn't tell congress "...because Facebook and the tech industry is located in silicon valley which is an extremely left-leaning place." Was he lying to Congress?

What about Palmer Luckey who was run out of Facebook after a Daily Beast article showed he was associated with a pro-Trump group?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1039042We live in the "everything is political" age. I expect outrage over everything on the internet. Social media is the bane of humanity.

Personally, I do not know the right answer. Defined relationships between NPCs are normal aspects of drama. And if that relationship is key or important to the drama or module, then it would be weird for that relationship to not be defined. However, if the relationship is not meaningful to the NPC presentation, then I don't see the need to include sexuality and leave it to the GM.

Pretty much this. The problem isn't really about NPC sexual identities (I don't give a crap if an NPC is gay). It's about modules these days including all sorts of irrelevant backstory because half of them are bought by people who don't actively game and use RPG books as toilet reading material. So we get fictional backstory material written by frustrated fantasy writers who aren't even good enough at their craft to crack the disposable schlock end of the market. I tried getting into a couple Paizo adventure paths, and they're chock full of this fluff. The barkeep is saving to go back to school and become a scribe, while the head of the drover's guild is bitter about his wife running away with his former business partner, whose sister got into trouble with gambling debts and was disowned by her parents, etc. etc. It's also comically anachronistic ren faire stuff, inhabited by characters who stepped straight out of a Seattle Starbucks, rather than anyone who could plausibly live in a pre-modern social setting.

Quote from: Omega;1039086Exactly. Most of the NPCs from the TSR era were never stated what their "sexual orientation" was. And didnt need to. The DM could make them anything, or nothing, because 99.99 percent of the time it is not relevant even. Any by that same token we do not need to be told anyone is NOT gay, lesbian, illithid, whatever.

I think I have figured this out now... With the new 'social signaling' your gay, lesbian, trans, illithid, or whatever game designer/publisher/GM is social signaling their "sexual orientation" right into the mechanics or other social interactions of the game. This can only be relevant for two reasons, one, ...to locate other similarly sexually oriented gamers, and two, to setup a club, click, or subgroup who specifically and subtly, and maybe not so subtly excludes other gamers.

In the specific case last week when the very mixed sjw crowd attacked Sean Patrick Fannon, including Chris Helton, they really were not attacking him because he had been giving other mixed sexual orientation SJW cucks grief, as they do that to each other, just for entertainment purposes. They even have terms specifically identifying such relationships, calling various members of said dysfunctional relationships dominant/submissives, etc. and then expecting them to behave according to how they are labeled or acting, ...accordingly. Anyway because Sean had went hetero and betrayed the LGBT cause and dogma by chasing after some skirt, they all got out their torches and pitchforks and proceeded to drag him, as well as anyone anyone sympathetic (like me) to the town square in order to publicly burn them.

After some consideration, I can't think of any good reasons to overtly include sexual orientation in my RPGs, for the npcs, or making it excessively relevant as part of our fantasy RPGs, as it never really was relevant when I was younger, and we didn't discuss it much. There is actually very good reasons for keeping our fantasy worlds separate from the real world, not to protect the real world from our fantasies, but to protect our fantasies from the poisons and ills that are prevalent in the real world.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1039110Let's compare:

SJW: "Why is the heir to the barony not gay?"
GM: "I changed it."
SJW: "Homophobe!"


with

SJW: "Why is the heir to the barony not gay?"
GM: "I rolled a 2"
SJW: "....."

Before either situation happened, the GM at some point willingly made the conscious decision to allow the SJW into their game.

Quote from: Krimson;1039173Before either situation happened, the GM at some point willingly made the conscious decision to allow the SJW into their game.

I don't have problems with SJWs. They can have problems with me, but politics doesn't affect my friendships.

I will cut people out of my life who do let politics affect their friendships. Those gross people can be by themselves until they stop over caring about trivial bullshit that we barely have a say in every couple of years.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1039178I don't have problems with SJWs. They can have problems with me, but politics doesn't affect my friendships.

I will cut people out of my life who do let politics affect their friendships. Those gross people can be by themselves until they stop over caring about trivial bullshit that we barely have a say in every couple of years.

A GM that allows a disruptive player at the table still had to at some point make the decision to allow them. If you consciously decide to allow someone in your home who you know to be disruptive, then you have only yourself to blame.

Quote from: Haffrung;1039151Pretty much this. The problem isn't really about NPC sexual identities (I don't give a crap if an NPC is gay). It's about modules these days including all sorts of irrelevant backstory because half of them are bought by people who don't actively game and use RPG books as toilet reading material. So we get fictional backstory material written by frustrated fantasy writers who aren't even good enough at their craft to crack the disposable schlock end of the market. I tried getting into a couple Paizo adventure paths, and they're chock full of this fluff. The barkeep is saving to go back to school and become a scribe, while the head of the drover's guild is bitter about his wife running away with his former business partner, whose sister got into trouble with gambling debts and was disowned by her parents, etc. etc. It's also comically anachronistic ren faire stuff, inhabited by characters who stepped straight out of a Seattle Starbucks, rather than anyone who could plausibly live in a pre-modern social setting.

I used to hear stories about GMs who filled notepads and binders full of niggly details about their campaign setting that no one in their right mind would ever find a use for at the gaming table. It's practically a D&D trope at this point. Granted, you're talking about modules and not sourcebooks but still.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1039162After some consideration, I can't think of any good reasons to overtly include sexual orientation in my RPGs, for the npcs, or making it excessively relevant as part of our fantasy RPGs, as it never really was relevant when I was younger, and we didn't discuss it much. There is actually very good reasons for keeping our fantasy worlds separate from the real world, not to protect the real world from our fantasies, but to protect our fantasies from the poisons and ills that are prevalent in the real world.

Have you ever had the PCs meet the King and Queen?  What about an innkeeper and his wife?  How about a farm worked/owned by a family?  If so, then according to some you have overtly included sexual orientation in your RPGs.  I've even seen it claimed that those examples are shoving your heterosexual norms down their throats and reason enough to force the opposite into games.

Quote from: rgalex;1039197Have you ever had the PCs meet the King and Queen?  What about an innkeeper and his wife?  How about a farm worked/owned by a family?  If so, then according to some you have overtly included sexual orientation in your RPGs.  I've even seen it claimed that those examples are shoving your heterosexual norms down their throats and reason enough to force the opposite into games.

  Which is a fine example of begging the question--that is, it's assuming that all forms of sexual orientation, family life, etc. are equally normative and deserving of representation, which is one of the points under debate.