Quote from: Brad on July 26, 2023, 10:05:57 AM
I hate this timeline and am looking forward to the Crisis on Infinite Earths finally coming to an end.

If punching my way through dimensions in utter despair and desperation worked, I'd be gone already.

Quote from: jhkim on July 26, 2023, 07:46:03 PM

Quote from: I on July 26, 2023, 05:28:25 PM
And for those of you who are saying that using "they" in the singular is no big deal and nothing to argue over -- then neither is the usage of "he," which can mean either "man" or "man or woman" depending on the context, same as the terms "Man" or "Mankind."  So why did liberals make a big deal of it to begin with, if it's so inconsequential?  It's like you're saying our reaction to it is over-the-top, but their initial "offense" at such an inoffensive term is not.

Personally, I am against both of:

1) Liberals who are outraged and make a big deal over standard use of generic "he" in a game book

2) Conservatives who are outraged and make a big deal over standard use of singular "they" in a game book


It's valid for someone to have a preference either way (or to prefer other options). But outrage and declaring DCC "fallen" over either option is over the top.

I'm fully with you on this one. The amount of cringe I've experienced from folks here who think the removal of gendered language in a rulebook is a sign of the end times has killed me twice and brought me back to life.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 26, 2023, 09:26:06 PM
I'm fully with you on this one. The amount of cringe I've experienced from folks here who think the removal of gendered language in a rulebook is a sign of the end times has killed me twice and brought me back to life.

Funny you bring up end times...that is literally a sign of the beginnings.

Also, you'd be the one calling people idiots for complaining about the gulags because they get banana pudding on Thursdays instead of beatings.

Bad faith actor:

Posing as an impartial observer while explicitly insulting people who have valid linguistic & logical objections to deliberately politicized language.

Quote from: Brad on July 26, 2023, 10:13:00 PM

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 26, 2023, 09:26:06 PM
I'm fully with you on this one. The amount of cringe I've experienced from folks here who think the removal of gendered language in a rulebook is a sign of the end times has killed me twice and brought me back to life.

Funny you bring up end times...that is literally a sign of the beginnings.

Also, you'd be the one calling people idiots for complaining about the gulags because they get banana pudding on Thursdays instead of beatings.

Comparing non-gendered language to actual fucking Gulags..

Half of this forum is just as cringe as RPG.net is, only it's on the other side of Wing-cuckery.

This one is better because it at least doesn't censor opposing viewpoints... But as much as I fucking hate to use this phrase... Some of you guys need to get a life. Whether that's friends outside of the hobby, a marriage, children, something, I don't know...but this kind of obsession over what is a minor issue is just as cringey as the Big Purple sanctioning a guy in the Pathfinder 2e thread because he used the phrase "Sacred Cows".

Quote from: Brad on July 26, 2023, 10:13:00 PM

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 26, 2023, 09:26:06 PM
I'm fully with you on this one. The amount of cringe I've experienced from folks here who think the removal of gendered language in a rulebook is a sign of the end times has killed me twice and brought me back to life.

Funny you bring up end times...that is literally a sign of the beginnings.

Also, you'd be the one calling people idiots for complaining about the gulags because they get banana pudding on Thursdays instead of beatings.

This guy is living proof that AI is unnecessary.  He's as basic bitch consoomer as they come.  I can tell you his opinion on everything without having to scrape the net for the "consensus"...

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 26, 2023, 10:29:03 PM
Comparing non-gendered language to actual fucking Gulags..

Weimar Republic, anyone? No, that never existed...

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 19, 2023, 09:55:06 AM
I prefer writing for the second person for rules (ie. "You gain a +4 bonus to your check." which makes sense to me since the player is the one rolling, not the PC) and for whatever sex the character happens to be if that's what's being talked about.

I prefer the less formal and more personal feel that second person writing provides. Most games mechanics already read like a technical manual so why make it sound cold and clinical?

"When the player takes the charge action he gains +2 to his check and deals +level extra damage, but he is flat-footed until the start of his next turn."

or

"When you use the charge action, you gain +2 to the check and deal +level extra damage, but are flat-footed until your next turn."

I first noticed this in the Artesia game, and have often wondered why not more people do this.

Quote from: Trond on July 27, 2023, 07:48:22 AM

I first noticed this in the Artesia game, and have often wondered why not more people do this.

It's discouraged in technical writing, or at least was 20+ years ago.  Though in a game, I think it is a good compromise, given that RPG text ideally is a weird mix of technical reference and inspiration. 

I write my own rules that way now--despite the fact that it grates my on my sensibilities something awful to do it.  You can take the boy out of the technical writing, but you can't take the technical writing out of the boy.  I suck it up and do it because I've tried the more formal way and the second person way, and can't deny that the latter not only flows better but has marked effects on some people's ability (or maybe willingness) to absorb the material.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 27, 2023, 07:55:50 AM

Quote from: Trond on July 27, 2023, 07:48:22 AM

I first noticed this in the Artesia game, and have often wondered why not more people do this.

It's discouraged in technical writing, or at least was 20+ years ago.  Though in a game, I think it is a good compromise, given that RPG text ideally is a weird mix of technical reference and inspiration. 

I write my own rules that way now--despite the fact that it grates my on my sensibilities something awful to do it.  You can take the boy out of the technical writing, but you can't take the technical writing out of the boy.  I suck it up and do it because I've tried the more formal way and the second person way, and can't deny that the latter not only flows better but has marked effects on some people's ability (or maybe willingness) to absorb the material.

This. Second person is/was taught as improper for formal writing. I've been using it in technical docs for 3 decades.

Quote from: Tod13 on July 27, 2023, 08:14:04 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 27, 2023, 07:55:50 AM

Quote from: Trond on July 27, 2023, 07:48:22 AM

I first noticed this in the Artesia game, and have often wondered why not more people do this.

It's discouraged in technical writing, or at least was 20+ years ago.  Though in a game, I think it is a good compromise, given that RPG text ideally is a weird mix of technical reference and inspiration. 

I write my own rules that way now--despite the fact that it grates my on my sensibilities something awful to do it.  You can take the boy out of the technical writing, but you can't take the technical writing out of the boy.  I suck it up and do it because I've tried the more formal way and the second person way, and can't deny that the latter not only flows better but has marked effects on some people's ability (or maybe willingness) to absorb the material.

This. Second person is/was taught as improper for formal writing. I've been using it in technical docs for 3 decades.

4E got dumped on so hard for its use of technical writing that when developing 5e the developers made a big deal about a return to "natural language."

I think the lesson learned is that while formal technical writing needs rigorous standards for clarity and legal protection (you want those airframe maintenance directions to be very specific and not the slightest bit unclear)... directions for games and passtimes intended to be entertaining can benefit from a degree of informality for the purpose of engaging the reader.

It's a bigger deal than it might seem because, time and again for decades now, we've seen the left start with demands that seem small and reasonable, then once they get that they keep pushing until their demands become unreasonable and even damaging.  It's why I no longer like to even give the left that first inch, no matter how small and reasonable it is.  Consider the following on the REASONABLE -----------------------> UNREASONABLE scale:

White Supremacy is bad ----------------------------> Valuing objectivity & being at work on time are White Supremacy
Saying that all Jews are born greedy is bad -----------------------------------> Saying that all White people are born racist is fine
Transsexuals should be allowed to serve in the military ------------------------> Transsexuals are exempt from deployments and PT standards
Peaceful mass protests are fine -------------------------------------> Mass looting and arson are peaceful protests
Colleges should stop discriminating against Blacks -------------------------> Colleges should discriminate against Whites and Asians
Police should be less brutal and more fair, esp. to minorities -----------------------> Police shouldn't enforce the law, especially for minorities
Federal law re: voting and immigration are supreme and trump state laws -----------------> Feds will selectively enforce voting laws and not enforce immigration laws at all
Government censorship is bad, freedom of speech is good -------------------------------> Government censorship of conservatives is OK, freedom of speech isn't a right

From these examples, and I could provide many more, it's not a far stretch to see that

Use "they and them" instead of "he and she" ------------------------------>Newspeak

And before you discount that as being hysterical, consider the examples above.  How many times, when objections were raised to the initial proposition, did we hear "The slippery slope is just a fallacy; you're making a mountain out of molehill; this is a reasonable compromise that will settle the issue permanently"?  Every single case started like that, but they sure didn't end that way.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 26, 2023, 10:29:03 PM

Comparing non-gendered language to actual fucking Gulags..

You're of course aware the soviets used the "comrade/tovarich exactly to erase all distinctions between people right? Not only class distinctions but gender distinctions too, it was not politically correct to refer to ANYONE as anything else.

But sure, it has nothing to do with gulags...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 27, 2023, 12:26:49 PM

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 26, 2023, 10:29:03 PM

Comparing non-gendered language to actual fucking Gulags..

You're of course aware the soviets used the "comrade/tovarich exactly to erase all distinctions between people right? Not only class distinctions but gender distinctions too, it was not politically correct to refer to ANYONE as anything else.

But sure, it has nothing to do with gulags...

And non-gendered language has been in use with RPGS for 30+ years now. DCC was behind the times was all. Sure they probably did it for some brownie points with the Progs, but again it's not the end of the world.

I prefer non-gendered languages in my RPG books. It makes it appeal to a broader audience, always has.

This is just one of the many reasons why guys who played whitewolf games got laid more than guys who just played D&D in the 90s and 00s.

These days, using the term "Players" and "GMs" as opposed to "He" or "She" is even better. You cut out all the nonsense in the first place.

But acting like switching to non-gendered language in Dungeon Crawl Classics is the first step to the Gulag is the equivalent of the Christian Right who lost their minds and thought D&D was the first step to Satanism. That's what you sound like right now. That is literally who you're coming across as.

Now you come to me and tell me DCC has put a space for "Preferred Pronouns" on the character sheet... I WILL agree with you.

But switching up to a standard that's been around and used by other games for decades now, and doubles as a way to make some extra money by conning the Progs? I don't care.

Two thing can be true at the same time.

It can be true that "it" commonly refers to inanimate objects and children, while "they" commonly refers to adults of unknown and unspecified sex, and it can simultaneously be true that proliferation of "they" in RPG products is the result of activists with a political agenda. In fact, the activists rely on the former. If it were not correct grammar to use "they" in this fashion, the project fails.

The flaw is not that "they" can not properly be used as a singular pronoun, it's that we have gone from a nebulous subject who could be male or female in order to appease feminists who want to imagine that the fearsome warrior might be a woman to insisting that male and female distinctions do not exist at all.

It was one thing to eliminate the female strength penalty and let the girl play Brienne of Tarth. It is quite another thing to depict the blacksmith and half the lumberjacks as women. We jumped the shark with "inclusivity". Once the shark gets jumped, the audience can't pretend it ain't what it is.

And that's where Goodman Games is, now. Even if they're not pandering to the rainbow mafia's designer pronouns, they're still pandering to the rainbow mafia's designer pronouns. Once everything got political, everything is political.