TheRPGSite

Next edition to use "gender neutral" pronouns... Fuck my life!

https://twitter.com/Nerdcognito/status/1681406646352789518 (https://twitter.com/Nerdcognito/status/1681406646352789518)

I've generally tried to keep the text in my games gender neutral as I got accused of having a very anti-female bias in an early one due to having women in examples for some reason.  I didn't count but I probably over compensated. :D

Anyhow, it's not that hard to do and TSR was doing it by second edition if I remember right.

Making all npcs gender neutral would be kind of silly though.

As with any business, they're asking how badly not doing so will hurt them in the present marketplace.  Game companies have been trying to broaden their customer base for years and the current D&D fad wave is probably buying more product than us grouchy old guys who think the English language is just fine thankyou very much.  There may also be behind the scenes shenanagins on the part of activist on-line retailers.

Quote from: David Johansen on July 18, 2023, 09:45:45 PM
I've generally tried to keep the text in my games gender neutral as I got accused of having a very anti-female bias in an early one due to having women in examples for some reason.  I didn't count but I probably over compensated. :D

Anyhow, it's not that hard to do and TSR was doing it by second edition if I remember right.

Making all npcs gender neutral would be kind of silly though.

As with any business, they're asking how badly not doing so will hurt them in the present marketplace.  Game companies have been trying to broaden their customer base for years and the current D&D fad wave is probably buying more product than us grouchy old guys who think the English language is just fine thankyou very much.  There may also be behind the scenes shenanagins on the part of activist on-line retailers.

When TSR did it it was also because they were infiltrated by feminists.

When the woke come after you there's only one response: No, fuck you.

Pursuing the Phantom Audience, yes, it has worked so good for DC & Marvel...

As for fads... Here's the thing, those pass, and then you're left without the ppl chasing the next shinny AND without those you chased away to appease the former.

Isn't gender neutral avoiding he or she and using the awkward combined he/she or avoiding pronouns altogether?
I'm not sure that's woke, folks have been doing that long before Woke was a thing.

Not surprised.  They had already started down this road in 2020.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 18, 2023, 10:04:53 PM
Isn't gender neutral avoiding he or she and using the awkward combined he/she or avoiding pronouns altogether?
I'm not sure that's woke, folks have been doing that long before Woke was a thing.

If they were doing it for non-woke reasons they wouldn't feel the need to virtue signal.

This came to light about a year and a half ago.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/dccrpg-going-woke/

The issue as I see it is that there are people who don't want me playing the games they like but I don't want them playing the games I like.  So, it's a bit silly really.  It's when they start wanting to dictate how and what I play that I get bothered by it.  DCC can do whatever they like but for a game that's trying to be hard core, old school, balls to the walls gaming, it seems pretty ridiculous.

If you play DCC, you are rolling dice with they/thems.

Goes very well with a nice can of Bud Light, though.

I looked at a copy of the newest DCC rulebook at a local con. The pronouns made it literally unlegible. I had no idea what was plural, what was singular, who was what.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 18, 2023, 10:30:10 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 18, 2023, 10:04:53 PM
Isn't gender neutral avoiding he or she and using the awkward combined he/she or avoiding pronouns altogether?
I'm not sure that's woke, folks have been doing that long before Woke was a thing.

If they were doing it for non-woke reasons they wouldn't feel the need to virtue signal.

Yep, beating that proverbial drum so they get noticed.

Quote from: Thor's Nads on July 19, 2023, 03:52:10 AM
I looked at a copy of the newest DCC rulebook at a local con. The pronouns made it literally unlegible. I had no idea what was plural, what was singular, who was what.

I've had this issue with other RPGs using they/them for singular pronouns. It gets downright confusing at times.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 19, 2023, 07:13:05 AM

Quote from: Thor's Nads on July 19, 2023, 03:52:10 AM
I looked at a copy of the newest DCC rulebook at a local con. The pronouns made it literally unlegible. I had no idea what was plural, what was singular, who was what.

I've had this issue with other RPGs using they/them for singular pronouns. It gets downright confusing at times.

That's the rub. English has been written a specific way for reasons (namely for easy comprehension).

As I noted on this site at least a year ago there have been folks on the DCC discussion boards squealing about NOT getting the gender-neutral printing of the rules.  We're not playing DCC anymore these days but I'm glad I have the pre-virtue signalling issue of the rulebook in case I do decide to play it again as I still have a KS item I backed years ago on the way from Goodman, their laboriously slow fulfillment (ironically due to printing everything in the PRC) being another issue with them.

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."

Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years. If you want to object to ahistorical rewrites of culture, or excessive virtue-signaling grandstanding, or blatant denigration of some groups so as to (supposedly) help others, I get it and agree with you. But screaming "Woke!" all the time smacks of a bunch of Karens performing Peter and the Wolf.

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 10:22:55 AM
Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years. If you want to object to ahistorical rewrites of culture, or excessive virtue-signaling grandstanding, or blatant denigration of some groups so as to (supposedly) help others, I get it and agree with you. But screaming "Woke!" all the time smacks of a bunch of Karens performing Peter and the Wolf.

In this case, it's because of blatant virtue signaling.

If a publisher cannot use English correctly I don't buy the product.  Material costs money.  You want my money?  Do it right.

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 10:22:55 AM
Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years. If you want to object to ahistorical rewrites of culture, or excessive virtue-signaling grandstanding, or blatant denigration of some groups so as to (supposedly) help others, I get it and agree with you. But screaming "Woke!" all the time smacks of a bunch of Karens performing Peter and the Wolf.

This reads as "woke has been seeping in to publishing for years, and now that you've noticed and are sick of it, you're always going on about wokeness!"

It was woke and stupid then, they just irritated us enough to care. Also, as stated, they ANNOUNCED IT. If they're just changed it without fanfare, we'd call it stupid, rather than woke.

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."

This. It's both inherently gender neutral, easier to read, and more engaging for the reader-player.

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 10:22:55 AM
Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years.

Complete nonsense. What is common is to use a plural pronoun for an indeterminate person, i.e., "if anyone sticks their hand in the fire, they will get burned". Using plural pronouns for specific individuals is entirely different -- complete aberration of English intentionally designed to disrupt, confuse, and control.

Pretty sad a group of people are so mentally weak they can't handle correct English. I like DCC, but I don't think I'll be giving Wokeman Games anymore money at this point.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 18, 2023, 10:04:53 PM
Isn't gender neutral avoiding he or she and using the awkward combined he/she or avoiding pronouns altogether?
I'm not sure that's woke, folks have been doing that long before Woke was a thing.

I would say it was one of the earliest stages of woke, back when it seemed harmless. This stuff came about in the 1990s.

Quote from: Scooter on July 19, 2023, 11:22:04 AM
If a publisher cannot use English correctly I don't buy the product.  Material costs money.  You want my money?  Do it right.

I'm going to bet they didn't touch their French, German, Italian or Portugese editions.

Quote from: DocJones on July 19, 2023, 12:54:10 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 19, 2023, 11:22:04 AM
If a publisher cannot use English correctly I don't buy the product.  Material costs money.  You want my money?  Do it right.

I'm going to bet they didn't touch their French, German, Italian or Portugese editions.

Those are different languages with different rules. Are you anti-woke crusaders that obsessed with keeping things the same that we are now going to start jumping up and down about pronoun usages in other languages and countries too?

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on July 19, 2023, 10:26:43 AM

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 10:22:55 AM
Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years. If you want to object to ahistorical rewrites of culture, or excessive virtue-signaling grandstanding, or blatant denigration of some groups so as to (supposedly) help others, I get it and agree with you. But screaming "Woke!" all the time smacks of a bunch of Karens performing Peter and the Wolf.

In this case, it's because of blatant virtue signaling.

It is eight words in a 17-line post, and they save the exclamation point for the fact they claim it is typo-free. Good Lord, this is "virtue signaling" to you? Just how sensitive are you?

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 01:34:02 PM

Quote from: DocJones on July 19, 2023, 12:54:10 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 19, 2023, 11:22:04 AM
If a publisher cannot use English correctly I don't buy the product.  Material costs money.  You want my money?  Do it right.

I'm going to bet they didn't touch their French, German, Italian or Portugese editions.

Those are different languages with different rules. Are you anti-woke crusaders that obsessed with keeping things the same that we are now going to start jumping up and down about pronoun usages in other languages and countries too?

Well, YOUR camp has already started trying to colonize our language and culture: Latinx anyone?

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 01:43:35 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on July 19, 2023, 10:26:43 AM

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 10:22:55 AM
Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years. If you want to object to ahistorical rewrites of culture, or excessive virtue-signaling grandstanding, or blatant denigration of some groups so as to (supposedly) help others, I get it and agree with you. But screaming "Woke!" all the time smacks of a bunch of Karens performing Peter and the Wolf.

In this case, it's because of blatant virtue signaling.

It is eight words in a 17-line post, and they save the exclamation point for the fact they claim it is typo-free. Good Lord, this is "virtue signaling" to you? Just how sensitive are you?

Awww... gotta' love a little SJW troll infiltrator.

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 01:43:35 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on July 19, 2023, 10:26:43 AM

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 10:22:55 AM
Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years. If you want to object to ahistorical rewrites of culture, or excessive virtue-signaling grandstanding, or blatant denigration of some groups so as to (supposedly) help others, I get it and agree with you. But screaming "Woke!" all the time smacks of a bunch of Karens performing Peter and the Wolf.

In this case, it's because of blatant virtue signaling.

It is eight words in a 17-line post, and they save the exclamation point for the fact they claim it is typo-free. Good Lord, this is "virtue signaling" to you? Just how sensitive are you?

Quick, someone contact whoever is in charge of updating the narrative patch on the NPCs! We have several arguing it's happening and it's a good thing and some arguing it's not happening...

Either one group hasn't gotten the latest patch or the other group got it too soon.

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 10:22:55 AM
Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years.

The Three Stages of Woke Infiltration:

1- They aren't going to do that. You are just being paranoid.
2- They did it one time. You can easily just ignore it.
3- This has been happening for years now, why are you complaining?

Wow. They didn't want to misgender Jim Roslof

DCC RPG is dedicated to
Jim Roslof
1945-2011
TSR class of 1979
One of the great fantasy illustrators,
who is already missed. their work
for DCC RPG includes their last
four illustrations, which appear on
pages 76, 88, 110, and 205, as well
as prior illustrations appearing on
pages 13 and 375.

My hardcopy says "his"

Quote from: Brad on July 19, 2023, 12:34:46 PM
Pretty sad a group of people are so mentally weak they can't handle correct English. I like DCC, but I don't think I'll be giving Wokeman Games anymore money at this point.

Lol! And it appears they may have simply done a "Find, Replace" hack job with the pronouns.  A comment in the discussion section on the DCC RPG entry at DTRPG and a Reddit post (iirc) complains about this.

Edit: @Thorn just quoted an example above!

Pandering sucks. Pandering = placate = treating folks like toddlers.  No thanks.

I'm going one further than you: no more money from me and I'll be recouping some money already spent by selling my DCC collection.  Throw in my POD Basic Fantasy stuff, and I've reclaimed a considerable amount of shelf space.

Oh the horror. I'm so disappointed that goodman assumed the gender of the mage. copied and pasted from the 10th printing pdf

"DCC #96: The Tower of Faces (Level 6)
by Nick Judson, cover artwork by Sanjulian
The adventurers have been summoned to a mysterious black tower made of glass. They are
given a simple mission: protect the mage's estate while he is distracted weaving a mighty spell.
Surviving the five days of hisspellcasting requires quick wits and sharp blades, for the estate has
mischievous guests and strange visitors. In the end, the mage demands one final task: stand by
his side as he binds a great horror from beyond!"

We need to gender neutralize this so no one is offended (confusion is but a small price to pay).

"The adventurers have been summoned to a mysterious black tower made of glass. They are
given a simple mission: protect the mage's estate while they are distracted weaving a mighty spell.
Surviving the five days of their spellcasting requires quick wits and sharp blades, for the estate has
mischievous guests and strange visitors. In the end, the mage demands one final task: stand by
their side as they bind a great horror from beyond!"

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on July 19, 2023, 02:36:12 PM
Wow. They didn't want to misgender Jim Roslof

DCC RPG is dedicated to
Jim Roslof
1945-2011
TSR class of 1979
One of the great fantasy illustrators,
who is already missed. their work
for DCC RPG includes their last
four illustrations, which appear on
pages 76, 88, 110, and 205, as well
as prior illustrations appearing on
pages 13 and 375.

My hardcopy says "his"

Where is Jules when you need him?  English motherfucker, do you speak it?

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 20, 2023, 01:05:12 PM

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on July 19, 2023, 02:36:12 PM
Wow. They didn't want to misgender Jim Roslof

DCC RPG is dedicated to
Jim Roslof
1945-2011
TSR class of 1979
One of the great fantasy illustrators,
who is already missed. their work
for DCC RPG includes their last
four illustrations, which appear on
pages 76, 88, 110, and 205, as well
as prior illustrations appearing on
pages 13 and 375.

My hardcopy says "his"

Where is Jules when you need him?  English motherfucker, do you speak it?

He's walking the earth, meeting people, getting into adventures. Like Kane in Kung Fu.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 19, 2023, 07:13:05 AM

Quote from: Thor's Nads on July 19, 2023, 03:52:10 AM
I looked at a copy of the newest DCC rulebook at a local con. The pronouns made it literally unlegible. I had no idea what was plural, what was singular, who was what.

I've had this issue with other RPGs using they/them for singular pronouns. It gets downright confusing at times.

I refuse to write that in my work.  Language has rules for a reason: so people can understand each other.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on July 20, 2023, 07:24:22 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 19, 2023, 07:13:05 AM

Quote from: Thor's Nads on July 19, 2023, 03:52:10 AM
I looked at a copy of the newest DCC rulebook at a local con. The pronouns made it literally unlegible. I had no idea what was plural, what was singular, who was what.

I've had this issue with other RPGs using they/them for singular pronouns. It gets downright confusing at times.

I refuse to write that in my work.  Language has rules for a reason: so people can understand each other.

True, but fee fees are infinitely more important than established written English. lool

DCC is apparently a formerly hardcore, old school, balls to the wall game; that has now decided to go lick those balls, instead.

QuoteWow. They didn't want to misgender Jim Roslof

DCC RPG is dedicated to
Jim Roslof
1945-2011
TSR class of 1979
One of the great fantasy illustrators,
who is already missed. their work
for DCC RPG includes their last
four illustrations, which appear on
pages 76, 88, 110, and 205, as well
as prior illustrations appearing on
pages 13 and 375.

My hardcopy says "his"

Are you kidding me?

DCC just did an amazing magic trick! They made a whole chunk of tasty money stay in my pocket and never go to their company!!

Quote from: Cathode Ray on July 20, 2023, 07:24:22 PM
Language has rules for a reason: so people can understand each other.

Yes indeed, and those who demand we break the rules of language are actually motivated by the desire to disrupt communication and understanding (or are useful idiots for those that do).

DCC is bowing down to the very folk who will delight in their unraveling.

Quote from: FASAfan on July 19, 2023, 02:37:13 PM

Quote from: Brad on July 19, 2023, 12:34:46 PM
Pretty sad a group of people are so mentally weak they can't handle correct English. I like DCC, but I don't think I'll be giving Wokeman Games anymore money at this point.

Lol! And it appears they may have simply done a "Find, Replace" hack job with the pronouns.  A comment in the discussion section on the DCC RPG entry at DTRPG and a Reddit post (iirc) complains about this.

Sounds like a recipe for a "dawizard"-sized fiasco.

In general, it seems for me like a silly thing to get outraged over either way. I don't agree with anyone who was outraged over DCC's previous use of pronouns, and the minor edit seems like virtue signaling, but I also don't agree with people outraged over singular "they".

I find singular "they" is easier to read than AD&D's "he or she", and I didn't find AD&D's pronouns difficult. I agree with Chris24601 that use of "you" is also a good gender neutral pronoun, but any of these can be used with clarity. There will always be a few gaffes in any writing - it's no big deal.

As a little more on singular "they"...

Quote from: Zalman on July 19, 2023, 11:33:29 AM

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 10:22:55 AM
Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years.

Complete nonsense. What is common is to use a plural pronoun for an indeterminate person, i.e., "if anyone sticks their hand in the fire, they will get burned". Using plural pronouns for specific individuals is entirely different -- complete aberration of English intentionally designed to disrupt, confuse, and control.

Singular they has also been used for a specific person of unknown gender. i.e. "Someone walked out that door five minutes ago." "Did you get a good look at them? Which way did they go?" This isn't just recent usage - it goes back centuries. As an early example:

"Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?" — Jane Austen, in Emma (1815)


The new thing is real-world people identifying as non-binary gender and/or preferring "they" as a pronoun, but I don't think that's what DCC or most other fantasy games are doing.

It's backwards logic to say "If people are going to identify as non-binary, then we have to go back and take singular 'they' out of English even though it has been used for centuries."  If one cares about tradition, then singular they is established usage.

AH! But all you geniuses railed and sighed so hard about DCC, didn't you?!? It got so sickening. You HRUMPHED D&D but DCC could do no wrong LOL  ;D Now what?!?!? Aw you can't play with your 0-level PCs who just get slaughtered the first session anymore? C'mon, keep playing "They/Them Pat" who gets offended when you call it He or She  ;D

It was a stupid game from the start. How is 0-level play interesting? BURN IT.

(https://media.tenor.com/ECmGJXxKNJkAAAAC/braveheart-mel-gibson.gif)

Quote from: David Johansen on July 18, 2023, 09:45:45 PM
I've generally tried to keep the text in my games gender neutral as I got accused of having a very anti-female bias in an early one due to having women in examples for some reason.  I didn't count but I probably over compensated. :D

I remain a fan of the games that have used male pronouns exclusively for players and female for GMs or vice versa.

Makes a lot of things flow better in terms of following pronoun antecedents.

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 02:37:49 PM
In general, it seems for me like a silly thing to get outraged over either way. I don't agree with anyone who was outraged over DCC's previous use of pronouns, and the minor edit seems like virtue signaling, but I also don't agree with people outraged over singular "they".

I find singular "they" is easier to read than AD&D's "he or she", and I didn't find AD&D's pronouns difficult. I agree with Chris24601 that use of "you" is also a good gender neutral pronoun, but any of these can be used with clarity. There will always be a few gaffes in any writing - it's no big deal.

As a little more on singular "they"...

Quote from: Zalman on July 19, 2023, 11:33:29 AM

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 19, 2023, 10:22:55 AM
Many of you, OP included, are over the top. This sort of gender-neutral, third person pronoun usage has become common in publishing and has been for years.

Complete nonsense. What is common is to use a plural pronoun for an indeterminate person, i.e., "if anyone sticks their hand in the fire, they will get burned". Using plural pronouns for specific individuals is entirely different -- complete aberration of English intentionally designed to disrupt, confuse, and control.

Singular they has also been used for a specific person of unknown gender. i.e. "Someone walked out that door five minutes ago." "Did you get a good look at them? Which way did they go?" This isn't just recent usage - it goes back centuries. As an early example:

"Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?" — Jane Austen, in Emma (1815)


The new thing is real-world people identifying as non-binary gender and/or preferring "they" as a pronoun, but I don't think that's what DCC or most other fantasy games are doing.

It's backwards logic to say "If people are going to identify as non-binary, then we have to go back and take singular 'they' out of English even though it has been used for centuries."  If one cares about tradition, then singular they is established usage.

Languages evolve.
Singular "they" was/is used for someone of unknown sex. Because sex = gender, using it to refer to someone who identifies as an imposibility (even by the rules of "gender is a spectrum" how the fuck are you non-binary if there's no binary?) is cowardice and idiocy.

Singular they isn't easier to read (as proven by a text sample upthread, go look it up edited to add the place to look: page 3 answer 32), it's way easier to use the gender neutral he or resort to using you. Of course to use you Goodperson would need to rewrite all of the game to suit the change.

If a wizard wants to blah, blah he must blah blah

Has to become

As a wizard trying to blah blah, YOU must blah blah

But of course that change wouldn't be
a) cheap
and
B) a virtue signal

Now, can you stop virtue signaling and talk like a reasonable adult?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 21, 2023, 03:10:49 PM
Because sex = gender, using it to refer to someone who identifies as an imposibility (even by the rules of "gender is a spectrum" how the fuck are you non-binary if there's no binary?) is cowardice and idiocy.

Sex isn't gender...that's part of the damn problem.

Sex is a biological categorization.

Gender is a linguistic structure used to insure agreement when declining parts of speech. In gendered Indo-European languages, it tends to be two (male/female) or three (male/female/neuter) fold. In other languages, it is much broader and some languages (including English for the most part) are genderless.  There are other options for two genders such as animate and inanimate, which applies in most Native American languages and possibly to pre-PIE Europe (both Basque and Georgian use it). Czech and Slovak actually split masculine into animate and inanimate.

Gender was imported into common language initially to describe sex roles in culture (which do vary somewhat) and has of late become a way to try to divorce physical sex from biology by pretending they're the same thing.

When it comes to pronouns, they are the vestige of gender in English. Given English has been evolving away from gender you can view gender-neutral pronouns, such as the slow evolution over my lifetime from the non-specified sex version of the singular they to a generic singular they, as the latest step. Or they can be seen as a political or social move by the speaker/writer.

I generally assume the former (I use generic singular they sometimes without thinking about it) unless someone is crowing about how up-to-date culturally they are in using it.

DCC seems mildly in the latter.

rant over.

But, really, if you mean sex, say 'sex' and 99.999% of the time people are using gender for sex.

Wokeness is DYING:

Quote from: PulpHerb on July 21, 2023, 03:23:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 21, 2023, 03:10:49 PM
Because sex = gender, using it to refer to someone who identifies as an imposibility (even by the rules of "gender is a spectrum" how the fuck are you non-binary if there's no binary?) is cowardice and idiocy.

Sex isn't gender...that's part of the damn problem.

Sex is a biological categorization.

Gender is a linguistic structure used to insure agreement when declining parts of speech. In gendered Indo-European languages, it tends to be two (male/female) or three (male/female/neuter) fold. In other languages, it is much broader and some languages (including English for the most part) are genderless.  There are other options for two genders such as animate and inanimate, which applies in most Native American languages and possibly to pre-PIE Europe (both Basque and Georgian use it). Czech and Slovak actually split masculine into animate and inanimate.

Gender was imported into common language initially to describe sex roles in culture (which do vary somewhat) and has of late become a way to try to divorce physical sex from biology by pretending they're the same thing.

When it comes to pronouns, they are the vestige of gender in English. Given English has been evolving away from gender you can view gender-neutral pronouns, such as the slow evolution over my lifetime from the non-specified sex version of the singular they to a generic singular they, as the latest step. Or they can be seen as a political or social move by the speaker/writer.

I generally assume the former (I use generic singular they sometimes without thinking about it) unless someone is crowing about how up-to-date culturally they are in using it.

DCC seems mildly in the latter.

rant over.

But, really, if you mean sex, say 'sex' and 99.999% of the time people are using gender for sex.

So you think that gender wasn't used to not say sex because it was dirty?

Gender was and is just a way to say sex without using that specific word, there are only two sexes/genders, English isn't evolving into gender neutral, it's why you have he, she.

Yes, singular they was/is used to talk about a person of unknown sex. Now go read the answer 32 on page 3, then tell me it's clearer than when using he.

Gender is so common to use to not say sex that your demand that people stop using it like that is just as assinine as the wokist demands we use thousands of "pronouns" to refer to the mentally ill/narcisistic when they aren't around.

If you want to write a game book in a gender neutral way use the second person YOU, way easier and clearer to write and to read than the monstrosity of using they, as proven by said comment 32 on page 3.

Or just be a coward and bend the knee to the woke, or maybe you yourself are a wokist?

"So they told they they needed to go buy more ketchup" I rest my case.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 21, 2023, 04:07:53 PM
Yes, singular they was/is used to talk about a person of unknown sex. Now go read the answer 32 on page 3, then tell me it's clearer than when using he.

GeekyBugle, posts per page is a configurable option, so individual posters may see a different number of pages in a thread.

It's better to refer to it as just "Reply #32" exactly as it appears.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 21, 2023, 04:07:53 PM
So you think that gender wasn't used to not say sex because it was dirty?

Gender was and is just a way to say sex without using that specific word, there are only two sexes/genders,

So you are saying there are no men or women among Native Americans?  Are you saying they can't discuss sex?

Gender, as a word, was taken from linguistics and used in English to refer to sex mainly for academic purposes which I'm not 100% weren't of hostile intent to begin with.  Once you appropriate a word from a different field to create imprecise language you are set up for imprecision.

You, of all people, if you mean what you say would be demanding English revert to sex for sex instead of buying into imprecise language for "being nice".  If you mean sex, say sex. If you mean cultural roles, use sex roles.

And if you really want non-gender neutral English start declining all your parts of speech (which would be work as you'd have to learn how).

But you just want to bitch to prove you're superior to the other side instead of actually shutting them down by using language according to rules.

Regarding this example:

Quote from: DocJones on July 19, 2023, 03:19:03 PM
We need to gender neutralize this so no one is offended (confusion is but a small price to pay).

"The adventurers have been summoned to a mysterious black tower made of glass. They are
given a simple mission: protect the mage's estate while they are distracted weaving a mighty spell.
Surviving the five days of their spellcasting requires quick wits and sharp blades, for the estate has
mischievous guests and strange visitors. In the end, the mage demands one final task: stand by
their side as they bind a great horror from beyond!"

Pronoun trouble can happen many different ways. In this case, there is ambiguity between a group (plural they) and an individual referred to by singular "they". But there are also cases where singular "they" can reduce ambiguity compared to generic "he" -- such as if there is a male individual and an individual of unknown gender.

"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way they turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, they tripped and sprawled as they crossed the darkened square."

In this case, it is clear that "they" refers to the masked figure, while "he" refers to Conan. If we do a search and replace, though,

"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way he turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, he tripped and sprawled as he crossed the darkened square."

In the latter, the action is less clear.

There's no magic bullet for pronouns. Different languages have different conventions, and within a single language, there can be different styles of use.

So serious question here: has Wokeman Games changed any of this stuff in editions of the games they publish for languages that have definitive masculine/feminine/neuter words like, I dunno, Spanish or French? I don't even know if DCC is in Spanish or not. Just curious.

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 04:44:47 PM
Regarding this example:



Pronoun trouble can happen many different ways. In this case, there is ambiguity between a group (plural they) and an individual referred to by singular "they". But there are also cases where singular "they" can reduce ambiguity compared to generic "he" -- such as if there is a male individual and an individual of unknown gender.

"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way they turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, they tripped and sprawled as they crossed the darkened square."

In this case, it is clear that "they" refers to the masked figure, while "he" refers to Conan. If we do a search and replace, though,

"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way he turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, he tripped and sprawled as he crossed the darkened square."

In the latter, the action is less clear.

There's no magic bullet for pronouns. Different languages have different conventions, and within a single language, there can be different styles of use.

"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way he or she turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, he tripped and sprawled as he crossed the darkened square."

No ambiguity and no retarded misued pronouns.

Quote from: PulpHerb on July 21, 2023, 03:23:28 PM

Sex isn't gender...that's part of the damn problem.

I don't buy that woke bullshit, and fewer Americans are as the normies are becoming more and more aware of the madness and chaos this is creating in society. And if we don't knock it off soon, China is going to eat our lunch, because they don't put up with the nonsense seeing it for what it is: corrosive acid, destructive to family and society.

Quote from: Brad on July 21, 2023, 05:24:40 PM
So serious question here: has Wokeman Games changed any of this stuff in editions of the games they publish for languages that have definitive masculine/feminine/neuter words like, I dunno, Spanish or French? I don't even know if DCC is in Spanish or not. Just curious.

My understanding is that Goodman Games don't directly release their other-language editions, but rather license it to be published by a local partner. That's a common arrangement.

French publisher Akileos handles the French edition:

http://www.akileos.fr/catalogue/dungeon-crawl-classics-livre-de-regles/

Spanish publisher Other Selves handles the Spanish edition:

http://www.other-selves.com/p/clasicos-del-mazmorreo.html

System Matters Verlag handles the German edition:

https://www.system-matters.de/produkt-kategorie/dungeon-crawl-classics/

Kaizoku Press handles the Italian edition:

https://dungeoncrawlclassics.it/

Galápagos handles the Portuguese edition: 

https://www.mundogalapagos.com.br/searchresults?Ntt=Dungeon%20Crawl&Rdm=703&Nr=product.x_productView:toda%20a%20loja&searchType=simple&type=search&Ns=product.x_hasStock|0

I don't know how any of these handles pronouns in their original printings or if there have been any revisions. I suspect all language details like pronoun use are left up to the partner.

Quote from: Thor's Nads on July 19, 2023, 03:52:10 AM
I looked at a copy of the newest DCC rulebook at a local con. The pronouns made it literally unlegible. I had no idea what was plural, what was singular, who was what.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tK1iJgVg5YYNAV6eATR6gNH3B0m2HwTb/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tK1iJgVg5YYNAV6eATR6gNH3B0m2HwTb/view?usp=sharing)

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 04:44:47 PM
"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way they turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, they tripped and sprawled as they crossed the darkened square."

In this case, it is clear that "they" refers to the masked figure, while "he" refers to Conan. If we do a search and replace, though,

Did you quote that passage correctly? I don't see "he" anywhere.

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 04:44:47 PM
Regarding this example:

Quote from: DocJones on July 19, 2023, 03:19:03 PM
We need to gender neutralize this so no one is offended (confusion is but a small price to pay).

"The adventurers have been summoned to a mysterious black tower made of glass. They are
given a simple mission: protect the mage's estate while they are distracted weaving a mighty spell.
Surviving the five days of their spellcasting requires quick wits and sharp blades, for the estate has
mischievous guests and strange visitors. In the end, the mage demands one final task: stand by
their side as they bind a great horror from beyond!"

Pronoun trouble can happen many different ways. In this case, there is ambiguity between a group (plural they) and an individual referred to by singular "they". But there are also cases where singular "they" can reduce ambiguity compared to generic "he" -- such as if there is a male individual and an individual of unknown gender.

"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way they turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, they tripped and sprawled as they crossed the darkened square."

In this case, it is clear that "they" refers to the masked figure, while "he" refers to Conan. If we do a search and replace, though,

"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way he turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, he tripped and sprawled as he crossed the darkened square."

In the latter, the action is less clear.

There's no magic bullet for pronouns. Different languages have different conventions, and within a single language, there can be different styles of use.

"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way they (as in both of them) turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, they (as in both of them) tripped and sprawled as they (as in both of them) crossed the darkened square."

But good try.

Quote from: Aglondir on July 21, 2023, 08:32:17 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 04:44:47 PM
"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way they turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, they tripped and sprawled as they crossed the darkened square."

In this case, it is clear that "they" refers to the masked figure, while "he" refers to Conan. If we do a search and replace, though,

Did you quote that passage correctly? I don't see "he" anywhere.

Sorry. It's an off-the-cuff example, not a quote. I should have said "he" would refer to Conan. If changed to generic "he", then it becomes less clear if "he" refers to the masked figure or to Conan.

In the bigger picture, when using pronouns there are going to be ambiguous situations lots of the time -- it just take a little care in writing to resolve them. A language isn't objectively superior because it has more differentiated pronouns. Finnish people can express themselves perfectly clearly even though their language has no gendered pronouns, for example. Traditional Korean writing doesn't have third person pronouns at all - though modern Koreans have adopted the practice from translations.

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 09:23:14 PM

Quote from: Aglondir on July 21, 2023, 08:32:17 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 04:44:47 PM
"Conan ran panther-like after the strange masked figure, getting closer whichever way they turned in the narrow alleyways. Near the city center, they tripped and sprawled as they crossed the darkened square."

In this case, it is clear that "they" refers to the masked figure, while "he" refers to Conan. If we do a search and replace, though,

Did you quote that passage correctly? I don't see "he" anywhere.

Sorry. It's an off-the-cuff example, not a quote. I should have said "he" would refer to Conan. If changed to generic "he", then it becomes less clear if "he" refers to the masked figure or to Conan.

In the bigger picture, when using pronouns there are going to be ambiguous situations lots of the time -- it just take a little care in writing to resolve them. A language isn't objectively superior because it has more differentiated pronouns. Finnish people can express themselves perfectly clearly even though their language has no gendered pronouns, for example. Traditional Korean writing doesn't have third person pronouns at all - though modern Koreans have adopted the practice from translations.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that DCC revised an already existing game to use pronouns that make the text harder to read and did so explicitly to pander to the woke.  Which is the problem.

Put me down as another 'Gender was a way of avoiding the word sex, and gender and sex have always been interchangeable until 2016 or so.'

Pretending gender is some separate thing is just a linguistic weapon to push through woke nonsense.

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 02:37:49 PM
In general, it seems for me like a silly thing to get outraged over either way. I don't agree with anyone who was outraged over DCC's previous use of pronouns, and the minor edit seems like virtue signaling, but I also don't agree with people outraged over singular "they".

Not so much the case when you KNOW the gender of the singular person.  It's literally going out of your way to sound stupid to feed an agenda.  It's very jarring for innocent readers minding THEIR (plural) business.

2x post

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 21, 2023, 10:13:42 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 09:23:14 PM
In the bigger picture, when using pronouns there are going to be ambiguous situations lots of the time -- it just take a little care in writing to resolve them. A language isn't objectively superior because it has more differentiated pronouns. Finnish people can express themselves perfectly clearly even though their language has no gendered pronouns, for example. Traditional Korean writing doesn't have third person pronouns at all - though modern Koreans have adopted the practice from translations.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that DCC revised an already existing game to use pronouns that make the text harder to read and did so explicitly to pander to the woke.  Which is the problem.

I think if they hadn't announced it, but instead just wrote it that way, then I think most people wouldn't have even noticed.

I don't agree that singular "they" is harder to read. Singular "they" for indeterminate person or a specific person of unknown gender is a long-established tradition, and is easy to read. For me, it is easier to read than the convention of "he or she" used in AD&D 1st edition.

I think a parallel to this might be announcing layout changes for color-blind people in the name of disability rights -- where in practice that just means not having text highlighted in red and green. It might be virtue signaling, but it has no effect on non-color-blind readers.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on July 22, 2023, 04:30:51 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 02:37:49 PM
In general, it seems for me like a silly thing to get outraged over either way. I don't agree with anyone who was outraged over DCC's previous use of pronouns, and the minor edit seems like virtue signaling, but I also don't agree with people outraged over singular "they".

Not so much the case when you KNOW the gender of the singular person.  It's literally going out of your way to sound stupid to feed an agenda.  It's very jarring for innocent readers minding THEIR (plural) business.

But that's not what DCC is doing. It's using singular "they" for indeterminate people in rules references.

Quote from: jhkim on July 22, 2023, 08:49:00 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 21, 2023, 10:13:42 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 09:23:14 PM
In the bigger picture, when using pronouns there are going to be ambiguous situations lots of the time -- it just take a little care in writing to resolve them. A language isn't objectively superior because it has more differentiated pronouns. Finnish people can express themselves perfectly clearly even though their language has no gendered pronouns, for example. Traditional Korean writing doesn't have third person pronouns at all - though modern Koreans have adopted the practice from translations.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that DCC revised an already existing game to use pronouns that make the text harder to read and did so explicitly to pander to the woke.  Which is the problem.

I think if they hadn't announced it, but instead just wrote it that way, then I think most people wouldn't have even noticed.

I don't agree that singular "they" is harder to read. Singular "they" for indeterminate person or a specific person of unknown gender is a long-established tradition, and is easy to read. For me, it is easier to read than the convention of "he or she" used in AD&D 1st edition.

I think a parallel to this might be announcing layout changes for color-blind people in the name of disability rights -- where in practice that just means not having text highlighted in red and green. It might be virtue signaling, but it has no effect on non-color-blind readers.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on July 22, 2023, 04:30:51 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 02:37:49 PM
In general, it seems for me like a silly thing to get outraged over either way. I don't agree with anyone who was outraged over DCC's previous use of pronouns, and the minor edit seems like virtue signaling, but I also don't agree with people outraged over singular "they".

Not so much the case when you KNOW the gender of the singular person.  It's literally going out of your way to sound stupid to feed an agenda.  It's very jarring for innocent readers minding THEIR (plural) business.

But that's not what DCC is doing. It's using singular "they" for indeterminate people in rules references.

Your beliefs are wrong as proven by the example you wrote to make your case, wich can be read as speaking about both Conan and the wizard without even trying to be contrary.

Quote from: jhkim on July 22, 2023, 08:49:00 PM
I don't agree that singular "they" is harder to read. Singular "they" for indeterminate person or a specific person of unknown gender is a long-established tradition, and is easy to read.

I find it difficult to read. As Zalman has already pointed out...

Quote from: Zalman on July 19, 2023, 11:33:29 AM
Complete nonsense. What is common is to use a plural pronoun for an indeterminate person, i.e., "if anyone sticks their hand in the fire, they will get burned". Using plural pronouns for specific individuals is entirely different -- complete aberration of English intentionally designed to disrupt, confuse, and control.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2023, 03:52:48 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 22, 2023, 08:49:00 PM
I don't agree that singular "they" is harder to read. Singular "they" for indeterminate person or a specific person of unknown gender is a long-established tradition, and is easy to read.

I find it difficult to read. As Zalman has already pointed out...

Quote from: Zalman on July 19, 2023, 11:33:29 AM
Complete nonsense. What is common is to use a plural pronoun for an indeterminate person, i.e., "if anyone sticks their hand in the fire, they will get burned". Using plural pronouns for specific individuals is entirely different -- complete aberration of English intentionally designed to disrupt, confuse, and control.

You're certainly entitled to your preference. As a question -- what do you think of the convention of "he or she" and "his or her" that is used in AD&D 1st edition? How would you compare it to other pronoun usage options?

Regarding Zalman's claim:

1) Pronoun usage in a rules book is typically an indeterminate person rather than a specific person - i.e. "If a character takes 30 or more hp damage, then they must make a Con saving throw."

2) In literature, using singular "they" for a specific person of unknown gender is neither new nor edgy - as I pointed out with the Jane Austen quote. ("Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?" — Jane Austen, in Emma) I do not believe that Austen was trying to disrupt, confuse, or control.

Quote from: jhkim on July 23, 2023, 06:39:41 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2023, 03:52:48 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 22, 2023, 08:49:00 PM
I don't agree that singular "they" is harder to read. Singular "they" for indeterminate person or a specific person of unknown gender is a long-established tradition, and is easy to read.

I find it difficult to read. As Zalman has already pointed out...

Quote from: Zalman on July 19, 2023, 11:33:29 AM
Complete nonsense. What is common is to use a plural pronoun for an indeterminate person, i.e., "if anyone sticks their hand in the fire, they will get burned". Using plural pronouns for specific individuals is entirely different -- complete aberration of English intentionally designed to disrupt, confuse, and control.

You're certainly entitled to your preference. As a question -- what do you think of the convention of "he or she" and "his or her" that is used in AD&D 1st edition? How would you compare it to other pronoun usage options?

Clunky, like the he/she term as well.

I much prefer them to alternate he or she. Or stick with just 'he' AS THE PATRIARCHAL GOD INTENDED.

QuoteRegarding Zalman's claim:

1) Pronoun usage in a rules book is typically an indeterminate person rather than a specific person - i.e. "If a character takes 30 or more hp damage, then they must make a Con saving throw."

2) In literature, using singular "they" for a specific person of unknown gender is neither new nor edgy - as I pointed out with the Jane Austen quote. ("Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?" — Jane Austen, in Emma) I do not believe that Austen was trying to disrupt, confuse, or control.

No, but while I haven't read any Jane Austin, I'm willing to bet a few internet bucks she's used other pronouns and not limited herself to only the kind of universal plurals for every situation that we're talking about in this thread. (I mean, it's right there in your example.)

A proper example would be to "edit" the quote to read:

"Who is in love with them? Who makes you their confidant?"

DCC's claim to fame, was being gonzo and hardcore.  It's laughable; that gonzo and hardcore, bowed their knees to woke ideology.  I guess they weren't very gonzo and hardcore, after all?

Quote from: Zalman on July 19, 2023, 11:33:29 AM
Complete nonsense. What is common is to use a plural pronoun for an indeterminate person, i.e., "if anyone sticks their hand in the fire, they will get burned". Using plural pronouns for specific individuals is entirely different -- complete aberration of English intentionally designed to disrupt, confuse, and control.

You do realize that anyone is a pronoun as well as everything in bold here (in some use cases).
There are many others.
So you could rewrite your example in countless ways:

"If anyone sticks his hand in the fire, one will get burned."
"If any stick one's hand in the fire, one will get burned."
"If thou stick thy hand in the fire, thou will get burned."

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2023, 08:25:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 23, 2023, 06:39:41 PM
You're certainly entitled to your preference. As a question -- what do you think of the convention of "he or she" and "his or her" that is used in AD&D 1st edition? How would you compare it to other pronoun usage options?

Clunky, like the he/she term as well.

I much prefer them to alternate he or she. Or stick with just 'he' AS THE PATRIARCHAL GOD INTENDED.

Fair enough. "He or she" reads as clunky to me as well -- but I also don't think it was a major problem.

That's what gets me about this. It seems like by modern standards, that back in the 1970s, Gary Gygax was bowing to the woke and making the rulebooks clunky to fit leftist politics. Maybe he'd go onto Ocule's red list for this sort of bowing to wokeness, while at the same time he'd be boycotted by left-leaning gamers for other crimes.

Just using singular "they" as a replacement for "he or she" is a perfectly reasonable and readable choice. One can attack the reasons for doing so, but it isn't particularly weird or controversial.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2023, 08:25:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 23, 2023, 06:39:41 PM
Regarding Zalman's claim:

1) Pronoun usage in a rules book is typically an indeterminate person rather than a specific person - i.e. "If a character takes 30 or more hp damage, then they must make a Con saving throw."

2) In literature, using singular "they" for a specific person of unknown gender is neither new nor edgy - as I pointed out with the Jane Austen quote. ("Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?" — Jane Austen, in Emma) I do not believe that Austen was trying to disrupt, confuse, or control.

No, but while I haven't read any Jane Austin, I'm willing to bet a few internet bucks she's used other pronouns and not limited herself to only the kind of universal plurals for every situation that we're talking about in this thread. (I mean, it's right there in your example.)

A proper example would be to "edit" the quote to read:

"Who is in love with them? Who makes you their confidant?"

I haven't read the 9th or 10th printing of DCC yet, but my understanding is that it will use singular "they" for indeterminate persons and possibly persons of unknown gender. I saw about the dedication Jim Roslof, but I assume that was a mistake with search-and-replace, not intentional.

Even among self-proclaimed woke people, they insist on using preferred pronouns - not using "they" for everyone.

Quote from: jhkim on July 25, 2023, 04:42:51 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2023, 08:25:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 23, 2023, 06:39:41 PM
You're certainly entitled to your preference. As a question -- what do you think of the convention of "he or she" and "his or her" that is used in AD&D 1st edition? How would you compare it to other pronoun usage options?

Clunky, like the he/she term as well.

I much prefer them to alternate he or she. Or stick with just 'he' AS THE PATRIARCHAL GOD INTENDED.

Fair enough. "He or she" reads as clunky to me as well -- but I also don't think it was a major problem.

That's what gets me about this. It seems like by modern standards, that back in the 1970s, Gary Gygax was bowing to the woke and making the rulebooks clunky to fit leftist politics. Maybe he'd go onto Ocule's red list for this sort of bowing to wokeness, while at the same time he'd be boycotted by left-leaning gamers for other crimes.

It was all very reasonable at the time, and most people agreed or didn't care. It was still comprehensible, if a bit clunky. In hindsight, it was giving them the proverbial inch.

QuoteJust using singular "they" as a replacement for "he or she" is a perfectly reasonable and readable choice. One can attack the reasons for doing so, but it isn't particularly weird or controversial.

You're welcome to your opinion. As I said, I have found passages in RPGs that were incomprehensible due to using "they" for singular pronouns.

Quote

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2023, 08:25:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 23, 2023, 06:39:41 PM
Regarding Zalman's claim:

1) Pronoun usage in a rules book is typically an indeterminate person rather than a specific person - i.e. "If a character takes 30 or more hp damage, then they must make a Con saving throw."

2) In literature, using singular "they" for a specific person of unknown gender is neither new nor edgy - as I pointed out with the Jane Austen quote. ("Who is in love with her? Who makes you their confidant?" — Jane Austen, in Emma) I do not believe that Austen was trying to disrupt, confuse, or control.

No, but while I haven't read any Jane Austin, I'm willing to bet a few internet bucks she's used other pronouns and not limited herself to only the kind of universal plurals for every situation that we're talking about in this thread. (I mean, it's right there in your example.)

A proper example would be to "edit" the quote to read:

"Who is in love with them? Who makes you their confidant?"

I haven't read the 9th or 10th printing of DCC yet, but my understanding is that it will use singular "they" for indeterminate persons and possibly persons of unknown gender. I saw about the dedication Jim Roslof, but I assume that was a mistake with search-and-replace, not intentional.

Even if it's a 'mistake', it does lead me to believe that they're going to do a shoddy cut and paste. We shall see.

QuoteEven among self-proclaimed woke people, they insist on using preferred pronouns - not using "they" for everyone.

A rulebook doesn't have preferred pronouns. Just the pronouns the authors use. We could just go back to using 'he' in that case.
The whole point is that DCC is jumping on the endless treadmill of pleasing the wokesters who are going to be unhappy no matter what changes they make.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 25, 2023, 06:32:23 PM

A rulebook doesn't have preferred pronouns. Just the pronouns the authors use. We could just go back to using 'he' in that case.
The whole point is that DCC is jumping on the endless treadmill of pleasing the wokesters who are going to be unhappy no matter what changes they make.

and Poor, you can't forget that the wokescolds are dirt poor and can't afford these products anyway

Skipping out on using the terms "He" and "She" in rpg books has been around for more than a couple decades now. I avoided using gendered terms in my own stuff back when I wrote for Gun Metal Games in 2010.

It's just asinine to assume your reader is a dude or a chick right off the bat... and switching between random He and Shes just gets awkward. There are lots of ways around it too, using the term "Player, Character, GM, You," ect.

This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 26, 2023, 01:04:24 AM
Skipping out on using the terms "He" and "She" in rpg books has been around for more than a couple decades now. I avoided using gendered terms in my own stuff back when I wrote for Gun Metal Games in 2010.

It's just asinine to assume your reader is a dude or a chick right off the bat... and switching between random He and Shes just gets awkward. There are lots of ways around it too, using the term "Player, Character, GM, You," ect.

This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Using gender neutral words lke that isn't a problem. Using a plural pronoun to refer to a single individual is incorrect and just plain stupid.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 26, 2023, 01:04:24 AM
This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

The Devil always sends sins in pairs so that when you recoil from one you fall into the other.

This feels like the flipside of the Left's microaggressions nonsense; instead of dealing with real outrages, you focus all your attention on peripheral BS and make that into a point of outrage and purity spiraling.

At this point I fully expect some of the extremists here to label my material as "woke" simply because I choose to write my rule books in the second person it feels more personable and inviting ("you gain a +3 bonus to your roll.") instead of using a dispassionate clinical masculine third person ("he gains a +3 bonus to his roll.") rather than judge by the content.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 26, 2023, 08:50:46 AM
The Devil always sends sins in pairs so that when you recoil from one you fall into the other.

Slippery slope is real...very, very real. We're entering phase two of the Marxist dystopian hellscape because people didn't want to bother saying anything about how stupid "personal pronouns" were. "What does it matter? I doesn't affect you!" Until it does...Which makes it even more laughable that anyone who finally says they've had enough of this nonsense and won't buy products anymore is somehow...a nutjob activist? You're not even allowed to tell a company to fuck off anymore, you MUST continue to buy their products!

I hate this timeline and am looking forward to the Crisis on Infinite Earths finally coming to an end.

Actually, assuming the gender of your reader or their character has been seen as a basic grammar error for decades.  Lots of games written in the 80's when I was a teen were already avoiding this, and we were taught to avoid it as part of the creative writing section of my English class.

But, neither is complaining that men cannot play hot women characters and dress them in Fur Bikinis of +5 distraction.  That's also OK. 

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 26, 2023, 10:29:19 AM
Actually, assuming the gender of your reader or their character has been seen as a basic grammar error for decades.  Lots of games written in the 80's when I was a teen were already avoiding this, and we were taught to avoid it as part of the creative writing section of my English class.

But, neither is complaining that men cannot play hot women characters and dress them in Fur Bikinis of +5 distraction.  That's also OK.

And you somehow think those teaching you that weren't the tip of the spear of the woke.

Game rules are not literature. They are instructions and therefore should be as clear as possible. So, "they" referring to a singular specific person is simply poor writing in the context of rules/instructions. ("They" referring to an indeterminate person is conventional and clear, as others have pointed out.)

There are so many other options that are clear:

- "He" for players and "she" for GM (or vice versa).

- Alternate "he" and "she" by chapter.

- Use only "he" or "she" everywhere and explain that you're not trying to be sexist, but are doing it for clarity, which is what my DCC rule book does.

The only reason to pick a less clear option is virtue signaling. And laziness, as demonstrated by the find-and-replace error in the dedication.

Oh my God, can you imagine the sheer horror if a book with written that used He for all of the examples? I mean, what if a woman read it? I mean, a small minority of the minority of your readers could actually be ever so mildly annoyed, before shrugging and reading on.

Quite the literary minefield that we've been saved from.

I imagine that many of those who are crying out for gender neutral pronouns, also believe that RPGs should be Free to Play, and Player Driven; so they aren't going to be Buying these RPGs, anyway.  Only a fool, would chase after that fan base.

English grammar has fucked up conjugation and weak gender rules. Complaining about singular "they" is no different than complaining about singular "you".

I get it. We all want to find something objectively incorrect about danger-haired 16-25 year old women who have decided they don't want to be women anymore, because women are oppressed by the Patriarchy, but also don't want to be men, because men are toxic, and so have to be some third thing that's simultaneously neither and both. Singular they isn't it. That was being done long before feminism was invented, let alone queer theory.

We have a perfectly good alternative in English to the confusion around singular/plural "you":  it's called Y'ALL and is an entirely legal contraction of "you all," meaning you in the plural sense.

We also have an alternative to the singular/plural "they" conundrum:  a pronoun called IT.  Why a pink-haired libtarded freak would get offended by the pronoun IT as opposed to THEY is beyond me.  Seems like IT is a perfect descriptor for that sort.

And I've not seen any of these defenses of using "They" in the singular sense address the real issue here:  it's confusing to read.  It's especially irritating when trying to read board game rules.  "They now draw a card."  Well, WHO draws a card?  All the players?  The current player?  I have to re-read the sentence I've just read for context, then translate it back in my head using singular pronouns if necessary to understand the rule.  You can get around this to a certain extent using "you" or "Player #1" or whatever, but that language gets old when overused.  And "he or she," while a little clunky, is at least not confusing and yet avoids the hyper-offended sorts from getting the vapors.

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.

There's no good argument for using "They" for singular men or women.

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.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/271/990/f59.gif)

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 26, 2023, 11:45:02 AM
Game rules are not literature. They are instructions and therefore should be as clear as possible. So, "they" referring to a singular specific person is simply poor writing in the context of rules/instructions. ("They" referring to an indeterminate person is conventional and clear, as others have pointed out.)

There are so many other options that are clear:

- "He" for players and "she" for GM (or vice versa).

- Alternate "he" and "she" by chapter.

- Use only "he" or "she" everywhere and explain that you're not trying to be sexist, but are doing it for clarity, which is what my DCC rule book does.

The only reason to pick a less clear option is virtue signaling. And laziness, as demonstrated by the find-and-replace error in the dedication.

Or even better yet, use "player" or "character" or "GM", which are way more specific and accurate and easier to interpret than pronouns, which might end up unintentionally separated from their noun during later revisions.

Which is pertinent to what I'm doing. I'm 397 pages into editing our 455 page, 100,578 word novel. Pronouns can be really difficult to debug. Descriptive nouns are way more fun, entertaining, and clear. (YMMV because someone is going to come along and profess a deep-seated affection for pronouns. LOL)

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.

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 admit that you have a reasonable take on the issue.  Personally, I don't think they're "fallen" for this either; not serious enough to me.  (I think they fell prior to this when they supported BLM's campaign of arson, theft and murder).  I do think it's especially hypocritical on their part, though, since they've always acted like they're so old-school and hard-edged and politically incorrect.  Mark my words, it will not end here with this little pronoun change.  The people they're pandering to also don't like character death, evil monsters, random results, or danger.  I see many DCC adventures set in coffee shops on the horizon.

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.

Quote from: I on July 27, 2023, 09:27:05 AM
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.

Looking at your example list... Let's say a company announces a position that "Government censorship is bad, freedom of speech is good" - and maybe takes actions to reflect this, like supporting free speech in academia and donating to FIRE.

Are you saying that company should be called out and attacked for this position - because that is a step along the woke slippery slope?!?

Quote from: Corolinth on July 27, 2023, 01:03:51 PM

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.

....I don't even know where to begin with this...

Like, I'm called a Nazi (despite having a Jewish wife, and therefore a Jewish Daughter) regularly... as well as a racist and a misogynist by the left...

And then I come on here, and I literally see a dude complaining that women can be Heroes in Elfgames. Oh he'll come back and say "I don't have a Problem with that" but then he lists Brienne of Tarth as his example.

Holy shit dude, I bet you wouldn't last a day as a Lumberjack or a Blacksmith yourself... But you don't have any issues with playing a Conan the Barbarian type in your own games right? What the fuck is wrong with letting women be Red Sonja?

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 12:43:16 PM
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.

A book that uses singular "they" switches to "he" on the grounds that "he" is traditionally gender neutral. The screeching from the pronoun people would be deafening, much much louder than the discussion here.

Orwell was correct to point out that language corrupts thought. The pronoun people do shit like he/they, ze/zir, and xe/xem/xyr. What do these mean? Depends on who you ask. They are the ones corrupting thought, and people here are right to point it out.

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 27, 2023, 02:34:51 PM
A book that uses singular "they" switches to "he" on the grounds that "he" is traditionally gender neutral.

"He" is Gender Neutral.

"He" is Gender Neutral.

Alright, assuming this is correct (which it's not), then you really shouldn't have any issues with the use of other gender neutral language. You're making the argument in favor of it right there.

But we both know that's bullshit, and "He" hasn't been gender neutral since... well, since ever really. "He" was used historically because men were the ones who were seen as the only audience for this type of stuff.

Again, this is why D&D guys didn't get laid, but Whitewolf guys did. We weren't fucking weird when it came to letting girls play at our tables, or reading rule books.

Jesus Christ, this shit is making me more Liberal just reading it... and I fucking hate Progressives and what they've done to Western Videogames.

But holy shit, some of you guys want to drag us back to the Dark Ages where women were seen as 'icky' and got Strength penalties if they were allowed to play at all.

Again, if the character sheets start asking for Preferred Pronouns, and the game starts actively promoting non-binary characters in it... I *WILL* agree with you. I will be on your side for this.

But this kind of change doesn't warrant this kind of panic.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 02:42:46 PM
"He" is Gender Neutral.

Alright, assuming this is correct (which it's not), then you really shouldn't have any issues with the use of other gender neutral language. You're making the argument in favor of it right there.

"He" is traditionally gender neutral. My older edition of DCC even says that. Go read about it or something.

I don't have issues with gender neutral language. I have issues with overloading the word "they."

The mage cast fireball on the peasants and they were happy about that.

Etc, etc, the examples of how clarity is lost are numerous and obvious.

You could possibly recast mountains of prose to make an overloaded they clear. Or you can just say that mankind is full of men who go by "he" and half of them are sometimes referred to as "women" and when that's important to mention we say "she." Easy and done. And for the record, if it were the opposite, I wouldn't care, i.e., womankind is full of women who go by "she" and half of them are sometimes referred to as "men" and when that's important to mention we say "he."

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.

No, it's just that we've seen this tip of the spear used before.  It's why comics are shit now.  It's why video games are shit now.  It's why TV and movies are shit now.  It's why knitting is shit now.

Kick and scream, raise a ruckus and fucking gate keep the shit out of your hobbies or they won't be your hobbies anymore.

Quote from: rgalex on July 27, 2023, 03:50:42 PM
No, it's just that we've seen this tip of the spear used before.  It's why comics are shit now.  It's why video games are shit now.  It's why TV and movies are shit now.  It's why knitting is shit now.

Kick and scream, raise a ruckus and fucking gate keep the shit out of your hobbies or they won't be your hobbies anymore.

Yeah, I agree, rgalex. I'm really glad for the OSR and other games.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 01:57:55 PM
What the fuck is wrong with letting women be Red Sonja?

Dude. Red Sonja is the prime example of the misogyny rampant in fantasy entertainment. They're the nearly-naked, chainmail bikini wearing object of the hideous male gaze and pandering to patriarchal desires for unrealistic, sexy women. I can't believe in 2023 someone actually put forth Red Sonja as anything but a trope to be erased from public view so that People With Front Holes can feel safe in the hobby space.

Do Better.

Quote from: rgalex on July 27, 2023, 03:50:42 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.

No, it's just that we've seen this tip of the spear used before.  It's why comics are shit now.  It's why video games are shit now.  It's why TV and movies are shit now.  It's why knitting is shit now.

Kick and scream, raise a ruckus and fucking gate keep the shit out of your hobbies or they won't be your hobbies anymore.

I just want to know, and I'm not bullshitting you here? Do you believe DCC is going to start putting transgender and nonbinary characters in their rulebooks?

Because if they *Don't* then it won't be the 'tip' of the Spear. It will be them having switched over and stopped the book from being a Sausage fest.

I personally didn't like books that exclusively used "He" in their rulebooks as far back as the early 90s... I keep bringing back Whitewolf as the example, but they were one of the first game companies that switched up the use of "He" and "She"... Beyond that, in the 00s we got to see more books switching to using gender neutral terms such as "Player" and "GM" ect.

This is the thing, are we even sure they're going to put "Theys and thems" everywhere in the book? The original tweet says changing to gender neutral language WHERE applicable... But most of the posts here are talking like this is some Commie, Nazi take over.

So again, at the end of the day... If none of the Gender nonsense shows up in DCC books... We don't start getting Transgender characters and Non-binary characters... and it's just changing the book from having used "He" in every place to something that doesn't assume the reader has a cock and balls...

What then?

All of this yelling, screaming, gnashing of teeth and reactionaryism will have been for NOTHING.  It won't have been a "Tip of the Spear" like I keep seeing here.

Until DCC does that, all they've done has gone back and made sure their main rulebook doesn't assume the reader is a Dude... and that's a good thing... Some amount of Inclusion is *Good*. This isn't arguing "Why can't I play a Trans black soldier in a wheelchair in this World War 2 game?!" This is, "Maybe people other than just dudes are going to read and use this book."

When they start including the gender bullshit, then I'm on board... but all they're doing is correcting a mistake that was behind the times 10 years ago when they first released.

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 27, 2023, 03:01:10 PM
"He" is traditionally gender neutral. My older edition of DCC even says that. Go read about it or something.

I don't have issues with gender neutral language. I have issues with overloading the word "they."

The mage cast fireball on the peasants and they were happy about that.

This sort of example is trivial to generate for any pronoun use. Like,

The mage cast lightning bolt on the peasant and he was happy about that.

Does this prove that "he" doesn't work as a pronoun? No, it just means that pronoun use needs to be done intelligently, regardless of what pattern one uses. Moreover, it's common for a sentence to be ambiguous, with the reader filling in the intended use from surrounding context.

Singular "they" has been used for centuries, as has generic "he". One can debate merits of either, but neither one is insane or deserving of outrage.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 04:37:15 PM

Quote from: rgalex on July 27, 2023, 03:50:42 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.

No, it's just that we've seen this tip of the spear used before.  It's why comics are shit now.  It's why video games are shit now.  It's why TV and movies are shit now.  It's why knitting is shit now.

Kick and scream, raise a ruckus and fucking gate keep the shit out of your hobbies or they won't be your hobbies anymore.

I just want to know, and I'm not bullshitting you here? Do you believe DCC is going to start putting transgender and nonbinary characters in their rulebooks?

Because if they *Don't* then it won't be the 'tip' of the Spear. It will be them having switched over and stopped the book from being a Sausage fest.

Serously. What's wrong with having transgender or non-binary characters in an RPG? I'm fine with that so long as it's not ideologically driven.

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 04:40:14 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 27, 2023, 03:01:10 PM
"He" is traditionally gender neutral. My older edition of DCC even says that. Go read about it or something.

I don't have issues with gender neutral language. I have issues with overloading the word "they."

The mage cast fireball on the peasants and they were happy about that.

This sort of example is trivial to generate for any pronoun use. Like,

The mage cast lightning bolt on the peasant and he was happy about that.

Does this prove that "he" doesn't work as a pronoun? No, it just means that pronoun use needs to be done intelligently, regardless of what pattern one uses. Moreover, it's common for a sentence to be ambiguous, with the reader filling in the intended use from surrounding context.

Singular "they" has been used for centuries, as has generic "he". One can debate merits of either, but neither one is insane or deserving of outrage.

We can create dueling examples for ages. The simple fact is this: a word that can mean two different things can lead to ambiguity. Yes, you can clarify with context, but it seems to me that other choices make more sense, like not overloading a word in the first place.

Singular "they" has been used for a long time, yes, but mostly to refer to an indeterminate person. As I said upthread, I don't have a problem with that.

Your comments re insane and outrage should be directed to others, perhaps. I just think it's a sad, cynical change to cater to current trends and sell more books. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 27, 2023, 04:59:01 PM

Serously. What's wrong with having transgender or non-binary characters in an RPG? I'm fine with that so long as it's not ideologically driven.

Nothing, if they're done right, like you said... But I'm trying to make a good faith argument out of this. Geeky Bugle has a habit of over-reacting to things. Look at the title of this topic, "DCC has fallen prey to the woke". Like DCC is now lost forever, because, *Gasp* they went and made their rulebook a little more inclusive.

My wager is basically this... until "THE MESSAGE" starts being shoved into their books, all of this complaining, and worrying, and talking about how DCC is now an ultra-woke game series is quite ridiculous... and regressive, like actually regressive... Like the guy who was complaining about the Strength Penalty being removed from female characters.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 27, 2023, 04:59:01 PM
Serously. What's wrong with having transgender or non-binary characters in an RPG? I'm fine with that so long as it's not ideologically driven.

Let's ask Kevin Seimbedia; who's had changelings as a playable race since the mid-80's; what he thinks about that.

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 27, 2023, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 04:40:14 PM
This sort of example is trivial to generate for any pronoun use. Like,

The mage cast lightning bolt on the peasant and he was happy about that.

Does this prove that "he" doesn't work as a pronoun? No, it just means that pronoun use needs to be done intelligently, regardless of what pattern one uses. Moreover, it's common for a sentence to be ambiguous, with the reader filling in the intended use from surrounding context.

We can create dueling examples for ages. The simple fact is this: a word that can mean two different things can lead to ambiguity. Yes, you can clarify with context, but it seems to me that other choices make more sense, like not overloading a word in the first place.

Singular "they" has been used for a long time, yes, but mostly to refer to an indeterminate person. As I said upthread, I don't have a problem with that.

But singular "they" for an indeterminate person has exactly the same supposed problem that you were complaining about. i.e.

Any mage could cast fireball on the peasants and they would be happy.

So it seems like this is a spurious complaint, since it applies just as much to pronoun use you approve of.

You can still prefer generic "he", but it comes down to "I just like it" rather than "it is objectively better".

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 06:24:04 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 27, 2023, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 04:40:14 PM
This sort of example is trivial to generate for any pronoun use. Like,

The mage cast lightning bolt on the peasant and he was happy about that.

Does this prove that "he" doesn't work as a pronoun? No, it just means that pronoun use needs to be done intelligently, regardless of what pattern one uses. Moreover, it's common for a sentence to be ambiguous, with the reader filling in the intended use from surrounding context.

We can create dueling examples for ages. The simple fact is this: a word that can mean two different things can lead to ambiguity. Yes, you can clarify with context, but it seems to me that other choices make more sense, like not overloading a word in the first place.

Singular "they" has been used for a long time, yes, but mostly to refer to an indeterminate person. As I said upthread, I don't have a problem with that.

But singular "they" for an indeterminate person has exactly the same supposed problem that you were complaining about. i.e.

Any mage could cast fireball on the peasants and they would be happy.

So it seems like this is a spurious complaint, since it applies just as much to pronoun use you approve of.

You can still prefer generic "he", but it comes down to "I just like it" rather than "it is objectively better".

YOU write a poor example to show that I'M inconsistent? That's YOUR example. Leave me out of your argument with your straw man.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 05:11:31 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 27, 2023, 04:59:01 PM

Serously. What's wrong with having transgender or non-binary characters in an RPG? I'm fine with that so long as it's not ideologically driven.

Nothing, if they're done right, like you said... But I'm trying to make a good faith argument out of this. Geeky Bugle has a habit of over-reacting to things. Look at the title of this topic, "DCC has fallen prey to the woke". Like DCC is now lost forever, because, *Gasp* they went and made their rulebook a little more inclusive.

My wager is basically this... until "THE MESSAGE" starts being shoved into their books, all of this complaining, and worrying, and talking about how DCC is now an ultra-woke game series is quite ridiculous... and regressive, like actually regressive... Like the guy who was complaining about the Strength Penalty being removed from female characters.

And I disagree. We've seen how the woke have established themselves in entertainment, education, government, hobbies including goddamn fucking knitting. The reason people react the way they do here is because of a couple of decades of woke assholes leveraging their social power to make idiotic demands and changes while people just sat there and let it happen.

(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2023/01/14/this-is-fine_wide-0077dc0607062e15b476fb7f3bd99c5f340af356-s1400-c100.jpg)

If pushing back means a little hyperbole from time to time, I can live with that.

Quote from: Corolinth on July 27, 2023, 01:03:51 PM
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.

I basically agree with this. IMO there's a big difference between
(a) protagonist/PC & rare exceptional characters being female (or other unusual characteristic eg children or disabled) &
(b) Worldbuilding where half or more the mundane NPCs have what should be an unusual characteristic, like female blacksmiths & soldiers.

The former does not deny that Red Sonja or Belit is unusual, an exception. Being exceptional is already normal for fantasy heroes. The latter does deny it and is often motivated by a desire to deny reality about sex differences.

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 06:24:04 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 27, 2023, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 04:40:14 PM
This sort of example is trivial to generate for any pronoun use. Like,

The mage cast lightning bolt on the peasant and he was happy about that.

Does this prove that "he" doesn't work as a pronoun? No, it just means that pronoun use needs to be done intelligently, regardless of what pattern one uses. Moreover, it's common for a sentence to be ambiguous, with the reader filling in the intended use from surrounding context.

We can create dueling examples for ages. The simple fact is this: a word that can mean two different things can lead to ambiguity. Yes, you can clarify with context, but it seems to me that other choices make more sense, like not overloading a word in the first place.

Singular "they" has been used for a long time, yes, but mostly to refer to an indeterminate person. As I said upthread, I don't have a problem with that.

But singular "they" for an indeterminate person has exactly the same supposed problem that you were complaining about. i.e.

Any mage could cast fireball on the peasants and they would be happy.

So it seems like this is a spurious complaint, since it applies just as much to pronoun use you approve of.

You can still prefer generic "he", but it comes down to "I just like it" rather than "it is objectively better".

Functionally they are identical, but I see one important difference.  Generic "he" is just organic development of the language.  Generic "they" as currently used is an attempt by a group to coerce the rest of the population into changing how they think.  Very 1984.  I do have a problem with that.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 04:37:15 PM

Quote from: rgalex on July 27, 2023, 03:50:42 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.

No, it's just that we've seen this tip of the spear used before.  It's why comics are shit now.  It's why video games are shit now.  It's why TV and movies are shit now.  It's why knitting is shit now.

Kick and scream, raise a ruckus and fucking gate keep the shit out of your hobbies or they won't be your hobbies anymore.

I just want to know, and I'm not bullshitting you here? Do you believe DCC is going to start putting transgender and nonbinary characters in their rulebooks?

Because if they *Don't* then it won't be the 'tip' of the Spear. It will be them having switched over and stopped the book from being a Sausage fest.

I personally didn't like books that exclusively used "He" in their rulebooks as far back as the early 90s... I keep bringing back Whitewolf as the example, but they were one of the first game companies that switched up the use of "He" and "She"... Beyond that, in the 00s we got to see more books switching to using gender neutral terms such as "Player" and "GM" ect.

This is the thing, are we even sure they're going to put "Theys and thems" everywhere in the book? The original tweet says changing to gender neutral language WHERE applicable... But most of the posts here are talking like this is some Commie, Nazi take over.

So again, at the end of the day... If none of the Gender nonsense shows up in DCC books... We don't start getting Transgender characters and Non-binary characters... and it's just changing the book from having used "He" in every place to something that doesn't assume the reader has a cock and balls...

What then?

All of this yelling, screaming, gnashing of teeth and reactionaryism will have been for NOTHING.  It won't have been a "Tip of the Spear" like I keep seeing here.

Until DCC does that, all they've done has gone back and made sure their main rulebook doesn't assume the reader is a Dude... and that's a good thing... Some amount of Inclusion is *Good*. This isn't arguing "Why can't I play a Trans black soldier in a wheelchair in this World War 2 game?!" This is, "Maybe people other than just dudes are going to read and use this book."

When they start including the gender bullshit, then I'm on board... but all they're doing is correcting a mistake that was behind the times 10 years ago when they first released.

Honest answer, I don't know.  Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me at this point.

Here is the thing.  Yep, it's a 10+ year old convention that lots of other companies switched to already.  So why is DCC doing it now?

You may have the best idea for a book/comic/video game/tv show/etc and you may just so happen to want to have a female lead in it.  Or a black lead.  Or a black cripple in a wheelchair who loves to spew racist shit left and right.  I can't assume you made that choice because you thought it was good for the story or just because.  I have to assume it's because you are virtue signaling or trying to, in some way, CYA against the leftist mob.

The identity politics crowd have poisoned the well so thoroughly that it is nearly impossible to take anything in good faith anymore. 

Quote from: Mishihari on July 28, 2023, 04:52:25 AM

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 06:24:04 PM
You can still prefer generic "he", but it comes down to "I just like it" rather than "it is objectively better".

Functionally they are identical, but I see one important difference.  Generic "he" is just organic development of the language.  Generic "they" as currently used is an attempt by a group to coerce the rest of the population into changing how they think.  Very 1984.  I do have a problem with that.

Development of language is always political, and always been debated. In elementary school in the 1970s, I was taught that generic "he" was the only proper grammar. That is very much 1984 indoctrination of children.

Later in childhood, I read classic authors like Jane Austen, Lewis Carroll, and Charles Dickens - and I was exposed to more of singular "they". However, I still didn't realize what had happened until adulthood and I encountered debates around pronouns.

Singular "they" has always been around as colloquial, but in the late 19th and early 20th century, there was a deliberate effort by some to push generic "he" as the only proper grammar. Earlier debates took place in person and newspapers rather than over Twitter, so they were slower, but they still happened. For example, in 1885 this was a newspaper column arguing against new proposed gender-neutral pronoun "thon", in part by noting that singular "they" was grammatical.

QuoteIt is not necessary for any right-minded school-teacher to say "Everybody must get his or her lessons perfect today." It would be much better to say, " The pupils must be perfect in their lessons to-day," or better still, to drop into the colloquial style, "Everyone should be perfect in their lessons to-day." There is nothing awkward of ungrammatical in this, so far as the construction of English is concerned. It is ungrammatical when measured by the Latin method--but what has Latin grammar to do with the English tongue?

https://debaron.web.illinois.edu/essays/singular_they_Feb_1885.pdf

The point being that the debate has always been around. The organic approach is for there to be debate, and for writers to choose which pronouns they prefer.

(I disagree with schoolteachers now who mark generic "he" as wrong in student writing. But writers choosing to use singular "they" is organic language development.)

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 05:11:31 PM
and regressive, like actually regressive... Like the guy who was complaining about the Strength Penalty being removed from female characters.

Humans are sexually dimorphic, and men are way stronger than women, at both the average, and the extremes. Olympic champion women lift weights that gym bros do for fun.

Same goes for running speed, endurance, pain tolerance, aggression, on and on it goes.

This is the point where you handwave this away for games because magic and wizards. Except the humans in fantasy CLEARLY have the exact same sexual dimorphism we do, and all quasi-medieval fantasy, up until 5 fucking minutes ago expressed this with female warriors and leaders being rare exceptions.

Regressive? Oh no, women can still be incredibly strong, but ever so slightly less so than men? Oh the huge manatee, this evil cannot stand! I'll go a step further, on the old strength score, female characters should have been capped at a flat 18, not 18(50). 18 would already be fantastical for females. Toss them a Cha mod for men being stupid around women.

If a Halfling could be penalized for strength because they're no as strong as humans, why not women? And for the same reasons.

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 28, 2023, 01:10:23 PM

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 05:11:31 PM
and regressive, like actually regressive... Like the guy who was complaining about the Strength Penalty being removed from female characters.

Humans are sexually dimorphic, and men are way stronger than women, at both the average, and the extremes. Olympic champion women lift weights that gym bros do for fun.

Same goes for running speed, endurance, pain tolerance, aggression, on and on it goes.

This is the point where you handwave this away for games because magic and wizards. Except the humans in fantasy CLEARLY have the exact same sexual dimorphism we do, and all quasi-medieval fantasy, up until 5 fucking minutes ago expressed this with female warriors and leaders being rare exceptions.

Regressive? Oh no, women can still be incredibly strong, but ever so slightly less so than men? Oh the huge manatee, this evil cannot stand! I'll go a step further, on the old strength score, female characters should have been capped at a flat 18, not 18(50). 18 would already be fantastical for females. Toss them a Cha mod for men being stupid around women.

If a Halfling could be penalized for strength because they're no as strong as humans, why not women? And for the same reasons.

Because women want to play role playing games too and not be penalized for playing their native Sex.

And if you're interested in women being in the hobby, then you're not going to penalize them for playing make believe versions of themselves that are capable of kicking ass.

The type of behavior that says "women get a strength penalty in the elf game but a charisma bonus around men because they're stupid" is fucking creepy dude.

The worse kind of actually sexist thought. "Yeah you can't be as strong as my character but you can seduce men with your extra Charisma"

Because that's not playing into the WORST FUCKING CREEPY GAMER stereotypes ever.

Orphan81, as S'mon notes, there is a difference between what is normal for the world and what is normal for PCs.

Quote from: S'mon on July 28, 2023, 03:06:08 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on July 27, 2023, 01:03:51 PM
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.

I basically agree with this. IMO there's a big difference between
(a) protagonist/PC & rare exceptional characters being female (or other unusual characteristic eg children or disabled) &
(b) Worldbuilding where half or more the mundane NPCs have what should be an unusual characteristic, like female blacksmiths & soldiers.

The former does not deny that Red Sonja or Belit is unusual, an exception. Being exceptional is already normal for fantasy heroes. The latter does deny it and is often motivated by a desire to deny reality about sex differences.

My current campaign is (a) because it's emulating high fantasy of a traditional culture. Among NPCs, it's more common for women to be wizards - and it's more common for men to be fighters. (My campaign is emulating Incan culture, which makes a big deal out of gender roles.)

That said, I don't think that having amazonian armies in one's fantasy RPG world is necessarily a sign of denying reality. I mean, it's a frickin fantasy world. Having some amazonian armies of women soldiers is completely in keeping with plenty of fantasy - from Greek myth onwards.

*yawn*

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 28, 2023, 06:56:48 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 28, 2023, 01:10:23 PM

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 05:11:31 PM
and regressive, like actually regressive... Like the guy who was complaining about the Strength Penalty being removed from female characters.

Humans are sexually dimorphic, and men are way stronger than women, at both the average, and the extremes. Olympic champion women lift weights that gym bros do for fun.

Same goes for running speed, endurance, pain tolerance, aggression, on and on it goes.

This is the point where you handwave this away for games because magic and wizards. Except the humans in fantasy CLEARLY have the exact same sexual dimorphism we do, and all quasi-medieval fantasy, up until 5 fucking minutes ago expressed this with female warriors and leaders being rare exceptions.

Regressive? Oh no, women can still be incredibly strong, but ever so slightly less so than men? Oh the huge manatee, this evil cannot stand! I'll go a step further, on the old strength score, female characters should have been capped at a flat 18, not 18(50). 18 would already be fantastical for females. Toss them a Cha mod for men being stupid around women.

If a Halfling could be penalized for strength because they're no as strong as humans, why not women? And for the same reasons.

Because women want to play role playing games too and not be penalized for playing their native Sex.

And if you're interested in women being in the hobby, then you're not going to penalize them for playing make believe versions of themselves that are capable of kicking ass.

The type of behavior that says "women get a strength penalty in the elf game but a charisma bonus around men because they're stupid" is fucking creepy dude.

The worse kind of actually sexist thought. "Yeah you can't be as strong as my character but you can seduce men with your extra Charisma"

Because that's not playing into the WORST FUCKING CREEPY GAMER stereotypes ever.

But you're totally not an SJW right?

To bring the conversation back to the posts theme:

You yourself proved we're correct when you said changing it was to make it "more inclusive" (again proving you're a fucking SJW), women have been playing the game perfectly fine without making changes to appease the extreme left woketards.

NOBODY can point to a slaes increase in a game AFTER they made those changes, I wonder why?

Now back to your BS:

If Grognard GM wants to GM a game where women are penalized in STR and given a bonus in CHA citing realism you can only do two things:

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Or invoke "because Dragons!" and then Reeeeeeeeeeee

I think you managed to do both.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 28, 2023, 06:56:48 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 28, 2023, 01:10:23 PM

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 05:11:31 PM
and regressive, like actually regressive... Like the guy who was complaining about the Strength Penalty being removed from female characters.

Humans are sexually dimorphic, and men are way stronger than women, at both the average, and the extremes. Olympic champion women lift weights that gym bros do for fun.

Same goes for running speed, endurance, pain tolerance, aggression, on and on it goes.

This is the point where you handwave this away for games because magic and wizards. Except the humans in fantasy CLEARLY have the exact same sexual dimorphism we do, and all quasi-medieval fantasy, up until 5 fucking minutes ago expressed this with female warriors and leaders being rare exceptions.

Regressive? Oh no, women can still be incredibly strong, but ever so slightly less so than men? Oh the huge manatee, this evil cannot stand! I'll go a step further, on the old strength score, female characters should have been capped at a flat 18, not 18(50). 18 would already be fantastical for females. Toss them a Cha mod for men being stupid around women.

If a Halfling could be penalized for strength because they're no as strong as humans, why not women? And for the same reasons.

Because women want to play role playing games too and not be penalized for playing their native Sex.

And if you're interested in women being in the hobby, then you're not going to penalize them for playing make believe versions of themselves that are capable of kicking ass.

The type of behavior that says "women get a strength penalty in the elf game but a charisma bonus around men because they're stupid" is fucking creepy dude.

The worse kind of actually sexist thought. "Yeah you can't be as strong as my character but you can seduce men with your extra Charisma"

Because that's not playing into the WORST FUCKING CREEPY GAMER stereotypes ever.

These people that supposedly call you a Nazi, are they wearing hammer and sickle t-shirts? Because I can't think of anyone else that would see your pearl clutching white knighting and think you were anything but far-left. You may not be (or at least think you're not) Woke, but you're a male feminist proto-wokester.

Calling something regressive or creepy doesn't make it so, even if you repeat yourself with ALL CAPS. If Halflings have a lower Str cap than a man because they're smaller and weaker, then having the same for a female human is literally no different, yet people still play halflings. Your entire outrage is ideological.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 28, 2023, 10:15:28 PM
You yourself proved we're correct when you said changing it was to make it "more inclusive" (again proving you're a fucking SJW), women have been playing the game perfectly fine without making changes to appease the extreme left woketards.

This deserved repeating. All this shit is not to make the game inclusive to women. It's to make the game exclusive to anyone not of the woke ideology.

As usual, you have to understand what the terminology is being twisted for.

Quote from: jhkim on July 28, 2023, 07:50:38 PM
That said, I don't think that having amazonian armies in one's fantasy RPG world is necessarily a sign of denying reality. I mean, it's a frickin fantasy world. Having some amazonian armies of women soldiers is completely in keeping with plenty of fantasy - from Greek myth onwards.

I have Amazons in my Wilderlands of High Fantasy campaigns too, but they're clearly a fantasy race. That's very old school, agreed.

I also run new school Odyssey of the Dragonlords where Amazon is a 'culture' not a race, Amazons there can be of any race although they all live on one big island. It can be put down to magic but is more of a stretch than having Amazons be a particular unusual race.

I think what is most intrusive is when the baseline culture in the standard-medieval fantasy setting has the Paizo style gender balance thing with no examination or explanation.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 28, 2023, 10:15:28 PM

But you're totally not an SJW right?

To bring the conversation back to the posts theme:

You yourself proved we're correct when you said changing it was to make it "more inclusive" (again proving you're a fucking SJW), women have been playing the game perfectly fine without making changes to appease the extreme left woketards.

NOBODY can point to a slaes increase in a game AFTER they made those changes, I wonder why?

Now back to your BS:

If Grognard GM wants to GM a game where women are penalized in STR and given a bonus in CHA citing realism you can only do two things:

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Or invoke "because Dragons!" and then Reeeeeeeeeeee

I think you managed to do both.

No, I'm not. I just haven't been in an echo chamber as long as you have, that something that's been standard for almost 40 years now (Equal stats between men and women) doesn't sound fucking RADICAL to me. This is one of the reasons we're losing the culture war.

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 28, 2023, 10:26:37 PM


These people that supposedly call you a Nazi, are they wearing hammer and sickle t-shirts? Because I can't think of anyone else that would see your pearl clutching white knighting and think you were anything but far-left. You may not be (or at least think you're not) Woke, but you're a male feminist proto-wokester.

Calling something regressive or creepy doesn't make it so, even if you repeat yourself with ALL CAPS. If Halflings have a lower Str cap than a man because they're smaller and weaker, then having the same for a female human is literally no different, yet people still play halflings. Your entire outrage is ideological.

White Knighting is now pointing out Strength Penalties for female characters is backwards and regressive huh? Pearl Clutching too? Jesus, this is exactly the kind of shit Wizards of the Coast and other game companies use to justify the changes they make. Because they can point to guys like you who want actual sexism in their games and go "This is why we need to push even further Left". Beyond the fact it's also just *BAD* game design too.

I mean fucking A, Red Sonja shows up in Marvel Comics in the 1973, but nevermind that, you're so angry at SJWs you want to prevent characters like her from even being made anymore.

That's backwards and purely ideological.

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 28, 2023, 01:10:23 PM

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 27, 2023, 05:11:31 PM
and regressive, like actually regressive... Like the guy who was complaining about the Strength Penalty being removed from female characters.

Humans are sexually dimorphic, and men are way stronger than women, at both the average, and the extremes. Olympic champion women lift weights that gym bros do for fun.

Same goes for running speed, endurance, pain tolerance, aggression, on and on it goes.

This is the point where you handwave this away for games because magic and wizards. Except the humans in fantasy CLEARLY have the exact same sexual dimorphism we do, and all quasi-medieval fantasy, up until 5 fucking minutes ago expressed this with female warriors and leaders being rare exceptions.

Regressive? Oh no, women can still be incredibly strong, but ever so slightly less so than men? Oh the huge manatee, this evil cannot stand! I'll go a step further, on the old strength score, female characters should have been capped at a flat 18, not 18(50). 18 would already be fantastical for females. Toss them a Cha mod for men being stupid around women.

If a Halfling could be penalized for strength because they're no as strong as humans, why not women? And for the same reasons.

As a 50 something man I was tossing 60 pound bags of cement around for a home project over the weekend with no problem. I'm not in particularly good shape, I have a desk job after all, and it struck me that I probably have more strength than the average olympic female weightlifter.

But I agree, give female characters +2 Charisma, even at my age a cutie can make me act a little dumb.

Quote from: Orphan81 on July 29, 2023, 05:20:30 AM
White Knighting is now pointing out Strength Penalties for female characters is backwards and regressive huh? Pearl Clutching too?

Well, yes. In your case it comes off that way. There are good game design reasons for not using sex or race attribute modifiers, but your own motivation seems to be much more on the white knighting side, as far as I can tell from your interactions here.

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 06:24:04 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on July 27, 2023, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 27, 2023, 04:40:14 PM
This sort of example is trivial to generate for any pronoun use. Like,

The mage cast lightning bolt on the peasant and he was happy about that.

Does this prove that "he" doesn't work as a pronoun? No, it just means that pronoun use needs to be done intelligently, regardless of what pattern one uses. Moreover, it's common for a sentence to be ambiguous, with the reader filling in the intended use from surrounding context.

We can create dueling examples for ages. The simple fact is this: a word that can mean two different things can lead to ambiguity. Yes, you can clarify with context, but it seems to me that other choices make more sense, like not overloading a word in the first place.

Singular "they" has been used for a long time, yes, but mostly to refer to an indeterminate person. As I said upthread, I don't have a problem with that.

But singular "they" for an indeterminate person has exactly the same supposed problem that you were complaining about. i.e.

Any mage could cast fireball on the peasants and they would be happy.

So it seems like this is a spurious complaint, since it applies just as much to pronoun use you approve of.

You can still prefer generic "he", but it comes down to "I just like it" rather than "it is objectively better".

I am fine with game companies using whatever pronouns they want. Personally I think it should be up to the writers, using what fits their style best (whether that is singular he, singular the, he and/or she, she, or just mixing it up for variety). Pronoun usage has never been super important to me as a reader. I will say though I think the way they got overly politicized has been a problem because it does have issues that can emerge (I think in most instances it is fine, but there are situations where it is confusing). I know for example I have read a ton of news paper articles where two people were the subjects, and by using they without any reflection on whether it was clear, there are times in those articles where I didn't know if they were referring to one oft he people or both of them. Again, I don't have an issue with They (I am sure I have used it here and there as I am not particularly consistent with pronouns). But this is a genuine problem I have seen so I think with that particular word there are definitely times it doesn't work or isn't the best choice

I'm just laughing at this whole thread now because this whole two-minute hate on DCC that's now spun into equal game stats for the sexes being a sign of wokeness and white knighting started because someone was not using third person masculine.

In other words; you were triggered by them not using your preferred pronouns.

You may not be woke, but I'm starting to believe Ekow is a real thing because it's the same puritanism spiral of the woke, just in reverse.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 09:59:00 AM
I'm just laughing at this whole thread now because this whole two-minute hate on DCC that's now spun into equal game stats for the sexes being a sign of wokeness and white knighting started because someone was not using third person masculine.

In other words; you were triggered by them not using your preferred pronouns.

You may not be woke, but I'm starting to believe Ekow is a real thing because it's the same puritanism spiral of the woke, just in reverse.

Looking at the original post. Gender neutral pronouns strike me as pre-woke (in that I don't see that choice as particularly tied to the politics of the past 5-10 years or so). Personally I don't think it is the sort of thing would warrant an announcement but like I said before, fine with whatever people want to use (pretty sure Savage worlds uses they a lot, could be  misremembering and it was never much of an issue-----lots of games have done the "He or she" thing).

Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Personally, I've never argued for any use on the grounds of "more inclusive"; only that second person is more personable and that game book instructions are not of such serious weight as to require formal third-person nor technical writing format in general (thus colloquial "they" isn't a hill worth dying on; particularly since indefinite third person "he" is relatively modern linguistically and the hill has been overrun by everything from "he or she" a reversion to "they" or oddballs like "thon" for the better part of the century).

Indeed, 4E reading like a technical manual was one of many factors attributed to its general failure. Conversely 5e, which uses second person and natural language, has enjoyed broad popular appeal.

I just find it notable because this whole thing boils down to being triggered by people not using the preferred pronouns of the complainers and those complainers pushing for their cohort to cancel the offender. It really is just the Woke position in a funhouse mirror (thus reinforcing my original point as to the Devil sending out sins in pairs).

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

Here's an article I dug up with a quick Internet search;
https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/singular-they-history (https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/singular-they-history)

It gives examples in the form of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austin and Dickens as to writers using the singular 'they' in their writing.

Some particular examples;
"Every one must judge according to their own feelings." — Lord Byron, Werner (1823)

"Had the Doctor been contented to take my dining tables as any body in their senses would have done ..." — Jane Austen, Mansfield Park (1814)

In terms of the switchover; from Wikipedia entry "singular they"...

The earliest known explicit recommendation by a grammarian to use the generic he rather than they in formal English is Ann Fisher's mid-18th century A New Grammar assertion that "The Masculine Person answers to the general Name, which comprehends both Male and Female; as, any Person who knows what he says."

In terms of the reversion, the most used style guide in the US (The Chicago Manual of Style; foundation of Microsoft Office's grammar correction rules) was has been recommending singular they for 30 years now;

In the 14th edition (1993) of The Chicago Manual of Style, the University of Chicago Press explicitly recommended using singular they and their, noting a "revival" of this usage and citing "its venerable use by such writers as Addison, Austen, Chesterfield, Fielding, Ruskin, Scott, and Shakespeare." - from the Wikipedia entry

Basically, it's not nearly as clear cut as some want to make it... as befits a language that mugs other languages in dark alleys and goes through their pockets for loose vocabulary.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

No.  If the text is addressing the reader, it will use the second person ("you").  If you are addressing the actions of a hypothetical character, then you know what the sex is, because it is your hypothetical.

"The wizard must scribe spells in his spellbook.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that he gets.  The cleric receives her spells from her deity."

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 29, 2023, 09:54:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

No.  If the text is addressing the reader, it will use the second person ("you").  If you are addressing the actions of a hypothetical character, then you know what the sex is, because it is your hypothetical.

"The wizard must scribe spells in his spellbook.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that he gets.  The cleric receives her spells from her deity."

Well, I agree on the second person usage... its what I use for all rules mechanics.

As to your example; unless all wizards must be male and all clerics female in your setting your description would be inaccurate (as would the "The" before their class names.") according to the Chicago Manual of Style for the last three decades (and just about every American English grammar proofing software made in the last thirty years as a result).

The proper way to express it for a class rules section (per the manual) would be...
"A wizard must scribe spells in their spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that they get. A cleric receives their spells from their deity."

The use of the third person masculine was more a fad than the use of the singular they. Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th Century.

Singular he started to be pushed in the mid-18th century, but it wasn't until the mid-19th that grammarians really started insisting (it wasn't until 1850 that Britain started requiring all official documents use the singular he). Many famous authors continued to use singular they anyway and by 1993 writing style guides were back to recommending the singular they.

So basically you had 500 years of singular they as perfectly acceptable, followed by a 150 years or so of grammarians (i.e. tenured university professors) trying to force singular he onto the English language (pretty much the way they've tried to force their idiot notions onto society ever since they discovered the Marxism grift), and then society went back to the singular 'they' which it had been using colloquially that entire 150 years and the 500 years before that.

I get it; perceptions of normalcy begin the day you're born and you weren't around for the shift away from singular they so for you the singular he feels correct. But that actually runs against six centuries of traditional usage to the contrary.

This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot compared to things that actually matter; like the insertion of rainbowsparklebronies and campaigns centered around proms and fantasy Starbucks into everything good and sacred.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 12:26:43 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 29, 2023, 09:54:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

No.  If the text is addressing the reader, it will use the second person ("you").  If you are addressing the actions of a hypothetical character, then you know what the sex is, because it is your hypothetical.

"The wizard must scribe spells in his spellbook.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that he gets.  The cleric receives her spells from her deity."

Well, I agree on the second person usage... its what I use for all rules mechanics.

As to your example; unless all wizards must be male and all clerics female in your setting your description would be inaccurate (as would the "The" before their class names.") according to the Chicago Manual of Style for the last three decades (and just about every American English grammar proofing software made in the last thirty years as a result).

The proper way to express it for a class rules section (per the manual) would be...
"A wizard must scribe spells in their spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that they get. A cleric receives their spells from their deity."

The use of the third person masculine was more a fad than the use of the singular they. Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th Century.

Singular he started to be pushed in the mid-18th century, but it wasn't until the mid-19th that grammarians really started insisting (it wasn't until 1850 that Britain started requiring all official documents use the singular he). Many famous authors continued to use singular they anyway and by 1993 writing style guides were back to recommending the singular they.

So basically you had 500 years of singular they as perfectly acceptable, followed by a 150 years or so of grammarians (i.e. tenured university professors) trying to force singular he onto the English language (pretty much the way they've tried to force their idiot notions onto society ever since they discovered the Marxism grift), and then society went back to the singular 'they' which it had been using colloquially that entire 150 years and the 500 years before that.

I get it; perceptions of normalcy begin the day you're born and you weren't around for the shift away from singular they so for you the singular he feels correct. But that actually runs against six centuries of traditional usage to the contrary.

This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot compared to things that actually matter; like the insertion of rainbowsparklebronies and campaigns centered around proms and fantasy Starbucks into everything good and sacred.

Is your contention that Goodperson Games changed to singular they because they are following writting guides and not because they were pandering to the selfsame "Rainbowsparklebronies"?

IMNSHO all this talk about writting guides is just distracting from the issue, AFAIK: Goodperson Games changed to they AND virtue signaled about it to appease the SparkleTroll brigade. Ergo the change was made for ideological reasons and nothing else.

As for your "proper" example:

"As a wizard you must scribe spells in your spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that you get. As a cleric you receive your spells from your deity."

I haven't used a single they, it's perfectly clear and if i need to use they to refer to multiple individuals I have no risk of my text being harder to comprehend.

You decry the grammarians but will happily do appeals to authority from other academics that want to return to something that hasn't been in use in 150 years because tradition. I suspect this is because you agrtee with one side and not the other. As such it's nothing but an appeal to authority, ergo a logical fallacy.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 30, 2023, 01:17:42 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 12:26:43 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 29, 2023, 09:54:44 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM

Quote from: Krazz on July 29, 2023, 03:15:57 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 02:58:02 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 29, 2023, 12:08:13 PM
Deliberately obfuscatory & antagonistic language doesn't make a work "more inclusive" and if you're peddling that line you're either too ignorant to listen to or a bad actor.

Really? Pre-18th century writing conventions are obfuscatory and antagonistic now?

Can you give an example of singular 'they' being used for a person of known sex prior to the 18th century please.

This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

This discussion is regarding individuals of indeterminate gender (ex. a reader whose identity is unknown) and which pronoun is appropriate to it.

No.  If the text is addressing the reader, it will use the second person ("you").  If you are addressing the actions of a hypothetical character, then you know what the sex is, because it is your hypothetical.

"The wizard must scribe spells in his spellbook.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that he gets.  The cleric receives her spells from her deity."

Well, I agree on the second person usage... its what I use for all rules mechanics.

As to your example; unless all wizards must be male and all clerics female in your setting your description would be inaccurate (as would the "The" before their class names.") according to the Chicago Manual of Style for the last three decades (and just about every American English grammar proofing software made in the last thirty years as a result).

The proper way to express it for a class rules section (per the manual) would be...
"A wizard must scribe spells in their spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that they get. A cleric receives their spells from their deity."

The use of the third person masculine was more a fad than the use of the singular they. Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th Century.

Singular he started to be pushed in the mid-18th century, but it wasn't until the mid-19th that grammarians really started insisting (it wasn't until 1850 that Britain started requiring all official documents use the singular he). Many famous authors continued to use singular they anyway and by 1993 writing style guides were back to recommending the singular they.

So basically you had 500 years of singular they as perfectly acceptable, followed by a 150 years or so of grammarians (i.e. tenured university professors) trying to force singular he onto the English language (pretty much the way they've tried to force their idiot notions onto society ever since they discovered the Marxism grift), and then society went back to the singular 'they' which it had been using colloquially that entire 150 years and the 500 years before that.

I get it; perceptions of normalcy begin the day you're born and you weren't around for the shift away from singular they so for you the singular he feels correct. But that actually runs against six centuries of traditional usage to the contrary.

This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot compared to things that actually matter; like the insertion of rainbowsparklebronies and campaigns centered around proms and fantasy Starbucks into everything good and sacred.

Is your contention that Goodperson Games changed to singular they because they are following writting guides and not because they were pandering to the selfsame "Rainbowsparklebronies"?

IMNSHO all this talk about writting guides is just distracting from the issue, AFAIK: Goodperson Games changed to they AND virtue signaled about it to appease the SparkleTroll brigade. Ergo the change was made for ideological reasons and nothing else.

As for your "proper" example:

"As a wizard you must scribe spells in your spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that you get. As a cleric you receive your spells from your deity."

I haven't used a single they, it's perfectly clear and if i need to use they to refer to multiple individuals I have no risk of my text being harder to comprehend.

You decry the grammarians but will happily do appeals to authority from other academics that want to return to something that hasn't been in use in 150 years because tradition. I suspect this is because you agrtee with one side and not the other. As such it's nothing but an appeal to authority, ergo a logical fallacy.

My contention is that compared to so much else, this issue is akin to complaining about a hangnail after being diagnosed with metastatic cancer. You're trying to fight to reclaim a hill that your side only briefly occupied and was then reclaimed while your whole flank is being bombarded.

As to second person useage I have two points.

First, no one said you can't use second person. I use second person. But if you're going to use third person, then nearly 700 years of traditional use (minus the 150 years the language equivalent of prohibitionists tried to force their way onto society) say singular they is correct.

I mean, we were still using plate armor and pikes when the use of singular they can first be found in English writing and we had steam engines by the time people who wanted singular he got enough power to pass laws about it... and even then countless authors continued to use it because, just like prohibition, the laws ran against ages of traditional use.

Second, while clear enough (because English is a cobbled together mess of a language and so it's speakers are pretty good at parsing clumsy construction) it is not actually grammatically correct unless your game magically transforms players into wizards and clerics it is grammatically incorrect.

You (the player) doesn't scribe spells or perform worship to an imaginary pagan deity; your character does.

"Your wizard must scribe spells into a spell book.  You roll 1d6 for the number of spells gained at each level. Your cleric receives spells from a deity."

It's still just moving around the goalposts because you were triggered by them not using your preferred pronouns and starting a two-minute hate rant over it. Which is why I've paraphrased this, but now will just outright quote it;

"He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of opposites...He relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them." - C.S. Lewis

As to my arguing for and against experts; that's not what I was doing.

My contention was that it was experts who set the standard of singular he 150 years ago despite centuries of traditional use otherwise. You use this standard set by experts as your argument for singular he. But the same category of experts 30 years ago changed it to match the traditional useage.

To argue for singular he requires you to use the rulings of experts so if the experts change their ruling and you don't go along then you're just arguing from personal preference.

Because of how English is put together both the indefinite third person singular options either disagree on potential gender or number and their is no one absolute overlord of the English language (and if there were it'd be government appointed).

The experts tried to make singular he the universal standard, but it went over about as well as the US adopting the metric system.

Bottom line is that I don't care why they changed from singular he to singular they (a battle decided decades ago)... maybe they just got tired of all the blue squiggly lines under sections of their documents because Microsoft Word has always used the Chicago Manual of Style for its grammar checker.

And it's not like if they reversed course and went back to singular he in accord with your desires that it'd matter to you; they're already ritually tainted and there isn't any more forgiveness from this end for transgression than there is from the woke.

So, since I don't particularly care about singular he vs. they (nor do many other famous authors) I'll judge on the content of their books.

If they start putting ranbowsparklefurries and values into their material is what I care about. Until then I'm sick of seeking out things to get outraged by for the dopamine hit and of alienating people who might agree on 90% because they aren't agreeing on the remaining 10%.

Personally, I think this culture is at a stage where we need even the 60% allies in the push back against the 100% enemies of civilization. Any common ground we can reach is someplace we can push back from.

The Left's whole game is conquest by division while their opponents seem more than willing to do their own purity spiral so long as they lose with their 100% purity score intact.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 29, 2023, 07:02:00 PM
This isn't about pronouns for known individuals; proper grammar always dictates the proper gender pronoun be used. If you know its a he, you use he.

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on July 19, 2023, 02:36:12 PM
DCC RPG is dedicated to
Jim Roslof
1945-2011
TSR class of 1979
One of the great fantasy illustrators,
who is already missed. their work
for DCC RPG includes their last
four illustrations, which appear on
pages 76, 88, 110, and 205, as well
as prior illustrations appearing on
pages 13 and 375.

My hardcopy says "his"

Are you going to change your claim to "they did it once, and it was probably an accident"?

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 19, 2023, 02:33:38 PM
The Three Stages of Woke Infiltration:

1- They aren't going to do that. You are just being paranoid.
2- They did it one time. You can easily just ignore it.
3- This has been happening for years now, why are you complaining?

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 10:26:35 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 30, 2023, 01:17:42 AM

Quote
"As a wizard you must scribe spells in your spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that you get. As a cleric you receive your spells from your deity."

Quote
Well, I agree on the second person usage... its what I use for all rules mechanics.

As to your example; unless all wizards must be male and all clerics female in your setting your description would be inaccurate (as would the "The" before their class names.") according to the Chicago Manual of Style for the last three decades (and just about every American English grammar proofing software made in the last thirty years as a result).

The proper way to express it for a class rules section (per the manual) would be...
"A wizard must scribe spells in their spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that they get. A cleric receives their spells from their deity."

The use of the third person masculine was more a fad than the use of the singular they. Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th Century.

Singular he started to be pushed in the mid-18th century, but it wasn't until the mid-19th that grammarians really started insisting (it wasn't until 1850 that Britain started requiring all official documents use the singular he). Many famous authors continued to use singular they anyway and by 1993 writing style guides were back to recommending the singular they.

So basically you had 500 years of singular they as perfectly acceptable, followed by a 150 years or so of grammarians (i.e. tenured university professors) trying to force singular he onto the English language (pretty much the way they've tried to force their idiot notions onto society ever since they discovered the Marxism grift), and then society went back to the singular 'they' which it had been using colloquially that entire 150 years and the 500 years before that.

I get it; perceptions of normalcy begin the day you're born and you weren't around for the shift away from singular they so for you the singular he feels correct. But that actually runs against six centuries of traditional usage to the contrary.

This whole thread is a tempest in a teapot compared to things that actually matter; like the insertion of rainbowsparklebronies and campaigns centered around proms and fantasy Starbucks into everything good and sacred.

Quote
Is your contention that Goodperson Games changed to singular they because they are following writting guides and not because they were pandering to the selfsame "Rainbowsparklebronies"?

IMNSHO all this talk about writting guides is just distracting from the issue, AFAIK: Goodperson Games changed to they AND virtue signaled about it to appease the SparkleTroll brigade. Ergo the change was made for ideological reasons and nothing else.

As for your "proper" example:

"As a wizard you must scribe spells in your spell book.  You will roll 1d6 for the number of spells of each level that you get. As a cleric you receive your spells from your deity."

I haven't used a single they, it's perfectly clear and if i need to use they to refer to multiple individuals I have no risk of my text being harder to comprehend.

You decry the grammarians but will happily do appeals to authority from other academics that want to return to something that hasn't been in use in 150 years because tradition. I suspect this is because you agrtee with one side and not the other. As such it's nothing but an appeal to authority, ergo a logical fallacy.

Quote
My contention is that compared to so much else, this issue is akin to complaining about a hangnail after being diagnosed with metastatic cancer. You're trying to fight to reclaim a hill that your side only briefly occupied and was then reclaimed while your whole flank is being bombarded.

As to second person useage I have two points.

First, no one said you can't use second person. I use second person. But if you're going to use third person, then nearly 700 years of traditional use (minus the 150 years the language equivalent of prohibitionists tried to force their way onto society) say singular they is correct.

I mean, we were still using plate armor and pikes when the use of singular they can first be found in English writing and we had steam engines by the time people who wanted singular he got enough power to pass laws about it... and even then countless authors continued to use it because, just like prohibition, the laws ran against ages of traditional use.

Second, while clear enough (because English is a cobbled together mess of a language and so it's speakers are pretty good at parsing clumsy construction) it is not actually grammatically correct unless your game magically transforms players into wizards and clerics it is grammatically incorrect.

You (the player) doesn't scribe spells or perform worship to an imaginary pagan deity; your character does.

Quote
"Your wizard must scribe spells into a spell book.  You roll 1d6 for the number of spells gained at each level. Your cleric receives spells from a deity."

Quote
It's still just moving around the goalposts because you were triggered by them not using your preferred pronouns and starting a two-minute hate rant over it. Which is why I've paraphrased this, but now will just outright quote it;

"He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of opposites...He relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them." - C.S. Lewis

As to my arguing for and against experts; that's not what I was doing.

My contention was that it was experts who set the standard of singular he 150 years ago despite centuries of traditional use otherwise. You use this standard set by experts as your argument for singular he. But the same category of experts 30 years ago changed it to match the traditional useage.

To argue for singular he requires you to use the rulings of experts so if the experts change their ruling and you don't go along then you're just arguing from personal preference.

Because of how English is put together both the indefinite third person singular options either disagree on potential gender or number and their is no one absolute overlord of the English language (and if there were it'd be government appointed).

The experts tried to make singular he the universal standard, but it went over about as well as the US adopting the metric system.

Bottom line is that I don't care why they changed from singular he to singular they (a battle decided decades ago)... maybe they just got tired of all the blue squiggly lines under sections of their documents because Microsoft Word has always used the Chicago Manual of Style for its grammar checker.

And it's not like if they reversed course and went back to singular he in accord with your desires that it'd matter to you; they're already ritually tainted and there isn't any more forgiveness from this end for transgression than there is from the woke.

So, since I don't particularly care about singular he vs. they (nor do many other famous authors) I'll judge on the content of their books.

If they start putting ranbowsparklefurries and values into their material is what I care about. Until then I'm sick of seeking out things to get outraged by for the dopamine hit and of alienating people who might agree on 90% because they aren't agreeing on the remaining 10%.

Personally, I think this culture is at a stage where we need even the 60% allies in the push back against the 100% enemies of civilization. Any common ground we can reach is someplace we can push back from.

The Left's whole game is conquest by division while their opponents seem more than willing to do their own purity spiral so long as they lose with their 100% purity score intact.

It's worst than metastatic cancer, it's viral metastatic cancer.

Again, the whole argument over experts is concealing the crux of the matter: Goodperson Games did it to appeal/appease the SparkleTroll brigade. I point this out and you write me a thesis about experts.

So I'll ask again, do you honestly believe that my assertion about their motives is wrong? If so then please explain the virtue signal, the BLM support and other sings we have seen from them.

Goodman Games has been infected by the viral metastatic cancer, they will drive away any openly not woke from their company and will soon decry their own customers as problematic & toxic istophobes.

You're here saying this isn't a problem because experts, when we've seen the progression of the dissease time and time again.

Now as for your "experts" you mean to tell me that the academics that have been at the forefront and cutting edge of woke wankery for the last 30+ years (in the sixties there was an internal war among feminazis, the side that won stayed in the public, the loosing side took refuge in the academy, and from there they have pushed all the lunacy we now have to fight everywhere) are the people I should listen too else I'm just like the SJWs and engaging in purity spirals?

I haven't seen a single individual here demanding you or any of the other individuals screaming that "1- They aren't going to do that. You are just being paranoid." be banned from the site, much less tried to have your lifes ruined. so you'll excuseme if I don't take the accusation seriously.

Your way is to let them infect a healthy body and only when that body is in the terminal stages then we can complain. AGAIN, we've seen the stages of the dissease, we KNOW where this is going and how it will end.

Now, please feel free to ignore every single point I'm making and come back with more "but muh experts!" wankery.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 10:26:35 AMMy contention is that compared to so much else, this issue is akin to complaining about a hangnail after being diagnosed with metastatic cancer. You're trying to fight to reclaim a hill that your side only briefly occupied and was then reclaimed while your whole flank is being bombarded.

My contention is that people like you ignored all the hangnails, and laughed at anyone that was concerned about them, and the hangnails turned cancerous. Then you want to focus on the existing cancer, and ignore the new hangnails. You have no ability to see chain of events, or to learn from past mistakes.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 10:26:35 AMIf they start putting ranbowsparklefurries and values into their material is what I care about. Until then I'm sick of seeking out things to get outraged by for the dopamine hit and of alienating people who might agree on 90% because they aren't agreeing on the remaining 10%.

You talk like 10% can't be a deal breaker. Like someone is 90% of the same ideals, but in the 10% they support gulags or MAPs. And yes, someone could absolutely have that type of cognitive dissonance. Just look at all the rainbow Christians that popped up.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 10:26:35 AMPersonally, I think this culture is at a stage where we need even the 60% allies in the push back against the 100% enemies of civilization. Any common ground we can reach is someplace we can push back from.

And you're wrong, because an ally that disagrees with almost half the things you believe in cannot be relied upon. They're the ally that votes with your enemies at the break point, because one thing you believe is no-go for them, or the other side exploited their emotions.

"Oh I agree that censorship is out of control, but you have to protect women from misogyny, so of course we need someone policing chat!"

Worse than worthless, because you open the gate for them.

This thread gave me metastatic brain cancer.  :o

I'll be sending you my medical bills (the plural "you", cuz the singular is for wokesters).  :P

When sexual abusers start demanding hobbyist publishers facilitate abuse by forcing propaganda into child/young-adult focused hobbies, Chris is too busy to object because Lord Byron once used second-person indefinite plural pronouns.

Besides BOTH sides are the same because in the magical realm of pure rhetoric where we ignore all issues of actual power, history, and harm to real humans, anyone who objects to any language being present in a work is fundamentally motivated by a desire to control someone else's speech.

Quote from: Zelen on July 30, 2023, 05:27:28 PM
When sexual abusers start demanding hobbyist publishers facilitate abuse by forcing propaganda into child/young-adult focused hobbies, Chris is too busy to object because Lord Byron once used second-person indefinite plural pronouns.

Besides BOTH sides are the same because in the magical realm of pure rhetoric where we ignore all issues of actual power, history, and harm to real humans, anyone who objects to any language being present in a work is fundamentally motivated by a desire to control someone else's speech.

If you must lie to yourself about what I said to make yourself feel better, that says a lot.

"This feels like the flipside of the Left's microaggressions nonsense; instead of dealing with real outrages, you focus all your attention on peripheral BS and make that into a point of outrage and purity spiraling."

"My contention is that compared to so much else, this issue is akin to complaining about a hangnail after being diagnosed with metastatic cancer. You're trying to fight to reclaim a hill that your side only briefly occupied and was then reclaimed while your whole flank is being bombarded."

Translation: you're ranting about grammar issues instead of focusing on the sexual abusers. I WANT the focus on the sex abusers and not on grammatical case that's now three decades behind enemy lines.

You'd rather just do a performative virtue-signaling rant about grammar on a message board and label anyone who doesn't join into your two-minute hate as an enemy.

I'll admit to poking the bear a bit... but saying the OP was triggered by failure to use their preferred pronouns and then instead of taking even a moment of self-reflection instead launching into an absolute tirade just makes you look even more like the humorless wokescolds you so despise.

"If they start putting ranbowsparklefurries and values into their material is what I care about. Until then I'm sick of seeking out things to get outraged by for the dopamine hit and of alienating people who might agree on 90% because they aren't agreeing on the remaining 10%."

Translation: I care about people actually putting child abuse bullshit into games now, not ones who are just opting for indefinite singular they (the one quoted is just as easily a blanket "find/replace" macro, not an effort to erase definite genders... that would just make them guilty of laziness).

Similarly, I'm sick of the BS where, even if you agree on the social issues 100%, if you don't march in lockstep with the OSR way to play, you're a fascist and woke. Pundit and so many others here literally swat away people who'd love to stand with them on the issue of woke intrusion into gaming, but are called fascists and woke because we don't worship in the cargo cult of the OSR... then you bitch about nobody wanting to support your side because you've driven them all away over what sort of elf games they like.

"At this point I fully expect some of the extremists here to label my material as "woke" simply because I choose to write my rule books in the second person it feels more personable and inviting instead of using a dispassionate clinical masculine third person rather than judge by the content."

Huh, didn't see that coming did I?

So again I close with this, because it absolutely befits this thread;

"He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of opposites...He relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them." - C.S. Lewis

The world according to the RPG Site...

(https://i.imgflip.com/7u8ry0.jpg)

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 06:56:25 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 30, 2023, 05:27:28 PM
When sexual abusers start demanding hobbyist publishers facilitate abuse by forcing propaganda into child/young-adult focused hobbies, Chris is too busy to object because Lord Byron once used second-person indefinite plural pronouns.

Besides BOTH sides are the same because in the magical realm of pure rhetoric where we ignore all issues of actual power, history, and harm to real humans, anyone who objects to any language being present in a work is fundamentally motivated by a desire to control someone else's speech.

If you must lie to yourself about what I said to make yourself feel better, that says a lot.

"This feels like the flipside of the Left's microaggressions nonsense; instead of dealing with real outrages, you focus all your attention on peripheral BS and make that into a point of outrage and purity spiraling."

"My contention is that compared to so much else, this issue is akin to complaining about a hangnail after being diagnosed with metastatic cancer. You're trying to fight to reclaim a hill that your side only briefly occupied and was then reclaimed while your whole flank is being bombarded."

Translation: you're ranting about grammar issues instead of focusing on the sexual abusers. I WANT the focus on the sex abusers and not on grammatical case that's now three decades behind enemy lines.

You'd rather just do a performative virtue-signaling rant about grammar on a message board and label anyone who doesn't join into your two-minute hate as an enemy.

I'll admit to poking the bear a bit... but saying the OP was triggered by failure to use their preferred pronouns and then instead of taking even a moment of self-reflection instead launching into an absolute tirade just makes you look even more like the humorless wokescolds you so despise.

"If they start putting ranbowsparklefurries and values into their material is what I care about. Until then I'm sick of seeking out things to get outraged by for the dopamine hit and of alienating people who might agree on 90% because they aren't agreeing on the remaining 10%."

Translation: I care about people actually putting child abuse bullshit into games now, not ones who are just opting for indefinite singular they (the one quoted is just as easily a blanket "find/replace" macro, not an effort to erase definite genders... that would just make them guilty of laziness).

Similarly, I'm sick of the BS where, even if you agree on the social issues 100%, if you don't march in lockstep with the OSR way to play, you're a fascist and woke. Pundit and so many others here literally swat away people who'd love to stand with them on the issue of woke intrusion into gaming, but are called fascists and woke because we don't worship in the cargo cult of the OSR... then you bitch about nobody wanting to support your side because you've driven them all away over what sort of elf games they like.

"At this point I fully expect some of the extremists here to label my material as "woke" simply because I choose to write my rule books in the second person it feels more personable and inviting instead of using a dispassionate clinical masculine third person rather than judge by the content."

Huh, didn't see that coming did I?

So again I close with this, because it absolutely befits this thread;

"He (the devil) always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of opposites...He relies on your extra dislike of one to draw you gradually into the opposite one. But do not let us be fooled. We have to keep our eyes on the goal and go straight through between both errors. We have no other concern than that with either of them." - C.S. Lewis

Translation you'll fight to mantain the linguistic tools that allow them to abuse children and women.

Greetings!

Well, I certainly believe that priorities are meaningful and important--crucial to maintaining sanity, and achieving victory in the culture war we are engaged in.

It is also important to attract and retain allies, everywhere possible. That is important as well.

However, concerning Goodman Games' announcement of editorial policy changes--yes, it seems minor and more or less a "Tempest in a Teapot"--and yet, the dichotomy remains true. Total corruption and defeat starts with the minor things, the baby things, the getting the camel's snout under the tent.

Ignoring that reality is how we have gotten to where we are at, culturally. Too many people smugly laughed and dismissed all such increasing efforts and attempts at corruption by the Woke Marxists as being pathetic, harmless, fringe, and insignificant.

All of those smug elders and know-it-alls were wrong.

In every instance, every episode, good people need to savagely attack and resist these degenerates with flamethrowers and teeth.

If Goodman Games' editorial policy change was merely and innocently an effort to align themselves with the standards of the Chicago Manual of Style--why announce it? Why change previously written and published works? It is precisely because it is not innocent, it is not professional or academic in concern--but rather, ideological. It is public chest-beating and an effort to publicly align themselves with the degenerate mob. VIRTUE SIGNALING.

Let them choke on it. Let fire be their portion!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on July 30, 2023, 07:29:14 PM
Greetings!

Well, I certainly believe that priorities are meaningful and important--crucial to maintaining sanity, and achieving victory in the culture war we are engaged in.

It is also important to attract and retain allies, everywhere possible. That is important as well.

However, concerning Goodman Games' announcement of editorial policy changes--yes, it seems minor and more or less a "Tempest in a Teapot"--and yet, the dichotomy remains true. Total corruption and defeat starts with the minor things, the baby things, the getting the camel's snout under the tent.

Ignoring that reality is how we have gotten to where we are at, culturally. Too many people smugly laughed and dismissed all such increasing efforts and attempts at corruption by the Woke Marxists as being pathetic, harmless, fringe, and insignificant.

All of those smug elders and know-it-alls were wrong.

In every instance, every episode, good people need to savagely attack and resist these degenerates with flamethrowers and teeth.

If Goodman Games' editorial policy change was merely and innocently an effort to align themselves with the standards of the Chicago Manual of Style--why announce it? Why change previously written and published works? It is precisely because it is not innocent, it is not professional or academic in concern--but rather, ideological. It is public chest-beating and an effort to publicly align themselves with the degenerate mob. VIRTUE SIGNALING.

Let them choke on it. Let fire be their portion!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Dang SHARK. You are always much more eloquent than me. This exactly.

There's a difference between pointing out valid concerns (what people think that they're doing here) and yelling into the ether as you go into a purity spiral attacking people who basically agree with you with accusations of grooming, cuz they had the audacity of bringing (valid) nuanced points into the discussion (what's actually going on here).

What no one here has apparently done in decades...
(https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-GZeNv50HaaArQ5rV-0QvGFw-t500x500.jpg)

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on July 30, 2023, 08:08:05 PM

Quote from: SHARK on July 30, 2023, 07:29:14 PM
Greetings!

Well, I certainly believe that priorities are meaningful and important--crucial to maintaining sanity, and achieving victory in the culture war we are engaged in.

It is also important to attract and retain allies, everywhere possible. That is important as well.

However, concerning Goodman Games' announcement of editorial policy changes--yes, it seems minor and more or less a "Tempest in a Teapot"--and yet, the dichotomy remains true. Total corruption and defeat starts with the minor things, the baby things, the getting the camel's snout under the tent.

Ignoring that reality is how we have gotten to where we are at, culturally. Too many people smugly laughed and dismissed all such increasing efforts and attempts at corruption by the Woke Marxists as being pathetic, harmless, fringe, and insignificant.

All of those smug elders and know-it-alls were wrong.

In every instance, every episode, good people need to savagely attack and resist these degenerates with flamethrowers and teeth.

If Goodman Games' editorial policy change was merely and innocently an effort to align themselves with the standards of the Chicago Manual of Style--why announce it? Why change previously written and published works? It is precisely because it is not innocent, it is not professional or academic in concern--but rather, ideological. It is public chest-beating and an effort to publicly align themselves with the degenerate mob. VIRTUE SIGNALING.

Let them choke on it. Let fire be their portion!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Dang SHARK. You are always much more eloquent than me. This exactly.

Greetings!

THORN! Thank you, my friend! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 30, 2023, 08:36:58 PM
There's a difference between pointing out valid concerns (what people think that they're doing here) and yelling into the ether as you go into a purity spiral attacking people who basically agree with you with accusations of grooming, cuz they had the audacity of bringing (valid) nuanced points into the discussion (what's actually going on here).

What no one here has apparently done in decades...
(https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-GZeNv50HaaArQ5rV-0QvGFw-t500x500.jpg)

I haven't seen ANYONE but YOU accussing someone of grooming.

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 30, 2023, 11:27:48 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2023, 10:26:35 AMMy contention is that compared to so much else, this issue is akin to complaining about a hangnail after being diagnosed with metastatic cancer. You're trying to fight to reclaim a hill that your side only briefly occupied and was then reclaimed while your whole flank is being bombarded.

My contention is that people like you ignored all the hangnails, and laughed at anyone that was concerned about them, and the hangnails turned cancerous. Then you want to focus on the existing cancer, and ignore the new hangnails. You have no ability to see chain of events, or to learn from past mistakes.

It's a variation on the "starving children in Africa" argument. That there's always something worse going on, and you cannot express any opinions on anything while something worse in the wide world is out there begging for our immediate attention.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 30, 2023, 10:12:37 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on July 30, 2023, 08:36:58 PM
There's a difference between pointing out valid concerns (what people think that they're doing here) and yelling into the ether as you go into a purity spiral attacking people who basically agree with you with accusations of grooming, cuz they had the audacity of bringing (valid) nuanced points into the discussion (what's actually going on here).

What no one here has apparently done in decades...
(https://i1.sndcdn.com/artworks-GZeNv50HaaArQ5rV-0QvGFw-t500x500.jpg)

I haven't seen ANYONE but YOU accussing someone of grooming.

Quote from: Zelen on July 30, 2023, 05:27:28 PM
When sexual abusers start demanding hobbyist publishers facilitate abuse by forcing propaganda into child/young-adult focused hobbies, Chris is too busy to object because Lord Byron once used second-person indefinite plural pronouns.

Besides BOTH sides are the same because in the magical realm of pure rhetoric where we ignore all issues of actual power, history, and harm to real humans, anyone who objects to any language being present in a work is fundamentally motivated by a desire to control someone else's speech.

If you don't agree with us (or provide any push back/alternate views) you must be in league/enabling sexual abusers going after children (i.e. "groomers").

Last time I checked, the worst of the "groomers" and sexual predators were the legion of rich, white, heterosexual White guys patronizing Jeffrey Epstein's home. And, it should be pointed out, these same guys straddled both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum. All this "gay/woke people are sex predators" rhetoric is barely a step above the anti-Semitic slurs of Nazi Germany. I am not saying you are Nazis, but your blind blubbering of stereotypes and lies is in the same corner of the universe.

It is one thing to criticize the extent to which gay/woke supporters are trying to empower similar young people with language, books, etc. that reflect an identity, but it is a whole other thing to accuse that community of sex crimes and conspiracies to harm children.

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 31, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
All this "gay/woke people are sex predators"... gay/woke supporters...

Do you think 'gay' and 'woke' are the same thing?

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 31, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
It is one thing to criticize the extent to which gay/woke supporters are trying to empower similar young people with language, books, etc. that reflect an identity, but it is a whole other thing to accuse that community of sex crimes and conspiracies to harm children.

See, this is why it's important to push back on the little things, like pronouns.  The next thing will be changing the terminology so that pervs can defend grooming by calling it "empowering."  When a child's library book at school encourages him to experiment with sex, it's grooming...

Quote from: S'mon on July 31, 2023, 09:29:55 AM

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 31, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
All this "gay/woke people are sex predators"... gay/woke supporters...

Do you think 'gay' and 'woke' are the same thing?

I bet he also thinks calling out pedos is homophobic and that Gays Against Groomers are also homophobic. He's THAT dumb.

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 31, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
Last time I checked, the worst of the "groomers" and sexual predators were the legion of rich, white, heterosexual White guys patronizing Jeffrey Epstein's home. And, it should be pointed out, these same guys straddled both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum. All this "gay/woke people are sex predators" rhetoric is barely a step above the anti-Semitic slurs of Nazi Germany. I am not saying you are Nazis, but your blind blubbering of stereotypes and lies is in the same corner of the universe.

It is one thing to criticize the extent to which gay/woke supporters are trying to empower similar young people with language, books, etc. that reflect an identity, but it is a whole other thing to accuse that community of sex crimes and conspiracies to harm children.

(https://i.giphy.com/media/l2ZDN6z07Z5vNInte/giphy.webp)

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 31, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
Last time I checked, the worst of the "groomers" and sexual predators were the legion of rich, white, heterosexual White guys patronizing Jeffrey Epstein's home. And, it should be pointed out, these same guys straddled both sides of the liberal/conservative spectrum. All this "gay/woke people are sex predators" rhetoric is barely a step above the anti-Semitic slurs of Nazi Germany. I am not saying you are Nazis, but your blind blubbering of stereotypes and lies is in the same corner of the universe.

It is one thing to criticize the extent to which gay/woke supporters are trying to empower similar young people with language, books, etc. that reflect an identity, but it is a whole other thing to accuse that community of sex crimes and conspiracies to harm children.

Maybe they should stop fucking kids then

Quote from: Domina on August 02, 2023, 03:08:30 PM
Maybe they should stop fucking kids then

Or threatening people who dare to keep kids safe from their agenda.

https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1681844952362303490

EDIT: Before Pundit steps in, we should probably go back on-topic to DCC and/or the general woke stupidity taking over gaming.

Plenty of modern media is marketed to women, but none to men. Even action movies fall over themselves to have a female co-lead who is as good or better than the men.

Women get their love stories, girl boss movies, etc; where are the musclebound ass kicking male fantasy movies of yesteryear? It's not that men changed, companies simply refuse to cater to this demographic. What have we got, the Fast And The Furious crap with its middle aged grunters?

TTRPGs are the same. We're not allowed a single game where mostly male heroes go around kicking ass and rescuing maidens. Every single god damned game world has to be diversified to some Portlandia view of what's proper. So here we have a game that had that old school vibe, so of course it had to be subverted.

Just a little corner where we could have musclebound warriors rescuing hot chicks, that's all we ask. But of course you can't let anyone escape The Message.

"It's just a small change to be more inclusive you shitlords!"

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 03, 2023, 05:06:03 PM
"It's just a small change to be more inclusive you shitlords!"

Ignoring the stupid trans stuff, at what point would either of these NPCs be helpful to a GM?  A beard-stylist who specializes in helping injured dwarves regrow beards?  How much more metropolitan could they possibly be?  Even if I was running a high magic, high civilization campaign, these NPCs border on farcical so much that my table would get mad if I introduced them.  What's next, a gender-queer dwarven beer barista, who specializes in foam designs on the head of the beer?  Oh god, I might have given them an idea!

These West Coast liberals are completely unable to conceive of anything outside themselves or their little lives.  It's pathetic...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 03, 2023, 05:06:03 PM
"It's just a small change to be more inclusive you shitlords!"

Bwahahaha! I really appreciate all these companies telling me to keep my money in my wallet or spending my gaming dollar elsewhere.

The thing is, I can see some smartazz saying, well this will get them to spend money with baizuo.

The thing is, I suspect, though don't have any real proof, that the people who buy this product, just to support baizuo, are not repeat spenders. The don't support the hobby for the hobbies sake. They just virtue signal buy......kinda like all those with coyote & crow.

After reading this thread, I've got the sudden urge to try and find the "GAME WHICH SHOULD NOT BE NAMED FOR IT'S NAME IS ACCURSED AND WRETCHED AS ARE IT'S d1000 TABLES". Push back is nice and all, but how far is too far?
nb ~ i'm not arguing against pushing back, but lets not be reactionaries about this!

Quote from: consolcwby on August 03, 2023, 07:25:22 PM
After reading this thread, I've got the sudden urge to try and find the "GAME WHICH SHOULD NOT BE NAMED FOR IT'S NAME IS ACCURSED AND WRETCHED AS ARE IT'S d1000 TABLES". Push back is nice and all, but how far is too far?
nb ~ i'm not arguing against pushing back, but lets not be reactionaries about this!

Translation: Pushback is fine as long as it's in silence.

"reactionaries" is a leftard buzzword.

Do you know what reverse trolling is?! DO NOT FALL FOR IT! That's all I'm saying. And the term "Reactionary" is EXACTLY what they want you to be.
Unless you are suggesting something.
Are you suggesting something?
What are you suggesting?
?

Quote from: consolcwby on August 03, 2023, 08:17:39 PM
Do you know what reverse trolling is?! DO NOT FALL FOR IT! That's all I'm saying. And the term "Reactionary" is EXACTLY what they want you to be.
Unless you are suggesting something.
Are you suggesting something?
What are you suggesting?
?

Unless one knows you how would one know you're trolling?

As for reactionary: One who wants to preserve the status quo, who is against the revolution.

Since the status quo is everything LGBTMNOP I'm a revolutionary.

Then be more careful - choose the hill to die on. For me, it's a much bigger fish than pronouns.  I want to stop the death camps from happening:
https://wibx950.com/why-did-the-u-s-government-purchase-30000-guillotines/
https://www.change.org/p/us-congress-repeal-all-noahide-laws-and-proclamations-in-the-usa

Never let the overton window stop moving to the right until it needs to!

BTW, I'm first against the wall. THEY PROMISED! xD

Quote from: consolcwby on August 03, 2023, 08:42:23 PM
Then be more careful - choose the hill to die on. For me, it's a much bigger fish than pronouns.  I want to stop the death camps from happening:
https://wibx950.com/why-did-the-u-s-government-purchase-30000-guillotines/
https://www.change.org/p/us-congress-repeal-all-noahide-laws-and-proclamations-in-the-usa

Never let the overton window stop moving to the right until it needs to!

BTW, I'm first against the wall. THEY PROMISED! xD

If you don't stop the cammel from putting it's nose in the tent, soon you'll be out of it.

The last video I shared show perfectly the progression, from using they "to be inclusive" to pushing gender ideology on the product.

Those links would be better in pundit's forum, this forum is for RPGs, only politics regarding those are allowed and you should know it.

Quote from: consolcwby on August 03, 2023, 07:25:22 PM
After reading this thread, I've got the sudden urge to try and find the "GAME WHICH SHOULD NOT BE NAMED FOR IT'S NAME IS ACCURSED AND WRETCHED AS ARE IT'S d1000 TABLES". Push back is nice and all, but how far is too far?
nb ~ i'm not arguing against pushing back, but lets not be reactionaries about this!

Why shouldn't we be reactionaries?

Quote from: Domina on August 03, 2023, 11:47:24 PM
Why shouldn't we be reactionaries?

I would recommend going back to using "he, him, his" as neutral pronouns.
That Overton window thing needs to be kicked back a few decades.
Support the patriarchy.  8)

Quote from: consolcwby on August 03, 2023, 08:17:39 PM
Do you know what reverse trolling is?! DO NOT FALL FOR IT! That's all I'm saying. And the term "Reactionary" is EXACTLY what they want you to be.
Unless you are suggesting something.
Are you suggesting something?
What are you suggesting?
?

Why should we give a shit what someone wants, or doesn't want, us to be? If someone is pissing on my shoes, and I get mad about it, don't go "Bro, don't be reactionary, that's what they want!"

What if it's what we want?

Quote from: Grognard GM on August 04, 2023, 06:06:04 PM

Quote from: consolcwby on August 03, 2023, 08:17:39 PM
Do you know what reverse trolling is?! DO NOT FALL FOR IT! That's all I'm saying. And the term "Reactionary" is EXACTLY what they want you to be.
Unless you are suggesting something.
Are you suggesting something?
What are you suggesting?
?

Why should we give a shit what someone wants, or doesn't want, us to be? If someone is pissing on my shoes, and I get mad about it, don't go "Bro, don't be reactionary, that's what they want!"

What if it's what we want?

I've NEVER had a person give me trouble to my face vis-a-vis woke crap.  Only online where they cannot be properly dealt with.  So, I ignore them

I am so proud of those of you waging the great fight against sexual predators by criticizing pronouns in books. How brave of you.

Some of you are such homophobic idiots it would be laughable if not so sad. I pray those in your personal life, including almost assuredly some in your family, don't get to hear you spout this crap at the dinner table. But then they probably do.

Quote from: GamerforHire on August 06, 2023, 10:47:11 PM
I am so proud of those of you waging the great fight against sexual predators by criticizing pronouns in books. How brave of you.

Some of you are such homophobic idiots it would be laughable if not so sad. I pray those in your personal life, including almost assuredly some in your family, don't get to hear you spout this crap at the dinner table. But then they probably do.

Who is waging a war against sexual predators?  I don't think anyone here is law enforcement but I'm sure all sane people are against sexual predators.  What ARE you inanely blathering on about?

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 31, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
All this "gay/woke people are sex predators" rhetoric is barely a step above the anti-Semitic slurs of Nazi Germany.

Wrong moron.  Two of the most powerful sexual predators are woke & gay people.   Oprah Winfrey and Quincey Jones.

At LEAST rent a clue before posting insanity.

Quote from: Domina on August 03, 2023, 11:47:24 PM

Quote from: consolcwby on August 03, 2023, 07:25:22 PM
After reading this thread, I've got the sudden urge to try and find the "GAME WHICH SHOULD NOT BE NAMED FOR IT'S NAME IS ACCURSED AND WRETCHED AS ARE IT'S d1000 TABLES". Push back is nice and all, but how far is too far?
nb ~ i'm not arguing against pushing back, but lets not be reactionaries about this!

Why shouldn't we be reactionaries?

Exactly. The term has gotten a negative connotation from the wokies wielding it as a political tool.

Any criticism is dismissed as "reactionary" and "extreme". It's telling how many people show up to threads like this to try and quash dissent.

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 31, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
Last time I checked, the worst of the "groomers" and sexual predators were the legion of rich, white, heterosexual White guys patronizing Jeffrey Epstein's home.

You should probably check again.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 06, 2023, 11:18:55 PM

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 31, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
Last time I checked, the worst of the "groomers" and sexual predators were the legion of rich, white, heterosexual White guys patronizing Jeffrey Epstein's home.

You should probably check again.

Ya know something?  There is only ONE type of person that gets upset when sexual predators are hunted/attacked...  Now I'm glad this site registers a posters IP address

Quote from: Scooter on August 06, 2023, 11:10:38 PM

Quote from: GamerforHire on July 31, 2023, 09:13:27 AM
All this "gay/woke people are sex predators" rhetoric is barely a step above the anti-Semitic slurs of Nazi Germany.

Wrong moron.  Two of the most powerful sexual predators are woke & gay people.   Oprah Winfrey and Quincey Jones.  Also there is a VERY large and organized group of HOMOSEXUALS that works on sexually assaulting LITTLE  boys.  There is no such similar group of heterosexual men

At LEAST rent a clue before posting insanity.

I just can't get over the idea, that the makers of the Hardcore RPG are bothered with pronouns.  They really had something cool.  They should have held the line, and stayed silent about the pronoun silliness.  You know, just be an RPG company.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 07, 2023, 11:17:01 PM
I just can't get over the idea, that the makers of the Hardcore RPG are bothered with pronouns.  They really had something cool.  They should have held the line, and stayed silent about the pronoun silliness.  You know, just be an RPG company.

Rorgard the Thief: Nice job, Hank! You massacred cultists, decapitated the witch king, and burned his corpse to a heap of charred bones.

Hank Cutsoffalot: Their corpse!

I still have my original DCC stuff from 2012 should I get the urge to run it. Their currently printed stuff doesn't concern me because my book still works just fine.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 08, 2023, 10:13:41 AM
I still have my original DCC stuff from 2012 should I get the urge to run it. Their currently printed stuff doesn't concern me because my book still works just fine.

Comrade, you need to turn in your books to get the NEW AND IMPROVED versions. Non-compliance will be a strike on your social credit score. You DO like eating food, don't you?

Quote from: Brad on August 08, 2023, 01:22:10 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 08, 2023, 10:13:41 AM
I still have my original DCC stuff from 2012 should I get the urge to run it. Their currently printed stuff doesn't concern me because my book still works just fine.

Comrade, you need to turn in your books to get the NEW AND IMPROVED versions. Non-compliance will be a strike on your social credit score. You DO like eating food, don't you?

Why yes of course I like the new bouncy bubble beverage. All hail the computer

Quote from: GamerforHire on August 06, 2023, 10:47:11 PM
I am so proud of those of you waging the great fight against sexual predators by criticizing pronouns in books. How brave of you.

Some of you are such homophobic idiots it would be laughable if not so sad. I pray those in your personal life, including almost assuredly some in your family, don't get to hear you spout this crap at the dinner table. But then they probably do.

My family is normal and they all agree with me. Heterosexuality is superior. Stay furious.

Quote from: Domina on August 08, 2023, 10:09:51 PM


My family is normal and they all agree with me. Heterosexuality is superior. Stay furious.

Oxford Dictionary of the ENGLISH Language.

normal  def. 5. b.  A heterosexual person

@consolcwby
It wasn't a rhetorical question. Answer me, coward.