Quote from: Chris24601;1104606It's kinda akin to saying you can't include Nazis in a game called "World World II: Allied Special Forces" (side-bar: I would TOTALLY play that game) isn't it?

No... it's like saying you can't play Wehrmacht or SS Troops serving Nazi Germany in a game set in 1965.

I mean, dude, you know that in the real wild west there was no CSA, right? That the period that most people think of as THE "Wild West" really started after (and in many ways BECAUSE) of the end of the Civil War, right?

Also, a reminder, everyone: keep this to the subject of gaming.

Quote from: Orphan81;1104916"This game I bought once or never played and just let sit on my shelf and collect dust is changing! Grr those SJW's they ruined something I didn't have much interest in to begin with, but I see all potential progressive changes as bad no matter what!"

Yeah, The arguments I'm seeing against the change basically boil down to this. Either people who never played Deadlands.. or people who bought the Corebook and maybe a supplement and haven't touched it in years.

Um. Did you conveniently miss the various posters mentioning just how much they have played the game? Guess so.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1105048No... it's like saying you can't play Wehrmacht or SS Troops serving Nazi Germany in a game set in 1965.

In regard to that, I think it's a strength of the RPG hobby that you can play truly abhorrent characters (once in a while) which gives you a perspective on (failing) human nature. Vampire was all about that (well, that and the edgelord stuff :-).

Regarding Deadlands, I've no strong opinion on the matter. I'm just curious how all of this hoopla will shake down for Shane Hensley.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1105048I mean, dude, you know that in the real wild west there was no CSA, right? That the period that most people think of as THE "Wild West" really started after (and in many ways BECAUSE) of the end of the Civil War, right?

That's the issue. There are very few gamers that want to play in an actual "real" wild west. There isn't a single "real" wild west game that's even close the popularity of Deadlands. The wacky alt-history stuff was the main appeal.

Next, the new version of Space: 1889 won't have spaceships because spaceships didn't exist in the real 1889.

Now that you mention it, a James Bond game set in an alternate 1962 where the Nazis won WW2 sounds pretty cool.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1105048No... it's like saying you can't play Wehrmacht or SS Troops serving Nazi Germany in a game set in 1965.

I mean, dude, you know that in the real wild west there was no CSA, right? That the period that most people think of as THE "Wild West" really started after (and in many ways BECAUSE) of the end of the Civil War, right?

It's fun to see Pundit so torn. While this change is mainly because actual people expressed real concern to Shane at conventions, it's also making the setting more historically accurate and make a lot more sense.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1105048No... it's like saying you can't play Wehrmacht or SS Troops serving Nazi Germany in a game set in 1965.

I mean, dude, you know that in the real wild west there was no CSA, right? That the period that most people think of as THE "Wild West" really started after (and in many ways BECAUSE) of the end of the Civil War, right?

No. It's like saying you're doing an RPG where the conceit of WWII is magic appears and the Nazis didn't get crushed for and existed into 1965.

No one is saying, or implying, anything about Deadlands is supposed to be *REAL*.

Quote from: tenbones;1105083No one is saying, or implying, anything about Deadlands is supposed to be *REAL*.

But it uses real historical elements in a way that is being argued to offend a portion of the target audience base in a way the rest of the audience base is supposed (in both senses of the term) to object to.

Parallel example: One of the criticisms I have of the Unisystem game Armageddon is that, as a Catholic, I find its in-setting metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the afterlife, angels, God and religion offensive. As a result, while I own the game and enjoy ransacking it for ideas, I would never play it straight as written. But does anyone think for a second that no matter how much I, or other Christian gamers, berated C.J. Carella over this, that (a) he would be at all likely to release a greatly-revised version of the game which got the theology correct, or (b) a large chunk of the game's fanbase wouldn't immediately accuse him of "pandering to religious nutjobs" if he did?

Now in practice of course I've never called for a boycott of the game, or publicly berated Mr. Carella in any forum over it. I think the game's in-setting metaphysics are wrong but I can see why, for the purposes of creating an entertaining game (and for staying out of real-world theological disagreements!), Mr. Carella used the concepts he did. The point of the comparison is not to claim that I have just as much of a case as people offended by a "redeemed" CSA, but to highlight the basic inconsistency: If using fictionalized versions of real-world elements in a way that offends the portion of the fanbase affected by, or invested in, those elements is objectively wrong, then Deadlands is far from the first, only or worst offender of this type. Conversely, if it's not objectively wrong -- and anyone with an investment in free speech has to lean more towards this stance than the opposite, I think -- then some skepticism about the reasons for both what critics choose to get upset about, and what creators choose to apologize for and self-correct, is merited.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1105073Next, the new version of Space: 1889 won't have spaceships because spaceships didn't exist in the real 1889.

No, an updated "Space: 1889" should decrease or eliminate the racism and bigotry of the setting and make it more like the way people interact at Steampunk conventions.  That would make it much more playable for beginners.

-Ed C.

I wonder if the closest parallel in the hobby's history might be TSR's sidelining demons and devils during 2nd Edition.

Instead of jettisoning the original setting which seems to have got them all those awards and customers... why not just release this new setting as an alternative timeline? Make it an adventure and give the players and DM the option to use the new timeline only if so desired?

That way you have a product for players offended at the original setting, while not offending players used to said original setting.

Quote from: Omega;1105098Instead of jettisoning the original setting which seems to have got them all those awards and customers... why not just release this new setting as an alternative timeline? Make it an adventure and give the players and DM the option to use the new timeline only if so desired?

Probably there aren't enough resources available to support a new timeline in full without detracting from the support for existing setting/timelines. The whole point of a reboot or upgrade is to reallocate resources to the new product line.

Planned obsolescence is a thing in RPGs too.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1105089But it uses real historical elements in a way that is being argued to offend a portion of the target audience base in a way the rest of the audience base is supposed (in both senses of the term) to object to.

Stipulated. The meat of your statement, to me, is: to what degree am I supposed to be invested in the perceived offense that exists in other people's minds? At that point I'm being forced to deal with their entire misperception of history, philosophy, religion, logic and a whole host of stuff that are red flags that should preclude them from gaming in general. OR at least they should be excusing themselves from consuming such content.

But that only reveals the REAL deeper problem: It's the pretext that somehow the fact that this fictional view of the game setting somehow changes reality. That someone is going to believe that whatever fictional narrative purported in Deadlands is somehow going to make people operate from it as if it *might* be true. This is the Satanic Panic Defense.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1105089Parallel example: One of the criticisms I have of the Unisystem game Armageddon is that, as a Catholic, I find its in-setting metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the afterlife, angels, God and religion offensive. As a result, while I own the game and enjoy ransacking it for ideas, I would never play it straight as written. But does anyone think for a second that no matter how much I, or other Christian gamers, berated C.J. Carella over this, that (a) he would be at all likely to release a greatly-revised version of the game which got the theology correct, or (b) a large chunk of the game's fanbase wouldn't immediately accuse him of "pandering to religious nutjobs" if he did?

This is an *excellent* point to compare the two. So let's do a consistency check...

For the record - I'm a former Catholic, raised in it, even went to Jesuit University - but not Catholic or Christian anymore. I'm saying this only to tell you that I really understand where you're coming from. But at no point *ever* do I draw any kind of direct correlation between my beliefs (I'm not an Atheist), or the entertainment I consume - unless the product is designed explicitly by the creators to offend.

But here is where the rubber hits the road. My individual desire is to consume something for my own personal edification and entertainment. I do not presume others can read my mind, nor should others presume to read mine. If something I'm going to consume is clearly not designed to intentionally shit upon me, then I don't ever assume the product is necessarily a reflection of the creator's beliefs. It stands on its own.

When it comes to religion - which is what makes your point so crystal to me - that strikes about as deep as one can get when its comes to personal beliefs. And as someone that has grown up steeped in religion, I really really understand how it motivates people and informs their paradigm. And to this day - I am very cognizantly aware of it. That is precisely why I think the reaction to Deadlands, and Insectional Politics is idiotic.

Because I've never accepted literalism in my religious views, but I understand the power of them. I know that most entertainment interactions with those ideas are FICTION by intent and they're intended for the edification and entertainment of their consumers. I don't identify with the entertainment personally. I identify with my beliefs - but those believes do not define me. The problem is Intersectionality is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It's codifying it's claims as reality in a literal sense like a religion, and demanding that its paradigm must define the collective minds that partake in it. Classic fundamentalism.

The Deadlands setting is representative of History as a fictional agent to be entertainment. Period. It's not a call to re-write history to justify the CSA, or imply anything other than to acknowledge that due to the conceits of the setting and its time period, that it's accounted for, for the purposes of the GAME.

If someone is offended by someone's ideas, or ideas presented in a product - you only have to 1) not consume it 2)spend some effort to see whether there is any value in engaging in it for *whatever* reason floats your boat. If one's beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can't stand up to their use as a work of fiction, context not withstanding, then that's says more about you than anything else. Assuming of course we agree people should be free to think whatever they want. If you disagree with that basic premise (and I'm not saying you are) - then that's pretty much the end of the disucssion, heh. But otherwise... we're have everything to talk about then!

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1105089Now in practice of course I've never called for a boycott of the game, or publicly berated Mr. Carella in any forum over it. I think the game's in-setting metaphysics are wrong but I can see why, for the purposes of creating an entertaining game (and for staying out of real-world theological disagreements!), Mr. Carella used the concepts he did.

And here is where you prove our larger point. The LARGER point. It's not that some people aren't going to pearl-clutch THEIR beliefs about Christian cosmology and find outrage at any presentation of their religion in a manner different than theirs as evil. It's that there are larger frameworks at play here that may have nothing to do with you. (Which is how you get hundreds/thousands of different denominations of the same religion).

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1105089The point of the comparison is not to claim that I have just as much of a case as people offended by a "redeemed" CSA, but to highlight the basic inconsistency: If using fictionalized versions of real-world elements in a way that offends the portion of the fanbase affected by, or invested in, those elements is objectively wrong, then Deadlands is far from the first, only or worst offender of this type. Conversely, if it's not objectively wrong -- and anyone with an investment in free speech has to lean more towards this stance than the opposite, I think -- then some skepticism about the reasons for both what critics choose to get upset about, and what creators choose to apologize for and self-correct, is merited.

And this is where I say: It absolutely is not objectively wrong. You know why? Because if it is - the implications are that only one group of Chosen People have only the Right Beliefs and that justifies the horrors we as a species have committed historically in trying to impose that idea on everyone that may not have even had that thought cross their minds.

I think we're both smart enough to realize no one has it right. The best case is to use a taxonomy of principles and virtues and ply them together.

People on the left with their Intersectional Religion, a system that is literally retarded and incapable of that kind of scalable thought, as a CONCEIT of it's construction. It makes precisely zero predictions about what their Utopia looks like or operates from. They merely want to control people's thoughts and behaviors. The ignorant - like in all religions, just march to the step of those leading the parade.

That is what is at the heart of this.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1105097I wonder if the closest parallel in the hobby's history might be TSR's sidelining demons and devils during 2nd Edition.

They didnt quite totally sideline the demons and devils. Just renamed them. Monster Manual page 11. Baatezu. Though only 4 are presented. A Pit Fiend and three Abashai.  And two Taanri on page 337. They did though remove the Assassin class.

But the infernal beasties would get alot more coverage in the Compendiums eventually as Planescape gained steam.

The obsession with Slavery today as a quasi-religious dogma is mindboggling. And I'm saying that as a person whose people were slaves at the same time as Africans in America for centuries.

I don't believe this is an actual thing. I think it's people virtue-signalling for their LARP Religion.

Outrage is a virtue and they're willing to prove it by doing all the fascist shit we already know they do. Shane is just trying to head it off at the pass.