Have they added anything positive to the world of RPGs?
Quote from: Razor 007;1133483Have they added anything positive to the world of RPGs?
Not sure I understand fully the definition of what a SJW is anymore. I do think a whole lot of people who spend a bit too much energy virtue signaling do contribute to RPGs. I think lots of people who trend left are good at art/writing/creative. I think a better question might be if left leaning people letting nutjobs try to push them over an edge has done anything for RPGs. I say all this because SJW can be a degree and relativity question, and I think there are a whole bunch of virtue signaling folks who I have no idea what they really think, but they put up a front to avoid shitstorms. The people who rush to cancel, who IME from what I have seen create nothing, anywhere have certainly done nothing for anyone, anywhere, much less RPGs.
I would argue that Eclipse Phase was a significant contribution to the transhumanist sci-fi genre in RPGs and those developers are extremely left.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1133487I would argue that Eclipse Phase was a significant contribution to the transhumanist sci-fi genre in RPGs and those developers are extremely left.
Which begs the question, is just being left SJW? I am not so sure it is.
Quote from: oggsmash;1133488Which begs the question, is just being left SJW? I am not so sure it is.
The question begging to be questioned here is: What's the point of this thread? Have black people ever contributed to the hobby? Have gay people? Poor people? Religious?
WTF people.
Quote from: Itachi;1133489The question begging to be questioned here is: What's the point of this thread? Have black people ever contributed to the hobby? Have gay people? Poor people? Religious?
WTF people.
Two of those things aren't like the others, and only the last one can be argued to be the equivalent of the SJW, so I call strawman and false equivalence.
SJW = Extreme left control freak, puritan, anti-sex, holier than thou ass-wipe.
Religious Fundamentalist = Extreme Right control freak, puritan, anti-sex, holier than thou ass-wipe.
I argue that the latter were "contributing" to the TTRPG hobby in the 80's, if it was of value I'll say no.
Similarly right now, the former are "contributing" to the TTRPG hobby, with the exact same amount of value being added to it.
Quote from: Itachi;1133489The question begging to be questioned here is: What's the point of this thread? Have black people ever contributed to the hobby? Have gay people? Poor people? Religious?
WTF people.
Being a SJW is the same as being a race, sexual orientation or a religion? I can buy religion, they seem to have a good deal of zealot behavior.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1133487I would argue that Eclipse Phase was a significant contribution to the transhumanist sci-fi genre in RPGs and those developers are extremely left.
Quote from: oggsmash;1133488Which begs the question, is just being left SJW? I am not so sure it is.
Not necessarily. Not that the Left/Right terms mean anything anymore, though, I do believe that "SJWs" have taken over whatever the "Left" now is. But theoretically someone being "left" doesn't automatically make them a SJW, cuz being a SJWs is more about an attitude and specific ideology than being "left" alone.
For example, Grim Jim (formerly of Inappropriate Characters) identifies as "Left" and as a socialist, but he's an anti-SJWs and has been hounded by them. I also think that he once mentioned (a few years ago) an incident with the Eclipse Phase designers engaging discriminatory SJW stuff or something, but don't remember the details. Think it may have been in one of his videos, but it was a long time ago. But I guess
some "SJWs" may have contributed something to the hobby after all.
Quote from: Itachi;1133489The question begging to be questioned here is: What's the point of this thread? Have black people ever contributed to the hobby? Have gay people? Poor people? Religious?
WTF people.
The entire Cyberpunk RPG product line, along with several other R. Talsorian Games products and a bunch of other stuff, were created by a black guy (Mike Pondsmith) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pondsmith) so there's that.
Quote from: Razor 007;1133483Have they added anything positive to the world of RPGs?
Short answer, yes.
Longer answer: there are tons of perfectly good games out there that have been worked on, even created, by people who identify as SJWs. This of course has fuck-all to do with the SJW ideology. It's not surprising, either. Just because someone's incompetent in some regards doesn't mean they are(or that we should expect them to be) incompetent in all regards. Some of them can paint. Some can sing. And some can write interesting mechanics and settings.
Terrible people can be talented, y'all!
Quote from: Razor 007;1133483Have they added anything positive to the world of RPGs?
So far? No. None at all. Nothing.
They consistently diminish whatever they touch or try to "represent" by doing it in such a way that it is offensive or detrimental to furthering anything other than increased tensions and ever increasing calls for censorship and suppression of whatever today they hallucinate is offensive.
I think it's the "warrior" in the term that's the problem. Social Justice is like "anti-harm" or "life" or "puppies" it's generic, it's safe to say that few people will stand against it and those who do will be seen as unreasonable: puppy warriors, anti-harm warriors, life warriors Anyhow, warriors want to fight, warriors are undisciplined and poorly trained rabble when compared with soldiers. So, what we're talking about is undisciplined rabble looking for a fight, social justice is just an excuse, a moving goal post that can safely be pushed just beyond any who oppose them.
That and "Social Justice" is too easily abused an ideal just like Political Correctness before it and Moral Guardian before that and so on.
These "movements" are invariably built on either some "problem" that must be fixed that usually hasnt been a problem for a while, if ever. Or calls for some form of censoring. Usually "think of the children!" or sometimes "to protect the minorities!" or both. But never actually do anything for the cause or people they are supposedly "helping" other than to make things worse or nothing changes as all they do is try to censor media or rile up people against "oppression".
And they have some new buzzword or two that they force on everyone to use or else get pained as racist or whatever-ist.
This is why people get so resistant. This is why the people they are trying to "help" get resistant, or outright hostile. We seen it before. You aint fooling us.
Dungeon World, simplest fantasy rpg to run ever.
The proper term is Social Justice Fighter.
Fighters are real. Like Freedom Fighter. Liberation Fighter.
Warriors are from colonist, largely white racist cultures. And are associated with power-fantasies. Which are not real. SCIENCE people. Don't deny my science.
Edit: seriously, I don't care. If anything, the silver-lining on this shit-colored cloud that has descended on our hobby (and culture at large) is that it shows many people how stupid humans really are and serves as something we should endeavor to avoid in the future. Assuming there is a future from this.)
Quote from: oggsmash;1133494Being a SJW is the same as being a race, sexual orientation or a religion? I can buy religion, they seem to have a good deal of zealot behavior.
The reasoning is the same: a preconception based on a characteristic that's orthogonal to the capacity to produce quality works. Anyone can produce quality (or bad) works, whatever their ethny, religion, political stance or whatever.
A more interesting discussion would be: are there overt pamphletary or opiniated games that are actually good from a pure gameplay POV?
Quote from: Itachi;1133645The reasoning is the same: a preconception based on a characteristic that's orthogonal to the capacity to produce quality works.
Anyone can produce quality (or bad) works, whatever their ethny, religion, political stance or whatever.
Nope, you're born with sex, race and sexual orientation. Immutable characteristics.
Religion, communism, socjus, are ideologies, you have to be inducted into them and then choose to stay in them.
"Anyone" can produce quality works. But the question isn't can they? The question is HAVE they?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1133647Nope, you're born with sex, race and sexual orientation. Immutable characteristics.
Religion, communism, socjus, are ideologies, you have to be inducted into them and then choose to stay in them.
"Anyone" can produce quality works. But the question isn't can they? The question is HAVE they?
Haven't authors and artists of different ideologies produced quality work?
There, you have your answer. Why would the RPG field (or any other) be different?
Quote from: Itachi;1133650Haven't authors and artists of different ideologies produced quality work?
There, you have your answer. Why would the RPG field (or any other) be different?
For starters quality is a subjective term, so someone could (as they indeed did) say Dungeon World is an example of SocJusZealots producing quality work and therefore contributing to the hobby. But even granting them that DW is an RPG and that it did contribute to the hobby, donkeys, flutes and all that.
Personally I think the question should be if their contributions (what ever they might be) have outweighed all the detriment they bring.
And, it is from that point of view that I can say honestly NO. No matter what they might have contributed, their total contributions amount to negative numbers since they destroy way more than they build.
It's best to separate Creator from Creation. Otherwise, you have to sift every creative endeavor through ideological filters.
Of course, if something is overtly political or ideological, that's an easy pass because with many of those projects its clear the Creation isn't anything more than a propaganda piece disguised as a game.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1133658It's best to separate Creator from Creation. Otherwise, you have to sift every creative endeavor through ideological filters.
Of course, if something is overtly political or ideological, that's an easy pass because with many of those projects its clear the Creation isn't anything more than a propaganda piece disguised as a game.
I was literally just having this conversation with my editor wife. She was lamenting that writers today are *afraid* of doing normal adventure fiction today with heroic men AND women that are straight because big publishing houses (most of them) **require** diversity in their stories. Writers that are largely heterosexual and don't want to be forced into virtue signalling are a dying breed. They exist... but it will become increasingly rare.
The notion being that any attempts to do some baseline heroic shit we'd identify as standard adventure fare, *will* be attacked for not having enough
in it, or some faux outrage at perceived normal behavior or descriptions - purely for the sake of outrage.
Nevermind the inevitable social-media trolling the Usual Suspects will go through looking for something to pin on the author. This is precisely why H.P. Lovecraft's works are now verboten, Heinlein, pretty much all the classic authors will fall to this zealotry in the long run.
There is a spreadsheet that Editors-at-large keep of payscales of authors as offered forth voluntarily on from publishing house editors - among the literal tables-fields in the spreadsheet (I shit you not) is Race of the Author and Sexual Orientation. This is coming from the Publishers... or independently volunteered information from independent editors to the publishing houses.
And under the Sexual Orientation column... I would *eyeball*, conservatively, at least 45% of the authors identify as Gay, Bi-Sexual, Pan-Sexual, Other-than-CIS. The straight people are forced to identify as CIS.
Yeah it's one of the reasons I'm going alternative routes in my publishing. Strange bedfellows are being made.
What GeekyBugle strawmanned is in my opinion simply a fascist. Same desire, different politics.
I think Pundit's proselytization of the term SJW as a pejorative is misled. He targeted it because these bad actors self-identified and he wanted to skewer them for their faux-activism trying to set the pace from their couch spitting at a monitor.
I think there should be a new term to succinctly identify the bad actors who want to control, censor, and rule. Fascist Outrage Oppressor. FOO. As in "that FOO is so far up my ass I can feel their shoelaces on my butt hole".
It's censorship, cancel culture, and fraught hang-wringing do what I tell you and don't dissent behavior (bullshit) that is the problem.
Do FOOs contribute anything to the hobby? Nope. If they were contributing they wouldn't have time to be FOOs.
Quote from: trechriron;1133680What GeekyBugle strawmanned is in my opinion simply a fascist. Same desire, different politics.
I think Pundit's proselytization of the term SJW as a pejorative is misled. He targeted it because these bad actors self-identified and he wanted to skewer them for their faux-activism trying to set the pace from their couch spitting at a monitor.
I think there should be a new term to succinctly identify the bad actors who want to control, censor, and rule. Fascist Outrage Oppressor. FOO. As in "that FOO is so far up my ass I can feel their shoelaces on my butt hole".
It's censorship, cancel culture, and fraught hang-wringing do what I tell you and don't dissent behavior (bullshit) that is the problem.
Do FOOs contribute anything to the hobby? Nope. If they were contributing they wouldn't have time to be FOOs.
Well you know, "racism/transphobia/etc." is merely the bicycle Leftists use to get across the finish line. It's just these particular tools they're using to fashion and operate that bicycle that we're grousing about because it's at our expence.
Quote from: tenbones;1133679Yeah it's one of the reasons I'm going alternative routes in my publishing. Strange bedfellows are being made.
You and your wife have the talent to launch a publisher of traditional adventure literature. If the mainstream houses have gone full retard, that opens the door to an alternative to sweep in and reach the audience ignored by them.
Facebook/IG advertising would be key to reach your desired demographic and grow a customer mailing list. It wouldn't be hard to spread the word to the audience you wanted. I'd also suggest a kids and teen line that was pro-America, pro-capitalism that promoted traditional values.
I'm surprised such a publishing house doesn't already exist. I doubt angel funding would be a problem.
Yes, the freaks would lose their shit, but you'd be rich if you could deliver high quality books to a hungry audience.
I'm also betting there are mid-tier successful authors who are sick of the retard pressure and would be happy to write under a pseudonym if your organization could be set up properly to maintain their anonymity.
You'd be like the erotica industry before the 80s. An economic powerhouse moving through the mail that nobody admitted to ever buying, reading, writing or publishing!
Until they decide to open and censor the mail.
Quote from: David Johansen;1133696Until they decide to open and censor the mail.
That's exactly why I started a thread in RPGPundit's forum discussing how a peaceful balkanization of the USA could occur.
https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42174-It-s-time-for-the-USA-to-balkanize-How-can-that-happen-peacefully
The key word is peaceful. All input to that thread is welcome.
Quote from: trechriron;1133680What GeekyBugle strawmanned is in my opinion simply a fascist. Same desire, different politics.
I think Pundit's proselytization of the term SJW as a pejorative is misled. He targeted it because these bad actors self-identified and he wanted to skewer them for their faux-activism trying to set the pace from their couch spitting at a monitor.
I think there should be a new term to succinctly identify the bad actors who want to control, censor, and rule. Fascist Outrage Oppressor. FOO. As in "that FOO is so far up my ass I can feel their shoelaces on my butt hole".
It's censorship, cancel culture, and fraught hang-wringing do what I tell you and don't dissent behavior (bullshit) that is the problem.
Do FOOs contribute anything to the hobby? Nope. If they were contributing they wouldn't have time to be FOOs.
I'm not strawmanning anything, it's their positions, and yes, thank you very much, they ARE fascists, but then again fascism has always been a socialist spawn and fascists are honest socialists.
Pundit didn't proselytize anything, they invented the term to refer to themselves, it had become a pejorative several years ago.
Sorry but no, just like I make fun of other ideologues using their own terms I will continue to do so with these ideologues. Social Justice isn't Justice at all.
The Alt-Right and the Ctrl-Left are just two sides of the same ugly coin.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1133699The Alt-Right and the Ctrl-Left are just two sides of the same ugly coin.
Ha! we disagree on the matter but this is very good. Makes total sense. Thanks.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1133699I'm not strawmanning anything, it's their positions, and yes, thank you very much, they ARE fascists, but then again fascism has always been a socialist spawn and fascists are honest socialists.
Pundit didn't proselytize anything, they invented the term to refer to themselves, it had become a pejorative several years ago.
Sorry but no, just like I make fun of other ideologues using their own terms I will continue to do so with these ideologues. Social Justice isn't Justice at all.
The Alt-Right and the Ctrl-Left are just two sides of the same ugly coin.
I am sure that we have talked about how the Left-Right spectrum is actually a circle
Quote from: Shasarak;1133709I am sure that we have talked about how the Left-Right spectrum is actually a circle
Liberal Conservatism. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_conservatism)
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was to convince people he didn't exist.":D
Quote from: Altheus;1133565Dungeon World, simplest fantasy rpg to run ever.
You can add Fate Core to the list. Evil Hat is fairly SJW as far as I'm aware.
Quote from: Dracones;1133734You can add Fate Core to the list. Evil Hat is fairly SJW as far as I'm aware.
You mean the ripoff of Fudge? Yeah, they contributed a lot...
Quote from: Itachi;1133489The question begging to be questioned here is: What's the point of this thread? Have black people ever contributed to the hobby? Have gay people? Poor people? Religious?
WTF people.
Ha! A moral relativist. The worst kind of person.
Quote from: tenbones;1133635Edit: seriously, I don't care. If anything, the silver-lining on this shit-colored cloud that has descended on our hobby (and culture at large) is that it shows many people how stupid humans really are and serves as something we should endeavor to avoid in the future. Assuming there is a future from this.)
if I'm recalling correctly, me and my friends originally got into gaming to remain separated from stupid people. Wargaming and roleplaying games were hobbies that they didn't understand, weren't interested in (Becuase they could not gain any power over others, by playing, unless it was a well earned victory in a simulated battle or player versus player confrontation), and so originally left it to us. We didn't consciously seek to be separated from the general population, but understanding what really happened in a real battle, or understanding how group dynamics, teamwork, and leadership could effect a victory (in a fantasy setting) were subjects of endless fascination for us.
It was only much later that the general population intervened, and started cramming "their" culture down our throats, that the gaming hobby (i.e. both wargames and rpg games) became such a contentious environment. Things that are issues now, weren't even on our cultural Radar back in the day. Also am almost certain it shouldn't be on our cultural Radar now, since the game should be the focus, not the f&^ked up culture that was never part of the game in the first place, except as we allowed it to be included in order to provide a specific moral, or objective lesson, for our players.
Quote from: Dracones;1133734You can add Fate Core to the list. Evil Hat is fairly SJW as far as I'm aware.
Well, thread author has his answer. Eclipse Phase, Fate and Dungeon World are influential enough and considered quality games by their target audience.
Quote from: Itachi;1133764Eclipse Phase, Fate and Dungeon World are influential enough and considered quality games by their target audience.
Doesn't matter that they are shit games whose popularity is artificially inflated via RPGNet, Reddit, and BGG.
It is like D&D 4E, all of the "true believer" 4rons thought it was great and an excellent continuation of the D&D tradition, with the backing of Hasbro marketing department via Organized Play any disagreement with that opinion was often shouted down. Now look at how D&D 4E is viewed by the hobby. The worm turns.
Quote from: Itachi;1133706Ha! we disagree on the matter but this is very good. Makes total sense. Thanks.
Its beause over the decades these things we call SJW now have jumped from left to right a couple of times. They tend to infest whatever side they either think is winning, or the side they think is the underdog they can whip into a frenzy with sympathy scams.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1133747if I'm recalling correctly, me and my friends originally got into gaming to remain separated from stupid people. Wargaming and roleplaying games were hobbies that they didn't understand, weren't interested in (Becuase they could not gain any power over others, by playing, unless it was a well earned victory in a simulated battle or player versus player confrontation), and so originally left it to us. We didn't consciously seek to be separated from the general population, but understanding what really happened in a real battle, or understanding how group dynamics, teamwork, and leadership could effect a victory (in a fantasy setting) were subjects of endless fascination for us.
It was only much later that the general population intervened, and started cramming "their" culture down our throats, that the gaming hobby (i.e. both wargames and rpg games) became such a contentious environment. Things that are issues now, weren't even on our cultural Radar back in the day. Also am almost certain it shouldn't be on our cultural Radar now, since the game should be the focus, not the f&^ked up culture that was never part of the game in the first place, except as we allowed it to be included in order to provide a specific moral, or objective lesson, for our players.
Isn't that how all good things get ruined? You find your jam - make friends, then somehow the philistines invade.
Quote from: Altheus;1133565Dungeon World, simplest fantasy rpg to run ever.
Perhaps an honestly good answer to the thread title, but then some people say that DW isn't really an RPG. I try not to be dogmatic about whether it is, or not. I like the 2d6 mechanic, and DW greatly simplifies monsters and hit points; but in play it's like a different flavor of D&D. Or perhaps D&D is like ice cream, and DW is like ice milk.
Quote from: Razor 007;1133881Or perhaps D&D is like ice cream, and DW is like ice milk.
Ice milk from a goat that has been on a steady diet of wild onions......
Quote from: Razor 007;1133881Perhaps an honestly good answer to the thread title, but then some people say that DW isn't really an RPG. I try not to be dogmatic about whether it is, or not. I like the 2d6 mechanic, and DW greatly simplifies monsters and hit points; but in play it's like a different flavor of D&D. Or perhaps D&D is like ice cream, and DW is like ice milk.
Never heard such a thing. I've played Dungeon World with my kids a couple times by the book and it's the same as any other RPG I've ever played. There's a Gm, players play alter egos on a fictional world, taking decisions as if in their place, and rolling dice to see if they succeed or not. That's it.
I still prefer D&D for what it does, though.
Quote from: Razor 007;1133881Perhaps an honestly good answer to the thread title, but then some people say that DW isn't really an RPG. I try not to be dogmatic about whether it is, or not. I like the 2d6 mechanic, and DW greatly simplifies monsters and hit points; but in play it's like a different flavor of D&D. Or perhaps D&D is like ice cream, and DW is like ice milk.
The idea of a 2d6 mechanic intrigues me--at least from a game design PoV. But based on what I red glancing through Stars Without Numbers at least (not sure how much it is like Dungeon World) I didn't like how they handled it mechanically. It seemed too much like they were trying to be B/X D&D, but with toned down 3e skills and 2d6 for rolls, using the same 3-18 attribute range, but with a +2 modifier max.
Which begs the question: Why use 3-18 scores if the only use you get out of them is a +1 bonus at 14+ or a +2 bonus at 18+? WTF is the rest of the score range for? Why not just get rid of the scores an focus on a -2 to +2 modifier?
If was going to build something using 2d6 rolls I'd probably go more similar to Interlock system (roll + Attribute + Skill), but maybe with lower ability ranges (Interlock goes up to 10 for attributes and skills, which IMO is a bit too high, but not by much). Like maybe 0-6 for attributes (3 average) and skills, and an average target number of 10 for rolls. And maybe include extra bonuses from advantages/disadvantages or temporary buffer effects.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1133896The idea of a 2d6 mechanic intrigues me--at least from a game design PoV. But based on what I red glancing through Stars Without Numbers at least (not sure how much it is like Dungeon World) I didn't like how they handled it mechanically. It seemed too much like they were trying to be B/X D&D, but with toned down 3e skills and 2d6 for rolls, using the same 3-18 attribute range, but with a +2 modifier max.
Which begs the question: Why use 3-18 scores if the only use you get out of them is a +1 bonus at 14+ or a +2 bonus at 18+? WTF is the rest of the score range for? Why not just get rid of the scores an focus on a -2 to +2 modifier?
If was going to build something using 2d6 rolls I'd probably go more similar to Interlock system (roll + Attribute + Skill), but maybe with lower ability ranges (Interlock goes up to 10 for attributes and skills, which IMO is a bit too high, but not by much). Like maybe 0-6 for attributes (3 average) and skills, and an average target number of 10 for rolls. And maybe include extra bonuses from advantages/disadvantages or temporary buffer effects.
Dungeon World has nothing to do with SWN. It uses a 2d6 roll where:
10+ you succeed
7-9 you succeed but at a cost or complication
6- you fail and shit happens
While the roll is modified by stats that go from -3 to +3 (EDIT: which is EXACTLY what you suggested above). So if you have Strenght +2 you roll 2d6 and add +2 to the result, and see what range (above) the result falls. Thats it.
The big differential of Dungeon World (and PbtA I general, the family of games that use it) is the 7-9 range, "succeed at a cost", also called Fail Forward by some. It makes the experience somewhat different to RPGs that uses a binary pass-fail range of results, and makes for situations that "snowball" from one another. Lots of people like the feeling that ensues (we had a lot of fun) and lots of people don't. It's somewhat divisive.
Anyway, it's a RPG through and through.
Quote from: Itachi;1133898Dungeon World has nothing to do with SWN. It uses a 2d6 roll where:
10+ you succeed
7-9 you succeed but at a cost or complication
6- you fail and shit happens
While the roll is modified by stats that go from -3 to +3 (EDIT: which is EXACTLY what you suggested above). So if you have Strenght +2 you roll 2d6 and add +2 to the result, and see what range (above) the result falls. Thats it.
The big differential of Dungeon World (and PbtA I general, the family of games that use it) is the 7-9 range, "succeed at a cost", also called Fail Forward by some. It makes the experience somewhat different to RPGs that uses a binary pass-fail range of results, and makes for situations that "snowball" from one another. Lots of people like the feeling that ensues (we had a lot of fun) and lots of people don't. It's somewhat divisive.
Anyway, it's a RPG through and through.
Ah, that sounds better. Do characters have skills at least?
I don't normally use Fail Forward per se, unless I
want PCs to succeed, but make things difficult for them if they don't pass a test (like maybe they eventually find what they were looking for, but not before more enemies show up). So I'm not fundamentally against it, but it's not something I'd use as default, only on a case by case, in situations where eventual success is almost inevitable, but complications are possible or could spice things up.
I usually prefer Degrees of Success, which can be somewhat similar on a Partial Success/Fail result.
@VisionStorm, yes there are "moves" that work like skills but in a more archetype-specific fashion. Here, some sample classes and their moves ( for Masks, another game in same engine as DW):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pPX5-GqiUll6fk6CWqn35HTr86pmuFnj/view?usp=drivesdk
I like Fate. I like what it tries to do. Do I agree with the politics of its authors? No. That's why I regarded The Fate Horror Toolkit as mostly being crap and a waste of my time. If it had spent more time on its subject than being a manifesto penned by its author, I would think more of it than I do
A few people have given me shit on this board for liking Fate. But I don't really care what they think. Fate provided me something I found valuable in my RPG hobby. A departure from the usual methodology I was used to. A change in approach I was very much looking for.
Do I think it is the end-all and be-all of RPGs? No. But it did challenge my perceptions? Yes. Which is what I needed at the time.
Will I ever run it? Well, that's difficult to say. I'm still trying after all of these years to really grasp some of its concepts enough to see myself actually using it.
I think Fate suffers badly from authors who think they are clever. To the point, it negatively impacts the game's actual playability.
The only version of Fate I truly feel completely comfortable with is ICONS. And even that has its challenges.
Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1133924A few people have given me shit on this board for liking Fate. But I don't really care what they think. Fate provided me something I found valuable in my RPG hobby. A departure from the usual methodology I was used to. A change in approach I was very much looking for.
I like it too. As long as you've a good bunch of players. I've played it a few times and it was fun. But the players didn't take the piss with the rules. So, their agency was limited (which I liked). I just completely ignore any politics they might bleat on about. I find his whole Lovecraft 'cash in' complete hypocrisy. Monte Cooke did something similar with one of the supplements for Numanera. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
In fact, I ignore all politics when it comes to RPGs. I have my own political believes and no one is going to tell me anything different.
The core concept of Dungeon World, aka the "success with consequence", comes from Better Games, an obscure publisher in the 80s and 90s who owned the Space Gamer magazine for a few years where they put out games using their house system, most notably Battleborn (imagine a light hearted version of Starship Troopers). In the Better Games system, you rolled 2D8 for your actions (3D8 if you had a skill or trait that affected the situation) and compared it to a chart based on the difficulty of your action. The midline result was called Mixed which was "kinda fail, kinda success" and it was VERY fun to GM and roleplay. Even though most of everyone has never heard of Better Games, they were hugely popular at the Los Angeles game conventions in the early 90s with plenty of California game designers as players.
The Better Games guys now sell their stuff on DriveThruRPG.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/249220/Battle-Born-Original
Interesting. The autor of the Dungeon World engine says he took the idea of success with complications from an early Talislanta edition. But if Better Games came before, maybe it was an inspiration for Talislanta too.
Quote from: Itachi;1133921@VisionStorm, yes there are "moves" that work like skills but in a more archetype-specific fashion. Here, some sample classes and their moves ( for Masks, another game in same engine as DW):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pPX5-GqiUll6fk6CWqn35HTr86pmuFnj/view?usp=drivesdk
Interesting, though, a bit hard to follow, since I don't know the rest of the rules. Not necessarily my preference, but I think I get the gist of how archetypes operate. Basically each gets a number of tricks and benefits that reinforces what the archetype is about, and may require a check to use.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1133953Interesting, though, a bit hard to follow, since I don't know the rest of the rules. Not necessarily my preference, but I think I get the gist of how archetypes operate. Basically each gets a number of tricks and benefits that reinforces what the archetype is about, and may require a check to use.
I like the common, standard, basic moves that can be attempted by any player character in Dungeon World.
Quote from: Itachi;1133898Anyway, it's a RPG through and through.
If you define Roleplaying as having built into every single roll a possible outcome that frequently requires you to stop Roleplaying your character and make a decision that the character could not possibly make. :D
Well, are there SJW authors who have done significant work in the Storygame & Narrative Roleplaying space? Sure, of course.
Are there authors with Left-leaning or Liberal, or Democrat views that have done significant work in the traditional RPG space? Sure, of course.
Has anyone done any significant work when their politics are actually injected into the work or inform their work? Blue Rose, I guess. Otherwise, no.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1133980If you define Roleplaying as having built into every single roll a possible outcome that frequently requires you to stop Roleplaying your character and make a decision that the character could not possibly make. :D
Now this I hadn't heard before, care to expand upon it?
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1133984Now this I hadn't heard before, care to expand upon it?
It's a fairly common complaint about stance. I'm not strictly always bothered by this myself, but it's a legit complaint. Basically, take a Move from Dungeon World. I'm gonna use "Carouse" as an example. It's an option to use this Move after returning from an adventure triumphant, spending some cash to throw a party. For each 100 coins you spend, you get a +1 on the 2d6 roll. If you roll 10+, you choose 3 items from a list, if you roll 7-9 you choose one, and if you roll less, you still choose one but things get out of hand (in a way the GM describes). The items on the list? * You befriend a useful NPC. * You hear rumors of an opportunity. * You gain useful information. * You are not entangles, ensorcelled, or tricked.
The point is that as a player you have to make these decisions of what you want to happen out of that list, but they are player decisions, not character decisions. Like, in character, is your character thinking "Hell yeah, party! I'm gonna make sure I'm not ensorcelled and hear a rumor of an opportunity!"? It'd be an odd way for a character to think, and so it can have this effect of pulling you out of the "I'm immersed in playing my character" stance, interrupting you to ask you about how you want the story to proceed. The results also kinda happen regardless of the in-character role-play. Like, you might imagine a character talking to someone in particular and possibly making a social roll of some kind while RPing, looking for rumors of an opportunity, and you kind of learn in the moment if your character succeeds. In this Dungeon World way, you roll 1st, then have to invent the fiction to make sense of the roll afterwards. That invention isn't done by you pretending to be your character in the moment, but rather you and the GM kinda describing a story to make the results of the roll make sense.
I may not have explained this perfectly, but I think that's the jist of what CRKrueger is getting at.
Quote from: Razor 007;1133978I like the common, standard, basic moves that can be attempted by any player character in Dungeon World.
Those are the Basic moves. They are like basic rules for each game, based on common tropes for each genre.
So, a lucha libre game would have "do a dramatic speech" and "pick a chair from the sideline" as basic moves.
Quote from: NeonAce;1133989It's a fairly common complaint about stance. I'm not strictly always bothered by this myself, but it's a legit complaint. Basically, take a Move from Dungeon World. I'm gonna use "Carouse" as an example. It's an option to use this Move after returning from an adventure triumphant, spending some cash to throw a party. For each 100 coins you spend, you get a +1 on the 2d6 roll. If you roll 10+, you choose 3 items from a list, if you roll 7-9 you choose one, and if you roll less, you still choose one but things get out of hand (in a way the GM describes). The items on the list? * You befriend a useful NPC. * You hear rumors of an opportunity. * You gain useful information. * You are not entangles, ensorcelled, or tricked.
The point is that as a player you have to make these decisions of what you want to happen out of that list, but they are player decisions, not character decisions. Like, in character, is your character thinking "Hell yeah, party! I'm gonna make sure I'm not ensorcelled and hear a rumor of an opportunity!"? It'd be an odd way for a character to think, and so it can have this effect of pulling you out of the "I'm immersed in playing my character" stance, interrupting you to ask you about how you want the story to proceed. The results also kinda happen regardless of the in-character role-play. Like, you might imagine a character talking to someone in particular and possibly making a social roll of some kind while RPing, looking for rumors of an opportunity, and you kind of learn in the moment if your character succeeds. In this Dungeon World way, you roll 1st, then have to invent the fiction to make sense of the roll afterwards. That invention isn't done by you pretending to be your character in the moment, but rather you and the GM kinda describing a story to make the results of the roll make sense.
I may not have explained this perfectly, but I think that's the jist of what CRKrueger is getting at.
Exactly.
Quote from: NeonAce;1133989It's a fairly common complaint about stance. I'm not strictly always bothered by this myself, but it's a legit complaint. Basically, take a Move from Dungeon World. I'm gonna use "Carouse" as an example. It's an option to use this Move after returning from an adventure triumphant, spending some cash to throw a party. For each 100 coins you spend, you get a +1 on the 2d6 roll. If you roll 10+, you choose 3 items from a list, if you roll 7-9 you choose one, and if you roll less, you still choose one but things get out of hand (in a way the GM describes). The items on the list? * You befriend a useful NPC. * You hear rumors of an opportunity. * You gain useful information. * You are not entangles, ensorcelled, or tricked.
The point is that as a player you have to make these decisions of what you want to happen out of that list, but they are player decisions, not character decisions. Like, in character, is your character thinking "Hell yeah, party! I'm gonna make sure I'm not ensorcelled and hear a rumor of an opportunity!"? It'd be an odd way for a character to think, and so it can have this effect of pulling you out of the "I'm immersed in playing my character" stance, interrupting you to ask you about how you want the story to proceed. The results also kinda happen regardless of the in-character role-play. Like, you might imagine a character talking to someone in particular and possibly making a social roll of some kind while RPing, looking for rumors of an opportunity, and you kind of learn in the moment if your character succeeds. In this Dungeon World way, you roll 1st, then have to invent the fiction to make sense of the roll afterwards. That invention isn't done by you pretending to be your character in the moment, but rather you and the GM kinda describing a story to make the results of the roll make sense.
I may not have explained this perfectly, but I think that's the jist of what CRKrueger is getting at.
So it's a storytelling game and not a roleplaying game.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1134000So it's a storytelling game and not a roleplaying game.
The distinction isn't worth making, we all roll dice and pretend to do things.
Regarding dungeon world, what is wrong with the player having to choose the consequences of a "success at a cost result" rather than the gm choosing it? You do have to be on the ball to come up with sensible or interesting things but i like it.
Quote from: Altheus;1134006The distinction isn't worth making, we all roll dice and pretend to do things.
Regarding dungeon world, what is wrong with the player having to choose the consequences of a "success at a cost result" rather than the gm choosing it? You do have to be on the ball to come up with sensible or interesting things but i like it.
Pretend to do things and then, maybe roll dice to see if you succeed vs roll dice and then invent something to justify the result of the roll...
Yeah, totally the same shit, silly me.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1134007Pretend to do things and then, maybe roll dice to see if you succeed vs roll dice and then invent something to justify the result of the roll...
Yeah, totally the same shit, silly me.
You do both. You describe what you're trying to do, the GM determines if you need to roll to see if you succeed(in PbtA terminology, you trigger the Move), and the results often let the player have some say in how things play out. The GM still does most of the heavy lifting, but yeah, some of the minor duties are handed to the players. Going in and out of character like this doesn't bother me at all, but I understand why some people would be rubbed the wrong way. You still absolutely play your characters and make decisions from their POV and based on what they'd do. If you were to have a line with fully traditional GM structure at one end(1) and fully-shared responsibilities/GMless at the other(10), most PbtA games would be around a 3 or 4. Not all that far removed, but enough to be noticeable, especially if you're easily pulled out of your immersion.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1133997Exactly.
That said, if you just employ the simple house rule of letting the GM decide all those elements (i.e. what the cost is in "success with cost" or what things you actually get from the carouse check) it'd fall more into traditional RPG fare.
Alternatively, you add enough mechanics; say adding a random table to the carousing or a specific consequence for only partially succeeding on a jump check; ex. on a 7-9 you're "off-balance" (had to catch yourself because you were just short, fell over on landing, etc.) and have to spend some movement righting yourself before you can act normally.
Basically, DW trades page count/rules complexity for more storytelling fiat and then, rather than leaving all the work of deciding that fiat to the GM, they instead decided to offload it onto the players at the expense of yanking them out of character to resolve things.
It's not "wrong" in the sense that you can make it function; but it's design choice based on the developer not wanting to deal with more complicated mechanics.
Personally, I lean more rules heavy in my systems... but given some of the shit mechanics design work I've seen people with history and Lit degrees produce, well, some people probably are better off with leaving most of the resolution to GM fiat and just focusing on writing up their interesting setting.
Quote from: Altheus;1134006The distinction isn't worth making, we all roll dice and pretend to do things.
Regarding dungeon world, what is wrong with the player having to choose the consequences of a "success at a cost result" rather than the gm choosing it? You do have to be on the ball to come up with sensible or interesting things but i like it.
I think the distinction isn't a clear cut as some people will say (as in, a lot of games are blends to some degree, not just fully one or the other), but I do think there are distinctions worth making. Not to say what is better or worse, but so people can play the games that appeal to them.
There is nothing universally right or wrong about having a player choosing the consequences of their own "success at a cost" result. It comes down to where your enjoyment in playing these games lies. If a player wants to play a character and see how the world reacts to that character's actions, that desire is undermined when the player themselves gets to choose the consequence out in the world of the game. It's like wrapping your own present and putting it under the tree, hoping to be excited by it on Christmas morning. If a player likes improvising a story on the fly, adding details to the world outside of their character's purview, and that rings their bell such that their enjoyment from that outweighs the loss of the surprise due to lack of control of the world outside the character's agency... then these kinds of rules may be for them.
Quote from: GeekyBugle;1134000So it's a storytelling game and not a roleplaying game.
I wouldn't say it's a Storytelling Game instead of a Roleplaying Game.
It's closer to say it's a Storytelling Game inside of a Roleplaying Game.
You Roleplay as your character until the point where you have to stop Roleplaying, step outside the character and do some Storytelling as a player. Then step right back into Roleplaying. It's integrated better than many Narrative RPGs.
It is possible to have all the Out of Character choices decided by random roll or GM Fiat, thus preventing the player from being forced out of character. At that point, however, you're kind of defeating the purpose of the game. Also, the Success with Cost results are not the only Narrative Control mechanic in the PbtA games.
It’s better to just realize it’s a hybrid and not pretend it’s just like any other RPG, which some people, for whatever agenda seem to be driven to claim.
Quote from: Altheus;1134006The distinction isn't worth making, we all roll dice and pretend to do things.
I disagree. As a GM advocate, this kind of gaming *will* keep GM's from being better GM's. Part of GMing is making the world your PC's are engaging is "come alive" as you envision it. The problem with letting too much random-table adjudication *directly* in play that dictate or mitigate potential opportunities of actual roleplaying, effectively limits the capacity of GMs, and for the GM's engaged in those kinds of systems weakens their ability to engage in their own capacity to improvise.
Yes there are degrees to which system impacts this GM-dumbing-down more. Yes not all Storygames are horrifying, but most aren't doing any GM wanting deeper roleplaying any service in learning how to GM at that level.
The degree to which SJW's extoll the virtues of Storygaming is commensurate with their ideological need to "fight authority". I don't care Storygames exist. A better GM can easily re-cobble Storygame mechanics into something more useful than some new GM that leans so heavy on those mechanics they're barely actually GMing.
Quote from: tenbones;1134015I disagree. As a GM advocate, this kind of gaming *will* keep GM's from being better GM's.
It's more a matter of playstyles. GMing Dungeon World requires a slightly different skillset than, say, D&D. But that's a good thing, as it improves the chances of putting a satisfying session for players interested in that style.
The more playstyles the better, IMO.
Quote from: Itachi;1134021It's more a matter of playstyles. GMing Dungeon World requires a slightly different skillset than, say, D&D. But that's a good thing, as it improves the chances of putting a satisfying session for players interested in that style.
The more playstyles the better, IMO.
By this analogy, it would be like saying Little-League Baseball is every bit as good of a game to enjoy as Major League Baseball. Same game. Same positions. Slightly different skillset required to play each. But so we're clear - they're *not* the same thing.
An MLB-level GM will elevate a Little-League game. But you have to learn to run MLB-games to become an MLB-GM. You won't become an MLB-GM playing only Little League Games. The problem here is people that sit in the Little League believe their games are MLB.
They're not.
Edit: I should add: system-mastery does not equate to being a GOOD GM. Being a good GM that learns the nuances of a system will run that game *far* better than someone who relies on system-mastery as their crutch for GMing.
I don't know the differences between baseball leagues so I can't say. But you seem to imply there's an absolute best style of play. I don't believe in that. I think there are clusters of games that, while sharing a common skill set to run, also requires slightly different ones: investigative games, combat-focused games, sandbox games, GM plot-driven games, player-driven games, PvP games, troupe games, improv-heavy games etc, etc. A GM gets good in styles he is interested at and provides more satisfying sessions in it. I can't see how that is detrimental to the hobby.
Quote from: Itachi;1134029I don't know the differences between baseball leagues so I can't say. But you seem to imply there's an absolute best style of play. I don't believe in that. I think there are clusters of games that, while sharing a common skill set to run, also requires slightly different ones: investigative games, combat-focused games, sandbox games, GM plot-driven games, player-driven games, PvP games, troupe games, improv-heavy games etc, etc. A GM gets good in styles he is interested at and provides more satisfying sessions in it. I can't see how that is detrimental to the hobby.
Pointing out two things are different is implying that one of them is best? Since when?
Quote from: tenbones;1134015I disagree. As a GM advocate, this kind of gaming *will* keep GM's from being better GM's. Part of GMing is making the world your PC's are engaging is "come alive" as you envision it. The problem with letting too much random-table adjudication *directly* in play that dictate or mitigate potential opportunities of actual roleplaying, effectively limits the capacity of GMs, and for the GM's engaged in those kinds of systems weakens their ability to engage in their own capacity to improvise.
Yes there are degrees to which system impacts this GM-dumbing-down more. Yes not all Storygames are horrifying, but most aren't doing any GM wanting deeper roleplaying any service in learning how to GM at that level.
The degree to which SJW's extoll the virtues of Storygaming is commensurate with their ideological need to "fight authority". I don't care Storygames exist. A better GM can easily re-cobble Storygame mechanics into something more useful than some new GM that leans so heavy on those mechanics they're barely actually GMing.
Interesting point you make, and I think you're right, if I were putting together a plan to develop a gm, dungeon world would be toward the end of the list of things to go through. Then you know enough to dip in and out rather than take its rules as anything more than advice and guidelines.
Quote from: Itachi;1134029I don't know the differences between baseball leagues so I can't say. But you seem to imply there's an absolute best style of play. I don't believe in that. I think there are clusters of games that, while sharing a common skill set to run, also requires slightly different ones: investigative games, combat-focused games, sandbox games, GM plot-driven games, player-driven games, PvP games, troupe games, improv-heavy games etc, etc. A GM gets good in styles he is interested at and provides more satisfying sessions in it. I can't see how that is detrimental to the hobby.
I agree with this. A GM that like a game/style/rules he/she likes can vary the style and experience a good bit. That said, the story type games are not my taste, but I would play just about anything. I find system preference more a bugaboo when I am running a game than when I am playing.
Quote from: oggsmash;1134125I agree with this. A GM that like a game/style/rules he/she likes can vary the style and experience a good bit. That said, the story type games are not my taste, but I would play just about anything. I find system preference more a bugaboo when I am running a game than when I am playing.
If I know the group is super fun I'm okay playing in styles I'm not a big fan of. But I had a lot of bad experiences where I wish I was doing something else entirely, so I usually avoid it.
Quote from: GeekyBuglePointing out two things are different is implying that one of them is best? Since when?
Sorry, I must have mistaken the analogy then. As I said, I don't know baseball well. My point was that there are lot of playstyles out there and one should stick to what he/she finds fun. That's it. If you like association football (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football) then just play it, and don't care for what the futsal (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futsal) players will think. ;)
If it was D&D all the attribute scores would be 10s because everybody is equal! ;)
Oops I forgot to quote, I was replying to someone talking about the contributions of left wing RPG game designers.
Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1134536If it was D&D all the attribute scores would be 10s because everybody is equal! ;)
Oops I forgot to quote, I was replying to someone talking about the contributions of left wing RPG game designers.
I wouldn't mind each PC starting out with all 10s; and then having maybe 10 or 15 extra points to distribute as desired, with no stat over 18. Reason being that 10 is average. The average person on the street is probably a 10, so why not the PC too?
I'm also fine with rolling your own stats, or stat arrays.
Well, let's see, everyone gets 1d10 / level hit points, attacks at +level to hit, can cast spell levels equal to their level per day and know a number of spells equal to their level, saves at their level and gets one special ability that they can never use because that would be unfair to everyone who can't do it. You only get experience for having sex with characters that are of your sex or not of your species. Armor doesn't make you harder to hit it makes you a target for social attacks because you're clearly expecting to solve problems with violence and looking for trouble. Combat is replaced by shrieking and initiative determines the moral high ground. All attacks do 1d4 social damage. When a targed runs out of hit points the skulk away and hide under a rock.
Quote from: oggsmash;1134125I agree with this. A GM that like a game/style/rules he/she likes can vary the style and experience a good bit. That said, the story type games are not my taste, but I would play just about anything. I find system preference more a bugaboo when I am running a game than when I am playing.
Same. I've played tons of things over the years, from the extremely traditional(a couple different editions of D&D, GURPS, Savage Worlds for the most part, etc.) to the extremely bizarre(Microscope, a few versions of Cortex Plus, Fiasco, etc.). And as different as they can be, for me they all
usually scratch the same itch. I'm guessing the thing that draws me to them is where they overlap, so the differences are largely unimportant to me. As long as I get to be my fictional character of the moment, I don't care what aspect of them is numerically important - skills, attributes, emotions, relationships, whatever. But that's largely unimportant
to me. I totally get why differences I might not even notice unless I was looking for them might be a big deal to someone else.
All the more reason to use Savage Worlds for your D&D settings.
Quote from: tenbones;1134708All the more reason to use Savage Worlds for your D&D settings.
This deserves its own thread discussion about how/why and what's gained/lost in the conversion.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1134768This deserves its own thread discussion about how/why and what's gained/lost in the conversion.
Yeah, I'd love to see this thread, too. Savage Worlds is on my (admittedly way too long) list of "read but haven't played", and I love D&D.
All SJWs are politicians, they may call themselves writers or artists, but they are really into politics, their art is their primary means to push society in a certain direction, once they have made it in the art world, they start producing crap in order to force their political opinions on others, so a character may be included just for social justice and no other reason, these characters often don't fit into the story and are there solely for representation of the favored minority group at the time.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1133487I would argue that Eclipse Phase was a significant contribution to the transhumanist sci-fi genre in RPGs and those developers are extremely left.
Counterpoint: just watch or read Altered Carbon, throw in a little Lovecraftian horror, declare the Earth off-limits due to being overrun by the previously mentioned Lovecraftian horrors, and use your own favorite generic RPG system to simulate the rest.
EP your way.
Quote from: CRKrueger;1133982Well, are there SJW authors who have done significant work in the Storygame & Narrative Roleplaying space? Sure, of course.
Are there authors with Left-leaning or Liberal, or Democrat views that have done significant work in the traditional RPG space? Sure, of course.
Has anyone done any significant work when their politics are actually injected into the work or inform their work? Blue Rose, I guess. Otherwise, no.
Gumshoe has some virtue signalling as do a few others. Early stuff before the disease took full root. Then theres the increasing takeover of Chaosium and their ever more hateful virtue signalling being inserted into old works.
Not only haven't #SJWs produced anything of worth, they've gone back to destroy their previous work which was.
Quote from: Altheus;1133565Dungeon World, simplest fantasy rpg to run ever.
DungeonWorld would never succeed today given those behind it.
Quote from: Itachi;1133764Well, thread author has his answer. Eclipse Phase, Fate and Dungeon World are influential enough and considered quality games by their target audience.
These were all written _prior_ to the authors becoming #SJWs.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1135388Counterpoint: just watch or read Altered Carbon, throw in a little Lovecraftian horror, declare the Earth off-limits due to being overrun by the previously mentioned Lovecraftian horrors, and use your own favorite generic RPG system to simulate the rest.
Adopting the work of
two problematic authors at once? What are you some kind of edgelord?
Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1135441Not only haven't #SJWs produced anything of worth, they've gone back to destroy their previous work which was.
DungeonWorld would never succeed today given those behind it.
The same might be said for the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Emancipation Proclamation. Regardless, all succeeded in their time.
Isn't Harlem Unbound also explicit political? Seems a nice product regardless.
How about Bluebeard Bride?
Quote from: HappyDaze;1135442The same might be said for the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Emancipation Proclamation. Regardless, all succeeded in their time.
If you think that any of the above mentioned are games, then you need to get your head examined.
Quote from: Itachi;1135460Isn't Harlem Unbound also explicit political? Seems a nice product regardless.
How about Bluebeard Bride?
Except if you read the intro where they claim that IRL, current year USA it's legal for the police to just up and kill black people.
Anyone of any political persuasion could create a work of value, perhaps even lasting value.
However, by injecting politics into the work, or designing the work to be a political screed or propaganda tool, means that few people beyond those who adhere to the same ideology will find the work valuable.
The more radical the SJWs become, the more their potential audience shrinks, and thus the commercial viability of non-SJW works increases as more of the market feels abandoned.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1135478Anyone of any political persuasion could create a work of value, perhaps even lasting value.
However, by injecting politics into the work, or designing the work to be a political screed or propaganda tool, means that few people beyond those who adhere to the same ideology will find the work valuable.
The more radical the SJWs become, the more their potential audience shrinks, and thus the commercial viability of non-SJW works increases as more of the market feels abandoned.
I agree, but isn't this orthogonal to the quality of the games they produce? Even the more pamphletary ones?
Eclipse Phase is a good example methinks. It explictly paints leftist factions in its setting in a better light than the conservative ones. Yet it's considered a good game and setting regardless.
Another example, perhaps more subtle, is Apocalypse World and it's progeny, which purposefully list LGBT+ looks options on the character sheet, in a clear move for inclusivity. And yet they're considered good and influential games regardless.
Tl;DR: SJW and proselytizing is bad in general. But in the end, a work is judged by it's quality, regardless of the author agenda(s).
Quote from: Itachi;1135516Another example, perhaps more subtle, is Apocalypse World and it's progeny, which purposefully list LGBT+ looks options on the character sheet, in a clear move for inclusivity. And yet they're considered good and influential games regardless.
I've played tons of Powered by the Apocalypse games over the years, including both editions of Apocalypse World itself. So I say this as a huge fan -- PbtA games have you indicate some truly meaningless and bizarre stuff on your character sheets. A lot. But whatever - it's a system so simple even I can run it(multiple successful campaigns under my belt, booyah!), so I can overlook the occasional little flaw.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;1135552I've played tons of Powered by the Apocalypse games over the years, including both editions of Apocalypse World itself. So I say this as a huge fan -- PbtA games have you indicate some truly meaningless and bizarre stuff on your character sheets. A lot. But whatever - it's a system so simple even I can run it(multiple successful campaigns under my belt, booyah!), so I can overlook the occasional little flaw.
I think the gender craziness fits the psychedelic wasteland that Apocalypse World paints, but some hacks pasted it without much thought.
A hypothetical author producing a good game despite inserting their propaganda is certainly possible. It's possible in exactly the same way that a professional athlete wearing 10 lbs weights on both legs can still outrun a lot of ordinary people in a footrace. There's enough crap out there that someone with talent and work can often out produce the competition, even with several self-imposed handicaps. The game is still shittier than it would have been had they not done so.
No.
Now I will read the thread. :cool:
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1135853A hypothetical author producing a good game despite inserting their propaganda is certainly possible. It's possible in exactly the same way that a professional athlete wearing 10 lbs weights on both legs can still outrun a lot of ordinary people in a footrace. There's enough crap out there that someone with talent and work can often out produce the competition, even with several self-imposed handicaps. The game is still shittier than it would have been had they not done so.
Yes, it's possible. I have yet to think of any that would fit that mold though.