Quote from: SHARK;1122706You know, I often wonder if other WHITE people--or anyone really--ever gets tired of the constant, casual racism and condescending, smug and insulting attitudes expressed by these jackasses in things like "a scene long dominated by dorky-white-guy stereotypes."

When I saw that quote my reaction was the person could take their attitude and shove it up their ass. The primary reason why many "dorky-guy stereotypes" got into the hobby was because it was one of the few that welcomed dorks, before, you know, it got all trendy and shit to be a "geek".

Quote from: SHARK;1122706I see this kind of attitude all the time. Not just by "minorities" per se, but especially by smug, white Liberals.

Almost entirely smug, white liberals.  Because it is projection and hiding.  Hiding what they really do think behind the projection that everyone shares their clique's vices.  Think about it. What is the defining characteristic of the type?  They are certain that they are "better" than other people.  Or rather, they are desperate to not face up to the nagging doubt that their assumption that they are better than other people is not warranted.

I was only partly joking when I said such people should not be gaming.  I think it is actively destructive to their mental health and chances of getting better.  Unless, of course, they can summon the courage to go game with a normal group--that will naturally trample all over their shallow, unimportant sensibilities--but then hang in there long enough to see that the more important things are respected by that group.  Assuming such a group can put up with them long enough for them to learn the lesson.  I don't have that much charity in me when it comes to my roleplaying leisure time.  Of course they have difficulty with the idea of putting themselves into a completely different character mindset.  If they had enough basic empathy do that, they'd no longer be a smug, white liberal.

Quote from: SHARK;1122706Greetings!

You know, I often wonder if other WHITE people--or anyone really--ever gets tired of the constant, casual racism and condescending, smug and insulting attitudes expressed by these jackasses in things like "a scene long dominated by dorky-white-guy stereotypes."

What if women, or blacks, Hispanics, or Asian gamers were always referenced in such insulting terms? Oh, that's right. We have to always speak about them in hushed, reverent tones.

But go ahead. Shit all over the "dorky white guys."

I see this kind of attitude all the time. Not just by "minorities" per se, but especially by smug, white Liberals.

And these fucking morons wonder why so many people are fierce supporters of President Trump?:rolleyes: I think this pervasive, smug and insulting attitude displayed by so many provides an enormously powerful foundation of support for President Trump.

It gets so tiresome always being insulted, disrespected, and smugly condescended to by these kinds of fucking jackasses.:mad:

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Agreed. But in today's West racism is OK so long as it's against white people, and sexism is OK as long as it's against men (except for the ones that call themselves and want it legally enforced for others to call them women, that would be a BIG no-no). You are too right that this type of attitude is heavily entrenched among the smug, white far-left and particularly those brainwashed through college "education" as you have accurately noted elsewhere.

In any case, if you'd like a good laugh there are some hilarious Trump-hate/Liberal extremist tears threads over at TBP's Tangency forum like the "post-impeachment, what do we do now?! AAAAAGH!!" thread; some are having quite literal mental breakdowns over the fact that Trump has not been removed from office, spat upon, had his family history forcibly erased and his assets dissolved, hoisted upon a cross and lashed to death by illegal immigrants by now and had his body paraded around in an LGBT parade. The number of sour nicknames they've invented for both Trump and members of his staff in order to to vent their pathetic, fragile, desperate egos alone is hilarious. Reading those posts you'd think the sky has fallen and landed directly, and personally, on them and that the entire world has already burnt to the ground. Their lamentations read as people trapped in their own mental solitary confinement.

Such concentrated self-centeredness and narcissism is truly a sight to behold. I imagine their racist and sexist tendencies can be easily linked to such vitriol; all they want to do is strike out and hurt people they perceive as persecuting or oppressing them (which, being serial narcissists, is "everyone"). Ironic that they lack the self awareness to recognize their own racist, sexist tendencies they rail on/censor/smear/threaten/attack others for, but then introspection is not generally part of their repertoire.

Regardless of one's political leanings, when/if Trump is re-elected the breakdown and utter implosion of the far left will be truly spectacular. Bring sunglasses and don't stare directly at the mushroom cloud.

Quote from: rgalex;1122742So an incomplete book is up against 4 video games?  Seems kinda of odd.

Last I saw the FATE Accessibly Toolkit, at least according to the DTRPG page, is still in a prototype phase.  It doesn't have any of the art in it, just placeholder boxes.  Evil Hat said they would need to sell hundreds of copies to be able to pay for the art, finish the book and make it print on demand.  It's been like that since July of last year.  How does an unfinished work get nominated for an award?



Silly SHARK.  Welcome to EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES!  You already know that us evil white people already talk about anyone not-us like that every second of every day in AmeriKKK.  We've been casually racist, smug, condescending, etc toward everyone since the beginning of time.  That's why it's ok to talk like that about white people now.  Is your white masculinity so fragile that you are getting triggered?  Who's the real snowflake?!

That's a good point; how do you compare the writing of a videogame to the writing of an RPG, as they are *very* different things? And yeah, I think it's only one of several of Evil Hat's products yet to receive art. I wonder how the Accessibility Toolkit even popped up on their radar...?

And yes, all white people are fascist, sexist, racist Nazi KKK members (who support the Ebil NRA and own lots of guns, specifically to shoot at immigrants and black people). Well, depending who you ask anyway. In any case, that's why Black Panther was hailed for having such a "diverse" cast: no Evul YT's in sight! The Noble Left wants to Make Segregation Great Again! What progress!

Quote from: Dracones;1122744When I saw that quote my reaction was the person could take their attitude and shove it up their ass. The primary reason why many "dorky-guy stereotypes" got into the hobby was because it was one of the few that welcomed dorks, before, you know, it got all trendy and shit to be a "geek".

Let's not let reality leak into the discussion, what good has that ever done for anybody? History is what we tell you it is.

Quote from: rgalex;1122742So an incomplete book is up against 4 video games?  Seems kind of odd.

Last I saw the FATE Accessibly Toolkit, at least according to the DTRPG page, is still in a prototype phase.  It doesn't have any of the art in it, just placeholder boxes.  Evil Hat said they would need to sell hundreds of copies to be able to pay for the art, finish the book and make it print on demand.  It's been like that since July of last year.  How does an unfinished work get nominated for an award?

Nebula and Origins awards are increasingly a joke.

A wheelchair in a submarine? Apparently the author lacks basic knowledge about both wheelchairs and submarines.

Or maybe I should let my brother know his disability has so much virtue now that he can levitate at will through confined spaces. He's been waiting for some good news about this whole crippled gig for some time.

To be fair "there aren't even mechanics for how wheelchairs work in most games. They're vehicles, and they should have their own rules." is about the most GURPS thing you could say.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098654What interests me continuously with regards to Evil Hat / Fate is the not-insignificant number of people with disabilities who have been displeased with them or their products (some of whom got banned from G+ when it was still around for voicing their complaints); including the Accessibility Toolkit (on the DTRPG page, even).

No kidding.

This book is written for folks who consider their disability to be a central part of their identity, which inevitably alienates the ones who don't. And the debate over whether someone should be referred to as a 'handicapped person' or 'person with a handicap' is still a point of contention.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1098659I think the core primal mistake lies in the quoted designer's stated purpose, i.e.:

"As a game designer, I feel like the biggest gift I can give to players is the ability to see yourself in the universe you play in."

The fundamental problem, of course, is that the entire activity is intentionally built around the imagined portrayal of A PERSON WHO IS NOT THE PLAYER.

Quote from: Omega;1098700Because these sociopaths are so divorced from reality that they think that RPing something, acting something, even reading something is the EXACT SAME as doing that something for real.

These people truly believe you are who you pretend to be, which means games which enable/encourage playing 'immoral' characters are immoral themselves, and any character you play must embody the values you yourself hold. And the lengths they go to overcome the cognitive dissonance when it comes to this is rather breathtaking. This is why Fate of Cthulhu features that infamous statement on Lovecraft. This is why #EvilHat is releasing books like the Accessibility and Decolonization toolkits. This is why you're seeing all the nonsensical shit you're seeing from these people.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1098661He was a good deal more civil to me the one time I complained about not understanding the game Don't Rest Your Head.

All my interactions have been civil too, but not even they will deny they have anger issues. It's also unlikely current year Fred would have written such a game today given how it deals with 'madness' and mental illness, which is a shame as it's one of my favorites.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098662Thinking back to the wheelchair-bound submarine crewman I mentioned earlier, that could explain some of the disabled person's frustration with it; not only is the disability apparently not an obstacle despite the conditions and demanding requirements of crewing a submarine, but I just checked and it doesn't show up in any form on the character sheet itself whatsoever.

Once upon a time a friend of mine criticized a game for having unrealistic wheelchair mechanics, in that you were just way too mobile. Given they're wheelchair bound themselves I assumed they had a pretty good idea of what they're talking about, so I asked them if they thought that was a good thing or a bad thing. Their reply was: "I don't know".

Neither do I.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1098717I wonder if anyone has made audiobooks out of RPG rule books.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1098721Our very own Grim just finished the SRD of 5e as an audiobook

Yes, but does it have an index?

Quote from: Longshadow;1098727A brief discussion with whomever runs the Evil Hat facebook page seems to indicate that by removing mechanical benefits to playing disabled characters (such as getting extra points to put into your GURPS character) was the goal.

Which is a weird thing to imply as Aspects already give things like that mechanical weight.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122705Disco Elysium, Robert Kurvitz (ZA/UM)

Which better win because it's so fucking good I'm even willing to overlook the developers being Communists!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1122793A wheelchair in a submarine? Apparently the author lacks basic knowledge about both wheelchairs and submarines.

Or maybe I should let my brother know his disability has so much virtue now that he can levitate at will through confined spaces. He's been waiting for some good news about this whole crippled gig for some time.

Well while you are of course correct, I suppose the only thing you could really tell your brother is that Fred Hicks says "fuck you." Good to know that disabilities just mean characterization I guess, rather than the reality that they are truly obstacles to the people afflicted with them. Good on Evil Hat for bringing that to us.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796To be fair "there aren't even mechanics for how wheelchairs work in most games. They're vehicles, and they should have their own rules." is about the most GURPS thing you could say.

LOL. OK that is pretty true.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796This book is written for folks who consider their disability to be a central part of their identity, which inevitably alienates the ones who don't. And the debate over whether someone should be referred to as a 'handicapped person' or 'person with a handicap' is still a point of contention.

Too right, and I would say IME the majority of people with real disabilities DO NOT consider those the primary component of their identities, regardless of how those obstacles have affected them. People who consider any singular trait of themselves their 'identity' are doomed to the labels they assign to themselves.

Only tangentially related as it's not a disability: my brother is gay, is that the first thing he tells people about himself? Or even the last? No. He's just gay. He's a person. He likes Godzilla (as do I). He likes quiche (I do not). He enjoys socializing and participating in new hobbies. Does this prevent him from enjoying strip clubs? Yes. It was an obstacle. Particularly at my unexpected bachelor party.

My point is, nobody who is sane identifies themselves as one of these singular traits. I had an ex who was afflicted with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and even with its severe degenerative properties she would never introduce herself that way. Nor did she want to play such a character, or have her condition miraculously catered to in game. It's not uplifting, it's pandering and babying, it's talking down to people who have the unfortunate reality of being fucked up. If you have any sort of crippling disability you will know why it's so insulting.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796These people truly believe you are who you pretend to be, which means games which enable/encourage playing 'immoral' characters are immoral themselves, and any character you play must embody the values you yourself hold. And the lengths they go to overcome the cognitive dissonance when it comes to this is rather breathtaking. This is why Fate of Cthulhu features that infamous statement on Lovecraft. This is why #EvilHat is releasing books like the Accessibility and Decolonization toolkits. This is why you're seeing all the nonsensical shit you're seeing from these people.

Right, which is why orcs being inherently evil is automatically both racist and represents colonialism. Roleplaying is reality to these people.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796All my interactions have been civil too, but not even they will deny they have anger issues. It's also unlikely current year Fred would have written such a game today given how it deals with 'madness' and mental illness, which is a shame as it's one of my favorites.

Fred can go fuck himself as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796Which better win because it's so fucking good I'm even willing to overlook the developers being Communists!

Big praise! Haven't even heard of it to be honest, is it the writing or the gameplay that draws you to it?

Also, has anyone ever told you how fucking difficult it is to reply to you because of your multi-quotes?

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809Only tangentially related as it's not a disability: my brother is gay, is that the first thing he tells people about himself? Or even the last? No. He's just gay. He's a person. He likes Godzilla (as do I). He likes quiche (I do not).

He likes quiche?! That monster! :eek:

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796These people truly believe you are who you pretend to be, which means games which enable/encourage playing 'immoral' characters are immoral themselves, and any character you play must embody the values you yourself hold.

To be fair, I've run across this belief before from distinctly non-SJ thinkers as well; I once had a rather interesting discussion on TBP, well back before it moved to its current extremes, about the morality of playing games like Little Fears in which, as it was pointed out to me (with admittedly rather sound logic) the players are basically mentally envisioning acts of horrible abuse happening to children for the sake of their own entertainment. The gentleman who held this stance was most definitely right-wing and traditionalist in his outlook.

While it was (and is) my contention that nothing done in the imagination which is known to be imaginary and never intended to be real can be immoral in any objective sense, I nonetheless had to concede that there are some extremes of fantasy at which it's not unreasonable to raise a hackle or two, and to which one can be validly averse to allowing or encouraging in a game. Who we pretend to be is not who we are, but who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do, by our own choice, can often say more about us than we are sometimes comfortable acknowledging. I think most people have encountered That Player at least once, the one whose characters squicked the rest of us out.

What I object to in the SJ outlook is the presumption that the connection between fantasy and reality is proscriptive and inevitable, and that it ultimately represents the only "real' reason anybody games in the first place, rather than simply being one element of it and not necessarily an indicative one. It's the assumption that we can't be trusted not to be That Player without the game itself trying to force us not to be.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122828He likes quiche?! That monster! :eek:

That's what I keep telling him but he's yet to come around.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122830To be fair, I've run across this belief before from distinctly non-SJ thinkers as well;

Its nothing new really. And goes back at least to the early silent movie era and I'd bet there were sporatic incidents as long as theres been stage plays and actors. Some people just cannot grasp acting and for god unknown reasons see the actor and the character as one and the same nearly, or at least that the actor must have the same inclinations as the character. This seems to invariably be directed at the villains.

SJWs just take it to insane extremes as they do everything else. Hell its popped up in board gaming even.

I truly have never understood the bias against quiche. I suspect its the weird name. It's a meat + cheese + eggs omelet in a savory tart shell. What's not to like?

But I've always been a proponent that Real Men Cook. Why? Because Fire and Blades! What's more manly than commanding fire and steel to do our bidding? :cool:

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122830To be fair, I've run across this belief before from distinctly non-SJ thinkers as well; I once had a rather interesting discussion on TBP, well back before it moved to its current extremes, about the morality of playing games like Little Fears in which, as it was pointed out to me (with admittedly rather sound logic) the players are basically mentally envisioning acts of horrible abuse happening to children for the sake of their own entertainment. The gentleman who held this stance was most definitely right-wing and traditionalist in his outlook.

While it was (and is) my contention that nothing done in the imagination which is known to be imaginary and never intended to be real can be immoral in any objective sense, I nonetheless had to concede that there are some extremes of fantasy at which it's not unreasonable to raise a hackle or two, and to which one can be validly averse to allowing or encouraging in a game. Who we pretend to be is not who we are, but who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do, by our own choice, can often say more about us than we are sometimes comfortable acknowledging. I think most people have encountered That Player at least once, the one whose characters squicked the rest of us out.

What I object to in the SJ outlook is the presumption that the connection between fantasy and reality is proscriptive and inevitable, and that it ultimately represents the only "real' reason anybody games in the first place, rather than simply being one element of it and not necessarily an indicative one. It's the assumption that we can't be trusted not to be That Player without the game itself trying to force us not to be.

I'm reading this, and a few things begin to make sense. I can see that there are some people for whom RPGs give them the license to go to dark places and enjoy imagining doing dark things there a little too much.  That Player has definitely made me uncomfortable...

But the rest is eye-opening. There's a certain puritanical aspect to the proscriptive connection between fantasy and reality, isn't there? Unless one's thoughts and imagination are good, there is no way to behave "good". So, where does this attitude stem from?  Is there a basis for this "imagination is who you really are" in psychology, or sociology? Or is this a pop-pseudo-science-psychiatry? Or is this entirely cynical?

Its definitely true that the media we consume influences us on some level. If it didn't we wouldn't watch it. Its also desensitized us to stuff maybe we could have been sensitive towards otherwise.

The question is of course the level it influences us and the amount of reasonable responsiveness. Maybe relishing in sadisism and the misery of others can be dangaerous but maybe not. I err more on the side of "Let people do what they want" but I still get the principle of not wanting overexposure.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1122877I truly have never understood the bias against quiche. I suspect its the weird name. It's a meat + cheese + eggs omelet in a savory tart shell. What's not to like?

For me it's just a totally physical repugnance to the texture. I've always loathed eggs in just about any form. But I fully concede that's entirely personal and irrational.