TheRPGSite

From the article:

QuoteAnother challenge: diversity and inclusion, topics that are of special interest to the game's young fan base. The artwork in D&D's early publications featured overwhelmingly white characters and sexualized women. Wizards has made a conscious effort to change that in the currently available fifth edition, but critics have noted that the game's use of "race"—a character's species, like a gnome or an orc—can reinforce stereotypes. All drow, or dark elves, were traditionally portrayed as evil, for instance.

Wizards seems to be trying, hosting roundtable discussions with fans after promising to promote diversity in a 2020 blog post. And while some efforts have been derided as lip service—such as slapping sensitivity disclaimers on culturally insensitive books that remain for sale—Williams insists that she is serious about creating "a culture where everybody can do their best work" and "bringing more people into the party." The Player's Handbook now explicitly tells readers, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."

"D&D as a game, as a lifestyle has the potential to help people be more comfortable with who they are, express themselves more," says Williams, who finally got the opportunity to play the game this year, with Cocks as her dungeon master. "It's amazing how far it's come since someone first told me I couldn't play when I was in that basement. I'm super-excited."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/could-dungeons-26-dragons-be-the-next-harry-potter-stranger-things-have-happened/ar-AA12N7Ia (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/could-dungeons-26-dragons-be-the-next-harry-potter-stranger-things-have-happened/ar-AA12N7Ia)

So in essence; WOTC wants D&D, to be the exact opposite of what I want it to be.

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 14, 2022, 12:54:36 PM
So in essence; WOTC wants D&D, to be the exact opposite of what I want it to be.

Pretty much, for most of us.

I think we've known that since this: https://dnd.wizards.com/news/diversity-and-dnd (https://dnd.wizards.com/news/diversity-and-dnd)

To which, I reply:

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 14, 2022, 12:45:41 PM
From the article:

QuoteAnother challenge: diversity and inclusion, topics that are of special interest to the game's young fan base. The artwork in D&D's early publications featured overwhelmingly white characters and sexualized women. Wizards has made a conscious effort to change that in the currently available fifth edition, but critics have noted that the game's use of "race"—a character's species, like a gnome or an orc—can reinforce stereotypes. All drow, or dark elves, were traditionally portrayed as evil, for instance.

Wizards seems to be trying, hosting roundtable discussions with fans after promising to promote diversity in a 2020 blog post. And while some efforts have been derided as lip service—such as slapping sensitivity disclaimers on culturally insensitive books that remain for sale—Williams insists that she is serious about creating "a culture where everybody can do their best work" and "bringing more people into the party." The Player's Handbook now explicitly tells readers, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."

"D&D as a game, as a lifestyle has the potential to help people be more comfortable with who they are, express themselves more," says Williams, who finally got the opportunity to play the game this year, with Cocks as her dungeon master. "It's amazing how far it's come since someone first told me I couldn't play when I was in that basement. I'm super-excited."

Amazing how repeating a lie often enough still doesn't make it true. (But the sociopaths repeating the lie never stop repeating it, because the more they repeat the lie the more power they can exercise over you.)

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 14, 2022, 12:45:41 PM
From the article:

Quote*snip* "It's amazing how far it's come since someone first told me I couldn't play when I was in that basement. I'm super-excited."

I'm triggered that the DM's name is "Cocks" in a game that has historically been a racist, misogynistic boy's club dominated by incels.

I thought Wizards was trying to do better. Such a disappointment.

The racists at WOTC can take their newspeak version of "diversity and inclusion " and cram it up their asses

What do people think about the business information in the article? From other estimates, it sounds like D&D is about a quarter the size of Magic: The Gathering, which has also been growing, making $580 million in 2021. Still, D&D's supposed continuous growth for 9 years and young player base sounds good as far as their business. Of course, their own numbers are suspect - but WotC president being promoted to top Hasbro CEO and shareholder reports sound positive.

My anecdotal experience fits with this. I was shocked two months ago when I visited the Grand Canyon, and the ranger letting us in said that she played D&D too, and had a group of rangers she played with.

Doing well as a business doesn't mean a game is particularly good, but especially as the market leader, it will affect how other game companies proceed.

QuoteIn fact, around 40% of D&D players are now female, according to a 2020 study Wizards of the Coast conducted with market research firm Newzoo. And surprisingly for a game that's about to turn 50, the players skew young. Helped along by a prominent role in the hit Netflix series Stranger Things, 24% of D&D players are between 20 and 24 years old, with 18% in the 25-to-29 bracket and another 18% 30 to 34. Celebrities including Joe Manganiello, Deborah Ann Woll and Vin Diesel have sung the game's praises, and D&D books frequently pop up on bestseller lists. Next year will see the release of a blockbuster D&D video game in Baldur's Gate III—the latest in a series that has sold more than 5 million copies—plus a big-budget movie in Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, starring Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez. Both properties sport official D&D licenses from Wizards of the Coast.

In all, Wizards of the Coast estimates that 50 million people have played the game since 1974, and while Hasbro does not break out D&D as a segment in its public filings, it noted that 2021 represented the game's ninth consecutive year of growth. Arpiné Kocharyan, a UBS analyst, estimates that D&D is now responsible for $100 million to $150 million in annual revenue.

That is a small slice of the $1.3 billion in net revenue that Wizards of the Coast posted last year and looks even more modest next to Hasbro's $6.4 billion. But D&D is growing fast, with revenue up a reported 35% in 2020 from 2019 and more introductory D&D products sold in 2021 than when they were released in 2014. And it is part of a phenomenally profitable unit, with Wizards accounting for 72% ($547 million) of Hasbro's operating profit for 2021. "D&D is, I think, the poster child for our brand blueprint strategy," says Chris Cocks, who provided one signal of the division's importance when he was promoted from Wizards president to Hasbro CEO early this year. Outsiders are taking notice, too. An activist campaign by Alta Fox Capital Management this year unsuccessfully sought to spin off Wizards.

Man, somebody should write a game just like D&D without the politics in it.

"who finally got the opportunity to play the game this year"

Hired to run WotC without ever playing a game of D&D??  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You know the sun's setting now.

Quote from: Chainsaw on October 14, 2022, 08:09:21 PM
"who finally got the opportunity to play the game this year"

That's exactly what I thought... She was soooo into it she finally started playing - In her defense it was only a gap of over forty years! LOOOL

Quote from: Zelen on October 14, 2022, 01:43:37 PM

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 14, 2022, 12:45:41 PM
From the article:

QuoteAnother challenge: diversity and inclusion, topics that are of special interest to the game's young fan base. The artwork in D&D's early publications featured overwhelmingly white characters and sexualized women. Wizards has made a conscious effort to change that in the currently available fifth edition, but critics have noted that the game's use of "race"—a character's species, like a gnome or an orc—can reinforce stereotypes. All drow, or dark elves, were traditionally portrayed as evil, for instance.

Wizards seems to be trying, hosting roundtable discussions with fans after promising to promote diversity in a 2020 blog post. And while some efforts have been derided as lip service—such as slapping sensitivity disclaimers on culturally insensitive books that remain for sale—Williams insists that she is serious about creating "a culture where everybody can do their best work" and "bringing more people into the party." The Player's Handbook now explicitly tells readers, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."

"D&D as a game, as a lifestyle has the potential to help people be more comfortable with who they are, express themselves more," says Williams, who finally got the opportunity to play the game this year, with Cocks as her dungeon master. "It's amazing how far it's come since someone first told me I couldn't play when I was in that basement. I'm super-excited."

Amazing how repeating a lie often enough still doesn't make it true. (But the sociopaths repeating the lie never stop repeating it, because the more they repeat the lie the more power they can exercise over you.)

I get others saying this isn't the direction for them. I don't get what you think is the lie in this? You saying nobody told her she couldn't play?

The best thing you can do to fuck with WotC, run games at your hobby shop.  Introduce new players to the hobby.  Use older modules and content.  Pre-Winninger D&D 5E was decent, it just needed a bit of hacks to make it lethal again.  Use racial stats, have goblins and orcs be unquestionably evil.  Put out a good game and encourage other players to DM as well.  Show them ways of getting the old D&D content, like Dungeon Magazine for adventures.  Build a good gaming culture at your hobby shop.  Having guys playing at the shop is one way to fuck with D&D One.

QuoteAnother challenge: diversity and inclusion, topics that are of special interest to the game's young fan base. The artwork in D&D's early publications featured overwhelmingly white characters and sexualized women.

(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51259dfce4b01b12552dad3e/1622678055708-S8TF9NMHYUG3AV9K2TVF/Screenshot+2021-06-02+163336.png)
When you can't tell skin tone from ink sketches, the race of the characters featured in the art work is whatever you want them to be. Those who want featured characters to be overwhelmingly while will see featured characters as overwhelmingly white.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 14, 2022, 09:50:19 PM
When you can't tell skin tone from ink sketches, the race of the characters featured in the art work is whatever you want them to be. Those who want featured characters to be overwhelmingly while will see featured characters as overwhelmingly white.

While I think it's fair to say that D&D grows out of distinctly European history & mythos, even trying to talk about real-world racial groups in the context of fantasy worlds doesn't make sense. None of the characteristics of real-world races inherently apply to fantasy races, even if they're using similar costume or features.

That picture is of the same character at different levels.

Quote from: Mistwell on October 14, 2022, 09:06:46 PMI get others saying this isn't the direction for them. I don't get what you think is the lie in this? You saying nobody told her she couldn't play?

Awfully convenient backstory, but who knows. Maybe true.

Quote from: Zelen on October 14, 2022, 10:02:42 PM
While I think it's fair to say that D&D grows out of distinctly European history & mythos,

I don't think it's fair to say that. Too much evidence to the contrary.

Quoteeven trying to talk about real-world racial groups in the context of fantasy worlds doesn't make sense. None of the characteristics of real-world races inherently apply to fantasy races, even if they're using similar costume or features.

Plenty of fantasy worlds are simply alternate earths and DO in fact retain real world racial groups. There was absolutely no mention of fantasy races at all in my comment.

Quote from: jhkim on October 14, 2022, 07:40:40 PM
What do people think about the business information in the article? From other estimates, it sounds like D&D is about a quarter the size of Magic: The Gathering, which has also been growing, making $580 million in 2021. Still, D&D's supposed continuous growth for 9 years and young player base sounds good as far as their business. Of course, their own numbers are suspect - but WotC president being promoted to top Hasbro CEO and shareholder reports sound positive.

If they really want to make some cash, they'd dump this D&D nonsense and go into the pornography business.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on October 15, 2022, 12:39:15 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 14, 2022, 07:40:40 PM
What do people think about the business information in the article? From other estimates, it sounds like D&D is about a quarter the size of Magic: The Gathering, which has also been growing, making $580 million in 2021. Still, D&D's supposed continuous growth for 9 years and young player base sounds good as far as their business. Of course, their own numbers are suspect - but WotC president being promoted to top Hasbro CEO and shareholder reports sound positive.

If they really want to make some cash, they'd dump this D&D nonsense and go into the pornography business.

Nice reversal. Normally it's their customers who get fucked.

Quote from: Effete on October 14, 2022, 05:29:13 PM
I'm triggered that the DM's name is "Cocks" in a game that has historically been a racist, misogynistic boy's club dominated by incels.

I thought Wizards was trying to do better. Such a disappointment.

You are triggered by "Cocks"?

Let me tell you, I am fucking triggered and literally shaking that D&D is now in the hands of a fat, woke, white, upper-class woman named Williams... again.

(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA12N7HV.img)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o3qakEfA05I/UXplI1V7X2I/AAAAAAAABOQ/1EYYjJuc7pQ/s1600/LorraineWilliams.jpg)

Is this even a different person or just a different outfit? Put Gene Weigel and his mighty spiked flail on the case at once!

Anybody else notice the article has both a complaint that women are over-sexualized and that genders are non-binary?

Which is is?  If you want to argue gender descrimination, you need genders to be firmly defined.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 15, 2022, 10:17:35 AM
Anybody else notice the article has both a complaint that women are over-sexualized and that genders are non-binary?

Which is is?  If you want to argue gender descrimination, you need genders to be firmly defined.

It actually makes things easier. For example, here's an image of a non-binary person who I will just assume identifies as a woman who is being sexualized:
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/62899a418eb7954214f7f781cfeda19b/29b8ca0a56a29164-b4/s1280x1920/c163ea75fc94d8b18ecd68434754c9d2e000c727.jpg)

Quote from: Chainsaw on October 14, 2022, 10:14:42 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on October 14, 2022, 09:06:46 PMI get others saying this isn't the direction for them. I don't get what you think is the lie in this? You saying nobody told her she couldn't play?

Awfully convenient backstory, but who knows. Maybe true.

I don't care if she was literally told she couldn't play. This "story" is being presented to advance a false claim of widespread misogyny and non-acceptance within the hobby.

Even if her anecdotal tale of one single incident that may or may not have taken place the way she recounts it happens to be true what's actually being claimed here is still a lie.

Now, just imagine if the 3.0 / 3.5 OGL hadn't happened......

These people would have even more of a stranglehold on the hobby, than they do now.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 15, 2022, 10:17:35 AM
Anybody else notice the article has both a complaint that women are over-sexualized and that genders are non-binary?

Which is is?  If you want to argue gender descrimination, you need genders to be firmly defined.

That doesn't logically track. For example, I can argue that there has historically been discrimination against black Americans, while at the same time arguing that there has never been a binary division between black people and white Americans - since there have been mixed ancestry people since long before the U.S. was a country.

According to the logic expressed here, I'd have to define a clear binary line between black Americans and white Americans in order to say that blacks were discriminated against. But I don't think that's true. Historically, the people most concerned about defining a firm binary line were racists, such as those who enforced the "one drop" legal standard in laws against miscegenation.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 14, 2022, 12:45:41 PM
From the article:

QuoteAnother challenge: diversity and inclusion, topics that are of special interest to the game's young fan base. The artwork in D&D's early publications featured overwhelmingly white characters and sexualized women. Wizards has made a conscious effort to change that in the currently available fifth edition, but critics have noted that the game's use of "race"—a character's species, like a gnome or an orc—can reinforce stereotypes. All drow, or dark elves, were traditionally portrayed as evil, for instance.

Wizards seems to be trying, hosting roundtable discussions with fans after promising to promote diversity in a 2020 blog post. And while some efforts have been derided as lip service—such as slapping sensitivity disclaimers on culturally insensitive books that remain for sale—Williams insists that she is serious about creating "a culture where everybody can do their best work" and "bringing more people into the party." The Player's Handbook now explicitly tells readers, "You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender."

"D&D as a game, as a lifestyle has the potential to help people be more comfortable with who they are, express themselves more," says Williams, who finally got the opportunity to play the game this year, with Cocks as her dungeon master. "It's amazing how far it's come since someone first told me I couldn't play when I was in that basement. I'm super-excited."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/could-dungeons-26-dragons-be-the-next-harry-potter-stranger-things-have-happened/ar-AA12N7Ia (https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/could-dungeons-26-dragons-be-the-next-harry-potter-stranger-things-have-happened/ar-AA12N7Ia)

I find what's happened here really interesting.

D&D has become more socially acceptable. By which I mean people who play D&D are no longer subject to as much risk of ridicule or ostracism as was the case in the 1990s. You could quibble with that but let's run with it for a while.

How does a mainstream journalist build a narrative for this? It is all about establishing and reinforcing social status by kicking downwards. Back in the 90s, the mainstream could make themselves feel great all day by kicking down on nerds and geeks. But then geek culture became lucrative. So now the mainstream needs to invent some narrative why it was ok to kick down on D&D back then, but now it's a respectable market segment. So, in the spirit of the times, make up some crap about how it used to be racist or misogynistic or whatever. It used to be for proto-incels (so it was ok to hate it back then) but now it's for lovely geeks.

What hack writer wouldn't prefer to avoid challenging their readers by making them think maybe they were wrong to despise D&D before? Better to blame the victim, i.e. old-school D&D (and its players), and avoid challenging the reader. Plus (although Forbes doesn't need to do this, only the woke end of the hobby), you can still kick down on those old-schoolers.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 15, 2022, 12:25:11 PM

Quote from: Chainsaw on October 14, 2022, 10:14:42 PM
Awfully convenient backstory, but who knows. Maybe true.

I don't care if she was literally told she couldn't play. This "story" is being presented to advance a false claim of widespread misogyny and non-acceptance within the hobby.

Even if her anecdotal tale of one single incident that may or may not have taken place the way she recounts it happens to be true what's actually being claimed here is still a lie.

^THIS^

She left out all context and circumstance from the time she was so horribly told that she 'couldn't play'.


The most likely scenario:

Quote from: Fat Williams the Second on October 14, 2022, 12:45:41 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/could-dungeons-26-dragons-be-the-next-harry-potter-stranger-things-have-happened/ar-AA12N7Ia
...
"D&D as a game, as a lifestyle has the potential to help people be more comfortable with who they are, express themselves more," says Williams, who finally got the opportunity to play the game this year, with Cocks as her dungeon master. "It's amazing how far it's come since someone first told me I couldn't play when I was in that basement. I'm super-excited."

"My very first experience wanting to play Dungeons & Dragons was back in the '80s," says the 55-year-old Williams, who grew up amid the tobacco fields of North Carolina, "and there were some of my male friends in a basement, and I wanted to play, and they were like: 'No, you can't play. This isn't for girls.' I'm really excited that that is no longer the case."

She was a teenager in the early 80's, probably at a female friends house, and some of the girls brothers friends came over to play D&D.

They were not her "male friends", they were just some boys she knew in high school...

She see's them playing D&D and was like: "Hey I'd like to play!".

So a group of teenaged boys looking to play their game get asked by a girl that they obviously didn't want around at the moment if she could play too...

Of course they kicked her to the curb!

Naturally in her mind: one group of teenaged boys in a basement = all evil straight white male D&D players ever.

This article was a good thing. It showed that Cynthia Williams is not above being a disingenuous to serve her own ends.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 15, 2022, 08:28:12 PM
This article was a good thing. It showed that Cynthia Williams is not above being a disingenuous to serve her own ends.

She's still bitter that she wasn't attractive enough. This is her way of trying to take revenge for the insult to her ego.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 15, 2022, 08:28:12 PM
The most likely scenario:

Quote from: Fat Williams the Second on October 14, 2022, 12:45:41 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/could-dungeons-26-dragons-be-the-next-harry-potter-stranger-things-have-happened/ar-AA12N7Ia
...
"D&D as a game, as a lifestyle has the potential to help people be more comfortable with who they are, express themselves more," says Williams, who finally got the opportunity to play the game this year, with Cocks as her dungeon master. "It's amazing how far it's come since someone first told me I couldn't play when I was in that basement. I'm super-excited."

"My very first experience wanting to play Dungeons & Dragons was back in the '80s," says the 55-year-old Williams, who grew up amid the tobacco fields of North Carolina, "and there were some of my male friends in a basement, and I wanted to play, and they were like: 'No, you can't play. This isn't for girls.' I'm really excited that that is no longer the case."

She was a teenager in the early 80's, probably at a female friends house, and some of the girls brothers friends came over to play D&D.

They were not her "male friends", they were just some boys she knew in high school...

She see's them playing D&D and was like: "Hey I'd like to play!".

So a group of teenaged boys looking to play their game get asked by a girl that they obviously didn't want around at the moment if she could play too...

Of course they kicked her to the curb!

I'm much more cynical.

What I think happened is a bunch of kids were hanging out, some were playing DnD, and she mocked them for it. So they told her, "okay then, fuck off, you can never play with us."

What doesn't pass the sniff test is that she wanted to play since the fukken 80s, but somehow was never able to? Because she was "a girl?" Bullshit! Most of the groups I've been in since the 90s have had at least one girl in them. No one cared. In fact, most players welcomed the different perspective. Her whole story is a lie, and I'll put money down that she's merely trying to save face because back in the 80s-90s SHE was the one shitting on the dorks who spent their weekends playing elf games. SHE was the toxic one (and clearly still is).

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 15, 2022, 11:48:59 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 15, 2022, 10:17:35 AM
Anybody else notice the article has both a complaint that women are over-sexualized and that genders are non-binary?

Which is is?  If you want to argue gender descrimination, you need genders to be firmly defined.

It actually makes things easier. For example, here's an image of a non-binary person who I will just assume identifies as a woman who is being sexualized:
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/62899a418eb7954214f7f781cfeda19b/29b8ca0a56a29164-b4/s1280x1920/c163ea75fc94d8b18ecd68434754c9d2e000c727.jpg)

The only sexualization I see taking place is the impressive bulge on that dwarf. "My beard is up here, you disgusting little imps!"

I was wondering what is wrong about over sexualized women in a fantasy?  It's in the name. Fantasy.  As Andy Weir, author of The Martian and Project Hail Mary said, "The protagonist of most great stories is somebody you want to be, or somebody you want to have sex with."

I want the heroes to be cut, ripped, with all their teeth, and maybe even make real life centerfold models and pick up artists envious.  We don't play games like these to be nobodies who never did anything more exiting than travel to the next village once in their life. 

It goes hand in hand with the idea that monster races exist to be villains, so we make them look ugly as well.  A monster is kill on sight because they're dangerous, and disgusting physically.  Example: Minions of Nurgle demons.  Or even classic pig faced orcs in horned helmets who smell like manure and are cannibals.

But I want to team up with an NPC who is a 25 year old barbarian chick in a leopard skin bikini, thigh high boots, metal pauldons, a dragon cross guard great sword that's drawn from her back scabbard somehow, and looks better than real life pinup model Bettie Page. 

I'm there to have fun by going to the extremes of both good and evil, not solve the insecurities some Karen has in real life. 

^^^this^^^

It's not just women who are sexualized, the men are too. They either shirtless hunks with ripped abs or pretty-boys with dashing smiles and tight pants. Not always, but then not all women were depicted as sex objects either. The issue has always been that people will see only what they want to see, whether that's satanism or chauvinism.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 16, 2022, 02:28:51 AM
I was wondering what is wrong about over sexualized women in a fantasy?

Some fat unattractive people (usually female) resent that other people don't find them attractive. They think that eliminating pictures of attractive people will assuage the pain in their soul. You also get the male feminist types who are ashamed of their own sexuality, they see themselves as repulsive and they project that feeling onto others.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 16, 2022, 02:28:51 AM
I was wondering what is wrong about over sexualized women in a fantasy?

Because "progressives" want to control even your fantasies, in the cause of fixing the evil, rapey mens of their dirty attractions to women.

I'm blissfully liberated from giving a shit about what WotC is doing or who at WotC is doing it. As far as I'm concerned, WotC is irrelevant.

Quote from: Effete on October 16, 2022, 03:03:24 AM
^^^this^^^

It's not just women who are sexualized, the men are too. They either shirtless hunks with ripped abs or pretty-boys with dashing smiles and tight pants. Not always, but then not all women were depicted as sex objects either. The issue has always been that people will see only what they want to see, whether that's satanism or chauvinism.

You guys don't understand. Men are NEVER sexualized, only women are/can be. When you see a ripped, shirtless hunk most straight or bi women would wanna fuck that's just a "Male Power Fantasy", which is NEVER sexualization and just as bad for women, because they're there to stroke the male ego with images of unachievable male bodies they will never get to achieve.

So you see, no matter what counter examples you might provide, things always flow in one direction: everything is good for men and bad for women. And it's always there to advance the interest of men at the expense of women, because Patriarchy (fuck face!).

Quote from: Effete on October 16, 2022, 02:00:02 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on October 15, 2022, 08:28:12 PM
The most likely scenario:

Quote from: Fat Williams the Second on October 14, 2022, 12:45:41 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/could-dungeons-26-dragons-be-the-next-harry-potter-stranger-things-have-happened/ar-AA12N7Ia
...
"D&D as a game, as a lifestyle has the potential to help people be more comfortable with who they are, express themselves more," says Williams, who finally got the opportunity to play the game this year, with Cocks as her dungeon master. "It's amazing how far it's come since someone first told me I couldn't play when I was in that basement. I'm super-excited."

"My very first experience wanting to play Dungeons & Dragons was back in the '80s," says the 55-year-old Williams, who grew up amid the tobacco fields of North Carolina, "and there were some of my male friends in a basement, and I wanted to play, and they were like: 'No, you can't play. This isn't for girls.' I'm really excited that that is no longer the case."

She was a teenager in the early 80's, probably at a female friends house, and some of the girls brothers friends came over to play D&D.

They were not her "male friends", they were just some boys she knew in high school...

She see's them playing D&D and was like: "Hey I'd like to play!".

So a group of teenaged boys looking to play their game get asked by a girl that they obviously didn't want around at the moment if she could play too...

Of course they kicked her to the curb!

I'm much more cynical.

What I think happened is a bunch of kids were hanging out, some were playing DnD, and she mocked them for it. So they told her, "okay then, fuck off, you can never play with us."

What doesn't pass the sniff test is that she wanted to play since the fukken 80s, but somehow was never able to? Because she was "a girl?" Bullshit! Most of the groups I've been in since the 90s have had at least one girl in them. No one cared. In fact, most players welcomed the different perspective. Her whole story is a lie, and I'll put money down that she's merely trying to save face because back in the 80s-90s SHE was the one shitting on the dorks who spent their weekends playing elf games. SHE was the toxic one (and clearly still is).

Pretty much. There's a bunch of ways this scenario could've played out that we're not privy to from her retelling of it, even if something like what she claims did happen. We don't have the full context, just her version of events, which are being used to advance an agenda that's largely contradictory to reality.

Could it have been possible that a group of nerds told her she couldn't play with them? Sure. But female attention starved nerds are far more likely to jump at the chance to have a female presence in their group than to turn her away. If they did, there's probably something else going on here, and it doesn't even have to be that she was a bitch. Maybe she was younger than them, and they didn't want to have a kid they had to babysit in their group, like the black guy's sister in Stranger Things.

Not to mention that even if they did turn her away, she could've gotten her own books and started her own group, and maybe make it all girls even—which is NEVER a bad thing because women can always have all the female exclusive things that they want and it's never bigotry, it's empowering (but not in a Female Power Fantasy kinda way, cuz those don't exist. Only Males have those). It's only when males try to have exclusive things that the world falls apart.

Quote from: Effete on October 16, 2022, 02:05:51 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 15, 2022, 11:48:59 AM
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/62899a418eb7954214f7f781cfeda19b/29b8ca0a56a29164-b4/s1280x1920/c163ea75fc94d8b18ecd68434754c9d2e000c727.jpg)

The only sexualization I see taking place is the impressive bulge on that dwarf. "My beard is up here, you disgusting little imps!"

That's because it was a lot harder to be a trans-woman when tape didn't exist to aid in "the tuck." It's a type of oppression we glorify every time we use these sorts of game settings. Also, you're a transphobe for even noticing. If you must make jokes, do you really have to go after such low-hanging fruit?

Quote from: Effete on October 16, 2022, 03:03:24 AMThe issue has always been that people will see only what they want to see, whether that's satanism or chauvinism.

Don't forget the drow. An obvious dog whistle for the Nigerian prince scheme.

Who do they worship? Lolth. Other than just being LOL in medieval speak (e.g. "I lolth at thy buffoonery, able jongleur!"), she's also queen of the spiders. And what do spiders have? A web.

So here you have a race specifically created with the same skin tone as Nigerians who are laughing out loud when you fall for their ruse where they use a royal title on the web, and adventures are lured by the promise of riches, many only to lose everything.


You can just mail me my PhD now.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 16, 2022, 09:08:09 AM

Quote from: Effete on October 16, 2022, 03:03:24 AM
^^^this^^^

It's not just women who are sexualized, the men are too. They either shirtless hunks with ripped abs or pretty-boys with dashing smiles and tight pants. Not always, but then not all women were depicted as sex objects either. The issue has always been that people will see only what they want to see, whether that's satanism or chauvinism.

You guys don't understand. Men are NEVER sexualized, only women are/can be. When you see a ripped, shirtless hunk most straight or bi women would wanna fuck that's just a "Male Power Fantasy", which is NEVER sexualization and just as bad for women, because they're there to stroke the male ego with images of unachievable male bodies they will never get to achieve.

So you see, no matter what counter examples you might provide, things always flow in one direction: everything is good for men and bad for women. And it's always there to advance the interest of men at the expense of women, because Patriarchy (fuck face!).

Oh... oh my God! You're right!
How could I have been so blind to the realities of andro-centric sexism in rpgs? Does this mean the Satanic Panic was legitimate too? Well, I love gaming too much to give it up, so I guess I should work on a blood sacrifice before next session. Noob question: do I rape the victim before or after she's dead?

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 16, 2022, 09:32:56 AM

Quote from: Effete on October 16, 2022, 02:05:51 AM

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 15, 2022, 11:48:59 AM
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/62899a418eb7954214f7f781cfeda19b/29b8ca0a56a29164-b4/s1280x1920/c163ea75fc94d8b18ecd68434754c9d2e000c727.jpg)

The only sexualization I see taking place is the impressive bulge on that dwarf. "My beard is up here, you disgusting little imps!"

That's because it was a lot harder to be a trans-woman when tape didn't exist to aid in "the tuck." It's a type of oppression we glorify every time we use these sorts of game settings. Also, you're a transphobe for even noticing. If you must make jokes, do you really have to go after such low-hanging fruit?

Well, I never said it was male dwarf, so you are obviously projecting your own internalized transphobia onto me. CLEARLY the bulge is from a female penis, and OF COURSE I noticed... I don't deny the existance of transfemale dwarfs like you do, bigot.

Also, low-hanging fruit is meant to be plucked and eaten.

Quote
Don't forget the drow. An obvious dog whistle for the Nigerian prince scheme.

Who do they worship? Lolth. Other than just being LOL in medieval speak (e.g. "I lolth at thy buffoonery, able jongleur!"), she's also queen of the spiders. And what do spiders have? A web.

So here you have a race specifically created with the same skin tone as Nigerians who are laughing out loud when you fall for their ruse where they use a royal title on the web, and adventures are lured by the promise of riches, many only to lose everything.


You can just mail me my PhD now.

Not gonna lie, this was amazing!
As requested, your Physical Dick is being shipped.

My house, my table, my rules.  And in my game Larry Elmore's Dragonlance Bettie Page the Barbarian is my sidekick.

Just don't tell my real life wife.

If it helps I will stop using hyper good looking avatars for my female heroes in my fictional universe when real life women stop wanting to date men out of their league. 

Quote from: Melan on October 15, 2022, 04:21:22 AM

Quote from: Effete on October 14, 2022, 05:29:13 PM
I'm triggered that the DM's name is "Cocks" in a game that has historically been a racist, misogynistic boy's club dominated by incels.

I thought Wizards was trying to do better. Such a disappointment.

You are triggered by "Cocks"?

Let me tell you, I am fucking triggered and literally shaking that D&D is now in the hands of a fat, woke, white, upper-class woman named Williams... again.


Is this even a different person or just a different outfit? Put Gene Weigel and his mighty spiked flail on the case at once!

Overweight is a norm for D&D. Gary was no lightweight. You're not triggered by her weight.
White is the norm. You're not triggered that she's white.
Upper-class is the norm: the job come with an income that automatically makes one upper-class if they were not upper-class before the job. You're not triggered by her class.
In fact I don't think you'd give a crap if this were a man named Williams so it's not Williams that triggers you.

So...you're really triggered it's a woke woman.

The fact that her being a woman would bug you kinda justifies her being more progressive I'd think.

Feeble, even for a strawman.

  I dont think the problem is she is a woman, the problem is she seems to be a Karen.

  I would also say, class is NOT solely determined by income.  I would even go so far as to say it is moderately determined by income, so I honestly have no idea if the lady is upper or middle class.  I assume upper class to get the jobs she has had have a whole lot to do with connections than merits (and this is not because she is a woman, this is just how life really works) but I have no idea.  She does certainly seem to be a Karen with her comments in that article, but if she just sticks to x's and o's in her job and makes those comments to satiate the problem children...ok.   Comments comparing black people to gender non-binary sorts though...come on now are we just going to keep making shit up to avoid the reality that the race you are born and being transgender/gay are NOT the same thing? 

Quote from: Mistwell on October 16, 2022, 08:33:25 PM

Quote from: Melan on October 15, 2022, 04:21:22 AM

Quote from: Effete on October 14, 2022, 05:29:13 PM
I'm triggered that the DM's name is "Cocks" in a game that has historically been a racist, misogynistic boy's club dominated by incels.

I thought Wizards was trying to do better. Such a disappointment.

You are triggered by "Cocks"?

Let me tell you, I am fucking triggered and literally shaking that D&D is now in the hands of a fat, woke, white, upper-class woman named Williams... again.


Is this even a different person or just a different outfit? Put Gene Weigel and his mighty spiked flail on the case at once!

Overweight is a norm for D&D. Gary was no lightweight. You're not triggered by her weight.
White is the norm. You're not triggered that she's white.
Upper-class is the norm: the job come with an income that automatically makes one upper-class if they were not upper-class before the job. You're not triggered by her class.
In fact I don't think you'd give a crap if this were a man named Williams so it's not Williams that triggers you.

So...you're really triggered it's a woke woman.

The fact that her being a woman would bug you kinda justifies her being more progressive I'd think.

So, obviously he's being sarcastic to make the comparison with Lorraine Williams, who did a lot of damage to D&D, just as scuzzy wokesters like the new Williams are doing now. Only wokesters get Triggered. Normal people get annoyed.

Edit: But fat unattractive women do get less leeway than slim attractive women, obviously. Female wokesters who are not fat & inherently unattractive do often do their best to mitigate this unfair disparity through dyed hair, piercings and tattoos, though.

Quote from: Mistwell on October 16, 2022, 08:33:25 PM

Quote from: Melan on October 15, 2022, 04:21:22 AM

Quote from: Effete on October 14, 2022, 05:29:13 PM
I'm triggered that the DM's name is "Cocks" in a game that has historically been a racist, misogynistic boy's club dominated by incels.

I thought Wizards was trying to do better. Such a disappointment.

You are triggered by "Cocks"?

Let me tell you, I am fucking triggered and literally shaking that D&D is now in the hands of a fat, woke, white, upper-class woman named Williams... again.


Is this even a different person or just a different outfit? Put Gene Weigel and his mighty spiked flail on the case at once!

Overweight is a norm for D&D. Gary was no lightweight. You're not triggered by her weight.
White is the norm. You're not triggered that she's white.
Upper-class is the norm: the job come with an income that automatically makes one upper-class if they were not upper-class before the job. You're not triggered by her class.
In fact I don't think you'd give a crap if this were a man named Williams so it's not Williams that triggers you.

So...you're really triggered it's a woke woman.

The fact that her being a woman would bug you kinda justifies her being more progressive I'd think.

Won't somebody think of the wokescold shitting on our entire demographic? You bastards are obviously triggered by her justifiable attacks on you!  :'(

That article to me just verifiyied everyones concern that they are trying to turn One D&D into an online game.

And that Wizards hires people not due to qualifications, but tokenisim.  Not a surprise.

Quote from: GhostNinja on October 17, 2022, 09:09:12 AM
That article to me just verifiyied everyones concern that they are trying to turn One D&D into an online game.

And that Wizards hires people not due to qualifications, but tokenisim.  Not a surprise.

The new Senior VP was hired based on past experience for online games.  Higher level management does appear to be hired based on merit.  However, content writers are based on race, with Radiant Citadel and Spelljammer 5E as being the most recent examples of lacking quality and the contractors being poor.

Yes D&D One will be an online subscription service and frankly I'm not touching it.  My two cents, if you aren't DM'ing a public game at your local hobby shop, start.  Get people playing in person and resist this crap WotC is shoveling.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 17, 2022, 09:37:17 AM
My two cents, if you aren't DM'ing a public game at your local hobby shop, start.  Get people playing in person and resist this crap WotC is shoveling.

Agreed! The fight is won on the ground.

I'm genuinely curious what people think: is "Wokeism" going to burn out some day, and will WOTC ever return to D&D being just a fun fantasy game?

FWIW, I think that we might be rapidly approaching "Peak Wokeism" in our culture--perhaps the Twerking Drag Queens in front of Preschoolers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkZujRnHWNA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkZujRnHWNA)) or "how to" gay sex manuals in Middle School libraries (This Book is Gay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUeqmOXvnjQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUeqmOXvnjQ), for example) might be (ironically) waking people up to Wokeism.  If we have passed the peak and Hasbro is interested in making coin, they might decide to a fresh start with a non-Woke 6e or 7e.

Or they could crash and burn.  At this point, I really don't care.  They've so abused the IP of D&D, I'd love to see it in more responsible hands...and the beauty of it is that with OSR of various flavors, we already have that.

If the Woke want to have a Woke game, that's fine--go for it.  Personally, I like having Drow and Orcs and Goblins be nuanced and complex and not stock villains (or maybe like the Elder Scrolls, where every race is morally problematic)...but I don't want the rules to lecture me about how I can't make the game in the way I want to.  If someone wants Orcs to be wholly evil and that's fun for them, why not?

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 17, 2022, 09:54:46 AM
I'm genuinely curious what people think: is "Wokeism" going to burn out some day, and will WOTC ever return to D&D being just a fun fantasy game?

FWIW, I think that we might be rapidly approaching "Peak Wokeism" in our culture--perhaps the Twerking Drag Queens in front of Preschoolers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkZujRnHWNA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkZujRnHWNA)) or "how to" gay sex manuals in Middle School libraries (This Book is Gay https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUeqmOXvnjQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUeqmOXvnjQ), for example) might be (ironically) waking people up to Wokeism.  If we have passed the peak and Hasbro is interested in making coin, they might decide to a fresh start with a non-Woke 6e or 7e.

Or they could crash and burn.  At this point, I really don't care.  They've so abused the IP of D&D, I'd love to see it in more responsible hands...and the beauty of it is that with OSR of various flavors, we already have that.

If the Woke want to have a Woke game, that's fine--go for it.  Personally, I like having Drow and Orcs and Goblins be nuanced and complex and not stock villains (or maybe like the Elder Scrolls, where every race is morally problematic)...but I don't want the rules to lecture me about how I can't make the game in the way I want to.  If someone wants Orcs to be wholly evil and that's fun for them, why not?

Strauss generational theory has the US in three decades of strife right now.  Looking at culturally what is going on in the US and how the left has purity spiraled itself to the point where anyone to the right of Stalin is a traitor, eventually D&D as its being run now, will be unprofitable and will be sold off by WotC.  I've already started to keep leftist ideology away from table (pronouns in bio - no invite, oh trans'd 13 year asexual lesbian we are 18 and over) and that behavior is going elsewhere as well.  I simply don't want to be near the crazy let alone get put on their witch burning lists.  Its applying to the player base now as well.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 17, 2022, 02:00:07 PM
Strauss generational theory has the US in three decades of strife right now.  Looking at culturally what is going on in the US and how the left has purity spiraled itself to the point where anyone to the right of Stalin is a traitor, eventually D&D as its being run now, will be unprofitable and will be sold off by WotC.  I've already started to keep leftist ideology away from table (pronouns in bio - no invite, oh trans'd 13 year asexual lesbian we are 18 and over) and that behavior is going elsewhere as well.  I simply don't want to be near the crazy let alone get put on their witch burning lists.  Its applying to the player base now as well.

When I try recruiting D&D players off Roll20, there seem to be ten 13 year old Croatian Edgelords 'ratioing' me for every Blue Haired Wokester who finds me Problematic. The Woke rule the Media - but they don't actually play D&D.

Quote from: S'mon on October 17, 2022, 02:46:30 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 17, 2022, 02:00:07 PM
Strauss generational theory has the US in three decades of strife right now.  Looking at culturally what is going on in the US and how the left has purity spiraled itself to the point where anyone to the right of Stalin is a traitor, eventually D&D as its being run now, will be unprofitable and will be sold off by WotC.  I've already started to keep leftist ideology away from table (pronouns in bio - no invite, oh trans'd 13 year asexual lesbian we are 18 and over) and that behavior is going elsewhere as well.  I simply don't want to be near the crazy let alone get put on their witch burning lists.  Its applying to the player base now as well.

When I try recruiting D&D players off Roll20, there seem to be ten 13 year old Croatian Edgelords 'ratioing' me for every Blue Haired Wokester who finds me Problematic. The Woke rule the Media - but they don't actually play D&D.

  But they sure as hell will tell you how to play it...as demonstrated by having a CEO who never played....

-duplicate

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 17, 2022, 05:07:00 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on October 17, 2022, 04:53:57 PM

Quote from: S'mon on October 17, 2022, 02:46:30 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 17, 2022, 02:00:07 PM
Strauss generational theory has the US in three decades of strife right now.  Looking at culturally what is going on in the US and how the left has purity spiraled itself to the point where anyone to the right of Stalin is a traitor, eventually D&D as its being run now, will be unprofitable and will be sold off by WotC.  I've already started to keep leftist ideology away from table (pronouns in bio - no invite, oh trans'd 13 year asexual lesbian we are 18 and over) and that behavior is going elsewhere as well.  I simply don't want to be near the crazy let alone get put on their witch burning lists.  Its applying to the player base now as well.

When I try recruiting D&D players off Roll20, there seem to be ten 13 year old Croatian Edgelords 'ratioing' me for every Blue Haired Wokester who finds me Problematic. The Woke rule the Media - but they don't actually play D&D.

I'm in a working class town in a Red State in a purple congressional district near a large POS'd US city.  I see a bag boy wearing a skirt as an example, this was not expected in a religious, union, industrial suburb.  I open up a D&D session and I get a 13 year old boy obviously being raised woke with his "pronoun page" in his profile.  So I check to see how far gone he is, he lists himself with flags as asexual and lesbian, a purple dildo looking object is in the background of his profile pic and he is a tub of goo that even a 1980's D&D nerd would tell him to at least walk the dog a mile before he drops dead at 16 of a heart attack.  This was in person game at local hobby shop.  My town isn't rich, we are mixed race and working class and that crap is here.  If you go to D&D Beyond just look at their "looking for game" page.  You'll see quite a bit of the furry, trans, lgbtq+ tags on recruiting pages about 20% of the posts there has a combination of that cancer.  Like you want to meet someone know what their genital hole preference is before you play a game of D&D?  The woke crap is prevalent in D&D for the younger crowd because the one's raised by single moms are getting programmed at age 8 to accept woke.
  But they sure as hell will tell you how to play it...as demonstrated by having a CEO who never played....

[/size]

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 17, 2022, 05:08:32 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 17, 2022, 05:07:00 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on October 17, 2022, 04:53:57 PM

Quote from: S'mon on October 17, 2022, 02:46:30 PM

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 17, 2022, 02:00:07 PM
Strauss generational theory has the US in three decades of strife right now.  Looking at culturally what is going on in the US and how the left has purity spiraled itself to the point where anyone to the right of Stalin is a traitor, eventually D&D as its being run now, will be unprofitable and will be sold off by WotC.  I've already started to keep leftist ideology away from table (pronouns in bio - no invite, oh trans'd 13 year asexual lesbian we are 18 and over) and that behavior is going elsewhere as well.  I simply don't want to be near the crazy let alone get put on their witch burning lists.  Its applying to the player base now as well.

When I try recruiting D&D players off Roll20, there seem to be ten 13 year old Croatian Edgelords 'ratioing' me for every Blue Haired Wokester who finds me Problematic. The Woke rule the Media - but they don't actually play D&D.

I'm in a working class town in a Red State in a purple congressional district near a large POS'd US city.  I see a bag boy wearing a skirt as an example, this was not expected in a religious, union, industrial suburb.  I open up a D&D session and I get a 13 year old boy obviously being raised woke with his "pronoun page" in his profile.  So I check to see how far gone he is, he lists himself with flags as asexual and lesbian, a purple dildo looking object is in the background of his profile pic and he is a tub of goo that even a 1980's D&D nerd would tell him to at least walk the dog a mile before he drops dead at 16 of a heart attack.  This was in person game at local hobby shop.  My town isn't rich, we are mixed race and working class and that crap is here.  If you go to D&D Beyond just look at their "looking for game" page.  You'll see quite a bit of the furry, trans, lgbtq+ tags on recruiting pages about 20% of the posts there has a combination of that cancer.  Like you want to meet someone know what their genital hole preference is before you play a game of D&D?  The woke crap is prevalent in D&D for the younger crowd because the one's raised by single moms are getting programmed at age 8 to accept woke.
  But they sure as hell will tell you how to play it...as demonstrated by having a CEO who never played....

[/size]

I do have a female player & friend who declared recently on Facebook that she's gender nonbinary (and possibly some odd sexuality too). We just ignore her. A friend pointed out that if I made a fuss about it, I'd be the dick. She's still the same person, just a bit more confused than usual. She's never mentioned it in person, she'd probably be embarrassed to.

Quote from: oggsmash on October 17, 2022, 05:59:12 AM
  I dont think the problem is she is a woman, the problem is she seems to be a Karen.

Not sure we have any data on that one way or the other.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 17, 2022, 09:54:46 AMI'm genuinely curious what people think: is "Wokeism" going to burn out some day, and will WOTC ever return to D&D being just a fun fantasy game?

Depends who's asking. Someone in 1969 France or someone in the 1922 Soviet Union?

Is the madness the furthest end of a pendulum swing (where the system will naturally correct itself) or the early stage of an all-consuming purity spiral? The RPG hobby is just a marginal scene, but its attempted takeover shows that if the new totalitarian ideology emerges victorious, no place will be allowed to stay out. Families, love, work, education, our spiritual foundations, and yes, our entertainment: all are being engulfed.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 16, 2022, 02:28:51 AM
I was wondering what is wrong about over sexualized women in a fantasy?  It's in the name. Fantasy.  As Andy Weir, author of The Martian and Project Hail Mary said, "The protagonist of most great stories is somebody you want to be, or somebody you want to have sex with."

I want the heroes to be cut, ripped, with all their teeth, and maybe even make real life centerfold models and pick up artists envious.  We don't play games like these to be nobodies who never did anything more exiting than travel to the next village once in their life. 

It goes hand in hand with the idea that monster races exist to be villains, so we make them look ugly as well.  A monster is kill on sight because they're dangerous, and disgusting physically.  Example: Minions of Nurgle demons.  Or even classic pig faced orcs in horned helmets who smell like manure and are cannibals.

But I want to team up with an NPC who is a 25 year old barbarian chick in a leopard skin bikini, thigh high boots, metal pauldons, a dragon cross guard great sword that's drawn from her back scabbard somehow, and looks better than real life pinup model Bettie Page. 

I'm there to have fun by going to the extremes of both good and evil, not solve the insecurities some Karen has in real life.

A major problem I see is how the mainstream demographics can't seem to imagine anything but a cliché power fantasy or a postmodern struggle session. The bigger issue is players who can't seem to accept playing what the rest of the table has agreed to, and makes a charater that intentionally doesn't mesh with the world or the rest of the group.

A fun hero for a traditional D&D adventure can be anything from a Conan type like you're describing, to a grizzled veteran who's lost several teeth in fights and survives due to experience and pragmatism (The Hound), to a reluctant nobody that ends up finding the life he's been missing (Bilbo). However, what you absolutely can not successfully play as is an absolute pacifist druid who only wants to talk to happily talk to animals and gets outraged at anyone else who doesn't mirror all her life choices.

now see, just telling him he couldnt play was not strong enough gatekeeping, the people who failed to beat and murder him and make furniture of his bones are responsible for this. you get what you fucking deserve i guess.

oh well, you'll beat the next little shits eyes together when he starts that mess, right?

Quote from: Slipshot762 on October 18, 2022, 06:31:30 AM
now see, just telling him he couldnt play was not strong enough gatekeeping, the people who failed to beat and murder him and make furniture of his bones are responsible for this. you get what you fucking deserve i guess.

oh well, you'll beat the next little shits eyes together when he starts that mess, right?

Damn, where's Elethiomel Zakalwe when you need him?

Greetings!

*Sigh* It's sad watching step-by-step the major company producing D&D becoming such a cesspool. Who they hire and appoint, the products and books they produce, and the messages and narratives that they promote and celebrate in such books and products. And, of course, within the online social media channels, the continued degeneracy and corruption of the hobby as a whole.

It may seem  bit strange to some that I am not bursting forth with napalm-laced rage. I feel the rage, to a point. I have to say that I'm also jaded. We have seen the scum swallow and bake this shit now continuously, step by step, progressively corrupting and polluting the game books and game hobby, every few months, with every new book or supplement, for several years now. Fuck them. They can choke on napalm, and run the fucking game and their ownership into the fucking ground.

Just light up a cigar, and keep on running games my way.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on October 15, 2022, 03:26:39 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 15, 2022, 10:17:35 AM
Anybody else notice the article has both a complaint that women are over-sexualized and that genders are non-binary?

Which is is?  If you want to argue gender descrimination, you need genders to be firmly defined.

That doesn't logically track. For example, I can argue that there has historically been discrimination against black Americans, while at the same time arguing that there has never been a binary division between black people and white Americans - since there have been mixed ancestry people since long before the U.S. was a country.

According to the logic expressed here, I'd have to define a clear binary line between black Americans and white Americans in order to say that blacks were discriminated against. But I don't think that's true. Historically, the people most concerned about defining a firm binary line were racists, such as those who enforced the "one drop" legal standard in laws against miscegenation.

Sex is binary.  Race is not.  Your logic is retarded.

Quote from: Xanadu on October 18, 2022, 05:14:53 AM
A major problem I see is how the mainstream demographics can't seem to imagine anything but a cliché power fantasy or a postmodern struggle session. The bigger issue is players who can't seem to accept playing what the rest of the table has agreed to, and makes a charater that intentionally doesn't mesh with the world or the rest of the group.

A fun hero for a traditional D&D adventure can be anything from a Conan type like you're describing, to a grizzled veteran who's lost several teeth in fights and survives due to experience and pragmatism (The Hound), to a reluctant nobody that ends up finding the life he's been missing (Bilbo). However, what you absolutely can not successfully play as is an absolute pacifist druid who only wants to talk to happily talk to animals and gets outraged at anyone else who doesn't mirror all her life choices.

Most of the recent WotC releases aren't any more pacifist than traditional modules, though, at least from my sampling. They've got pulp-ish fights in a volcano, quests after plane-shredding centipedes, and so forth. There is some change in what the fights look like compared to classic modules, but there is still plenty of combat.

Quote from: DocJones on October 20, 2022, 03:02:19 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 15, 2022, 03:26:39 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 15, 2022, 10:17:35 AM
Anybody else notice the article has both a complaint that women are over-sexualized and that genders are non-binary?

Which is is?  If you want to argue gender descrimination, you need genders to be firmly defined.

That doesn't logically track. For example, I can argue that there has historically been discrimination against black Americans, while at the same time arguing that there has never been a binary division between black people and white Americans - since there have been mixed ancestry people since long before the U.S. was a country.

According to the logic expressed here, I'd have to define a clear binary line between black Americans and white Americans in order to say that blacks were discriminated against. But I don't think that's true. Historically, the people most concerned about defining a firm binary line were racists, such as those who enforced the "one drop" legal standard in laws against miscegenation.

Sex is binary.  Race is not.  Your logic is retarded.

This is getting off-topic - but that wasn't your previous claim, and wasn't what I argued.

Logic is about following from premises to conclusions, not about declaring things right or wrong by fiat. Your previous claim wasn't that sex is binary. Your claim it that if gender was not firmly defined, then one cannot argue gender discrimination. For that previous claim to logically hold, you need to start from the hypothetical if condition.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 17, 2022, 09:54:46 AM
I'm genuinely curious what people think: is "Wokeism" going to burn out some day, and will WOTC ever return to D&D being just a fun fantasy game?

FWIW, I think that we might be rapidly approaching "Peak Wokeism" in our culture

Normally we'd be in the cooldown phase just before the next wave kick in.

But this time they just keep doubling down and getting ever more wretched at every turn.

At this point there is not going to be any relief before the 2030 wave hits. And we are already seeing hints of what that will be like as the resistance of today become the woke oppression of tomorrow.

Quote from: jhkim on October 20, 2022, 04:28:44 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 20, 2022, 03:02:19 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 15, 2022, 03:26:39 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 15, 2022, 10:17:35 AM
Anybody else notice the article has both a complaint that women are over-sexualized and that genders are non-binary?

Which is is?  If you want to argue gender descrimination, you need genders to be firmly defined.

That doesn't logically track. For example, I can argue that there has historically been discrimination against black Americans, while at the same time arguing that there has never been a binary division between black people and white Americans - since there have been mixed ancestry people since long before the U.S. was a country.

According to the logic expressed here, I'd have to define a clear binary line between black Americans and white Americans in order to say that blacks were discriminated against. But I don't think that's true. Historically, the people most concerned about defining a firm binary line were racists, such as those who enforced the "one drop" legal standard in laws against miscegenation.

Sex is binary.  Race is not.  Your logic is retarded.

This is getting off-topic - but that wasn't your previous claim, and wasn't what I argued.

Logic is about following from premises to conclusions, not about declaring things right or wrong by fiat. Your previous claim wasn't that sex is binary. Your claim it that if gender was not firmly defined, then one cannot argue gender discrimination. For that previous claim to logically hold, you need to start from the hypothetical if condition.

I did not make any previous claim since it was my only post on this thread.

Quote from: DocJones on October 22, 2022, 09:29:43 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 20, 2022, 04:28:44 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 20, 2022, 03:02:19 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 15, 2022, 03:26:39 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 15, 2022, 10:17:35 AM
Anybody else notice the article has both a complaint that women are over-sexualized and that genders are non-binary?

Which is is?  If you want to argue gender descrimination, you need genders to be firmly defined.

That doesn't logically track. For example, I can argue that there has historically been discrimination against black Americans, while at the same time arguing that there has never been a binary division between black people and white Americans - since there have been mixed ancestry people since long before the U.S. was a country.

According to the logic expressed here, I'd have to define a clear binary line between black Americans and white Americans in order to say that blacks were discriminated against. But I don't think that's true. Historically, the people most concerned about defining a firm binary line were racists, such as those who enforced the "one drop" legal standard in laws against miscegenation.

Sex is binary.  Race is not.  Your logic is retarded.

This is getting off-topic - but that wasn't your previous claim, and wasn't what I argued.

Logic is about following from premises to conclusions, not about declaring things right or wrong by fiat. Your previous claim wasn't that sex is binary. Your claim it that if gender was not firmly defined, then one cannot argue gender discrimination. For that previous claim to logically hold, you need to start from the hypothetical if condition.

I did not make any previous claim since it was my only post on this thread.

Whoops. Sorry, DocJones. I mistook your response as if it came from weirdguy564, whom I was responding to. To rephrase that,

weirdguy564's claim was that if gender was not firmly defined, then one cannot argue gender discrimination. I replied to that this didn't logically follow. I claimed that a lack of firm definitions doesn't mean that discrimination can't exist, and illustrated the point. This is off-topic from RPGs, though.

Quote from: Xanadu on October 18, 2022, 05:14:53 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 16, 2022, 02:28:51 AM
I was wondering what is wrong about over sexualized women in a fantasy?  It's in the name. Fantasy.  As Andy Weir, author of The Martian and Project Hail Mary said, "The protagonist of most great stories is somebody you want to be, or somebody you want to have sex with."

I want the heroes to be cut, ripped, with all their teeth, and maybe even make real life centerfold models and pick up artists envious.  We don't play games like these to be nobodies who never did anything more exiting than travel to the next village once in their life. 

It goes hand in hand with the idea that monster races exist to be villains, so we make them look ugly as well.  A monster is kill on sight because they're dangerous, and disgusting physically.  Example: Minions of Nurgle demons.  Or even classic pig faced orcs in horned helmets who smell like manure and are cannibals.

But I want to team up with an NPC who is a 25 year old barbarian chick in a leopard skin bikini, thigh high boots, metal pauldons, a dragon cross guard great sword that's drawn from her back scabbard somehow, and looks better than real life pinup model Bettie Page. 

I'm there to have fun by going to the extremes of both good and evil, not solve the insecurities some Karen has in real life.

A major problem I see is how the mainstream demographics can't seem to imagine anything but a cliché power fantasy or a postmodern struggle session. The bigger issue is players who can't seem to accept playing what the rest of the table has agreed to, and makes a charater that intentionally doesn't mesh with the world or the rest of the group.

A fun hero for a traditional D&D adventure can be anything from a Conan type like you're describing, to a grizzled veteran who's lost several teeth in fights and survives due to experience and pragmatism (The Hound), to a reluctant nobody that ends up finding the life he's been missing (Bilbo). However, what you absolutely can not successfully play as is an absolute pacifist druid who only wants to talk to happily talk to animals and gets outraged at anyone else who doesn't mirror all her life choices.

I've had that hippy druid in my party, as players were dying he was casting druidcraft making flowers bloom on the corpses of player or foe alike.  Real fun guy to have around.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on October 23, 2022, 03:12:56 AM
I've had that hippy druid in my party, as players were dying he was casting druidcraft making flowers bloom on the corpses of player or foe alike.  Real fun guy to have around.

Presuming the party survived, I hope their next action was to hack that druid into bits while telling them they were just making fertilizer to keep those flowers growing.

Greetings!

Yeah, it doesn't require weird races to be out-of-place. Even a Human character, with some inappropriate profession, religion, philosophy, or ideology, can be a really poor fit for the rest o the group. Not just a poor fit--but just entirely unworkable and inappropriate.

Any kind of fucking "Pacifist" Character. Come on. The DM needs to pull their head out o their ass and grab their own balls and tell such a stupid player NO. NO pacifist hippy druids.

Once, I had a dumb player want to play a genteel, urban schlub with a Rapier. I told him he would die out on the wastes. The second session with his character he was overwhelmed by Beastmen, and a heavily armoured Chaos Warrior brought him down with his Greatsword. The Beastmen proceeded to rip him apart, roast him over the bonfire and devoured him.

Inappropriate armour. Inappropriate weaponry. Inappropriate Character Type. I allowed him to learn the hard way. In future campaigns, I skipped the harsh lessons for the dumber players and just said NO. NO to A, B, C, or D. Whatever. Enforce the standards of the campaign, and of the group.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I would like to note that the pacifist option in 3E's Book of Exalted Deeds pretty much comes with big disclaimers about making DAMN SURE your GM and your party are okay with it.

It's one thing to play a party face, but if you have no capacity to deal when the arrows and spells start flying, why are you adventuring?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 23, 2022, 09:21:56 PM
I would like to note that the pacifist option in 3E's Book of Exalted Deeds pretty much comes with big disclaimers about making DAMN SURE your GM and your party are okay with it.

It's one thing to play a party face, but if you have no capacity to deal when the arrows and spells start flying, why are you adventuring?

That's one thing I appreciated from 4E theorycrafting that I appreciated enough to incorporate into my own system... the so-called "Princess Build"; a character with no direct attacks, but did have the ability to grant attacks to their allies (and buff those attacks as well) along with the typical leader role healing (fluffed as boosting morale/will to keep going) and removing debuffs.

If you want to play a pacifist in my system and not want to earn the ire of your party, you pick the Mastermind* class (and can get non-combat magic if desired through your background) so you aren't fighting, but are helping your allies to fight better.

*they were originally called the Sidekick class as that was often what their position would be in an actual story, the one who never does well in a fight, but creates openings for their more competent allies and inspires them when they're at their lowest.

Quote from: SHARK on October 23, 2022, 04:56:47 PM
Any kind of fucking "Pacifist" Character. Come on. The DM needs to pull their head out o their ass and grab their own balls and tell such a stupid player NO. NO pacifist hippy druids.

Not really on the main topic here, but I'm going to quibble with this point.  Back in the day, I wrote a bunch of specialist clerics for my 2E setting, and one of them was pretty much a pacifist.  I think they might have been allowed to defend themselves in limited fashion if attacked, but that was it.  They had weak physical combat abilities (of course), and no offensive spells, but compensated with good buffs, vastly improved healing, and a permanent sanctuary spell.

Only one player ever rolled one, but his character was an awesome combat medic.  He was always in the thick of things, helping his comrades.  He was really brave too – he'd step between enemies and injured PCs to stop an enemy attack, praying (  ;) ) that his sanctuary would hold.  It would mostly work, but I recall that he very nearly died that way when got between a BBEG and a downed PC and got skewered by a poisoned spear for his trouble after the BBEG made his save.

I guess the point is that almost any concept can work, but only if the player is not going to be an idiot about how to use it.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 24, 2022, 01:57:01 AM

Quote from: SHARK on October 23, 2022, 04:56:47 PM
Any kind of fucking "Pacifist" Character. Come on. The DM needs to pull their head out o their ass and grab their own balls and tell such a stupid player NO. NO pacifist hippy druids.

Not really on the main topic here, but I'm going to quibble with this point.  Back in the day, I wrote a bunch of specialist clerics for my 2E setting, and one of them was pretty much a pacifist.  I think they might have been allowed to defend themselves in limited fashion if attacked, but that was it.  They had weak physical combat abilities (of course), and no offensive spells, but compensated with good buffs, vastly improved healing, and a permanent sanctuary spell.

Only one player ever rolled one, but his character was an awesome combat medic.  He was always in the thick of things, helping his comrades.  He was really brave too – he'd step between enemies and injured PCs to stop an enemy attack, praying (  ;) ) that his sanctuary would hold.  It would mostly work, but I recall that he very nearly died that way when got between a BBEG and a downed PC and got skewered by a poisoned spear for his trouble after the BBEG made his save.

I guess the point is that almost any concept can work, but only if the player is not going to be an idiot about how to use it.

Well, I think this helps demonstrate a distinction between the involved/party-focused pacifist PC and the self-involved/disruptive pacifist PC.

The former decides they're playing a pacifist and looks for other ways their PC can assist their party (one or more of healing, buffing, support spells, skill monkey and face are good choices).

The latter decides they're going to play "the load" (a character in a typically comedic narrative who must be guarded or protected by the actual protagonist and exists only as source of obstacles to an otherwise straightforward task) and picks pacifism (and likely some other trait like suicidal curiosity or a code/rules that prevents them from doing anything useful) as their means of burdening the rest of the party, ideally until it breaks, because they find it entertaining (at best, they're funny enough be entertaining as they make the actual adventure harder... more typically the joke is funny only to them).

Quote from: SHARK on October 23, 2022, 04:56:47 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, it doesn't require weird races to be out-of-place. Even a Human character, with some inappropriate profession, religion, philosophy, or ideology, can be a really poor fit for the rest o the group. Not just a poor fit--but just entirely unworkable and inappropriate.

Any kind of fucking "Pacifist" Character. Come on. The DM needs to pull their head out o their ass and grab their own balls and tell such a stupid player NO. NO pacifist hippy druids.

Once, I had a dumb player want to play a genteel, urban schlub with a Rapier. I told him he would die out on the wastes. The second session with his character he was overwhelmed by Beastmen, and a heavily armoured Chaos Warrior brought him down with his Greatsword. The Beastmen proceeded to rip him apart, roast him over the bonfire and devoured him.

Inappropriate armour. Inappropriate weaponry. Inappropriate Character Type. I allowed him to learn the hard way. In future campaigns, I skipped the harsh lessons for the dumber players and just said NO. NO to A, B, C, or D. Whatever. Enforce the standards of the campaign, and of the group.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I play the ball where it lands. I do a lot of setup before I start a campaign, I want my PC's to adapt and overcome. I get a *lot* of players that love the quick rapier wielding effete douche and when we're out in the frontier, they know it well ahead of time. If they're new players, my veteran players always warn them about my... interest... in environmental gameplay.

haha so it's always a blast when I put them through the task of making survival checks and making them go the wringer they set themselves up for - I *expect* them to roleplay it, and start dealing with it or suffer all the ramifications I put barbarian-types when the PC's have to go into the Big City and interact in hoity-toity affairs.

For me - this is all grist for the mill. Pacifist PC's? No problem... but you'll be expected to pull your weight or you can expect that PC to be booted from the group (or likely get himself killed.) But every now and then I'll get a player that sticks to their guns and they figure out how to make their little weird schtick work. But Pacifist? I've had a few players try... it's never worked longer than a session or two. And every single time they ended up becoming blood-curdling killers-of-monsters and men.

I don't *let* anyone make just anything for their PC tho. Players are pitching their PC concept to me (and the rest of the group) *after* I pitch them the campaign. So everyone is well aware of snowflakey concepts someone might bring in, and how it might impact everyone else. And it's my job to contextualize it - and if we can't agree that it might not be fun/appropriate it gets vetoed pretty quick.

There are inappropriate concepts, and then there are disruptive players. Those are important distinctions. You shouldn't have disruptive players at your table, for the obvious reason that there is a correlation between the two issues. New GM's have to usually learn to curate their groups. My players might be "new" relatively, but they learn pretty quick that I'll entertain "snowflake" concepts but they'll equally need to be prepared that they may not like the context... I'm open if they are. But that's also because I try to strongly instill the tone of the setting and my players are mildy mature enough to get it.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 24, 2022, 01:57:01 AM

Quote from: SHARK on October 23, 2022, 04:56:47 PM
Any kind of fucking "Pacifist" Character. Come on. The DM needs to pull their head out o their ass and grab their own balls and tell such a stupid player NO. NO pacifist hippy druids.

Not really on the main topic here, but I'm going to quibble with this point.  Back in the day, I wrote a bunch of specialist clerics for my 2E setting, and one of them was pretty much a pacifist.  I think they might have been allowed to defend themselves in limited fashion if attacked, but that was it.  They had weak physical combat abilities (of course), and no offensive spells, but compensated with good buffs, vastly improved healing, and a permanent sanctuary spell.

Only one player ever rolled one, but his character was an awesome combat medic.  He was always in the thick of things, helping his comrades.  He was really brave too – he'd step between enemies and injured PCs to stop an enemy attack, praying (  ;) ) that his sanctuary would hold.  It would mostly work, but I recall that he very nearly died that way when got between a BBEG and a downed PC and got skewered by a poisoned spear for his trouble after the BBEG made his save.

I guess the point is that almost any concept can work, but only if the player is not going to be an idiot about how to use it.

Greetings!

No doubt, my friend!

Certainly, there are some "Pacifist" character concepts that can be interesting and meaningful, as you describe.

Furthermore, there are on rare occasion such players that can play such characters well, in a mature, rational, and entertaining manner.

However, I generally subscribe to the idea of "Possibility and Probability". Anything is "possible"--but what is more than likely to be probable? ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 24, 2022, 09:27:36 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 24, 2022, 01:57:01 AM

Quote from: SHARK on October 23, 2022, 04:56:47 PM
Any kind of fucking "Pacifist" Character. Come on. The DM needs to pull their head out o their ass and grab their own balls and tell such a stupid player NO. NO pacifist hippy druids.

Not really on the main topic here, but I'm going to quibble with this point.  Back in the day, I wrote a bunch of specialist clerics for my 2E setting, and one of them was pretty much a pacifist.  I think they might have been allowed to defend themselves in limited fashion if attacked, but that was it.  They had weak physical combat abilities (of course), and no offensive spells, but compensated with good buffs, vastly improved healing, and a permanent sanctuary spell.

Only one player ever rolled one, but his character was an awesome combat medic.  He was always in the thick of things, helping his comrades.  He was really brave too – he'd step between enemies and injured PCs to stop an enemy attack, praying (  ;) ) that his sanctuary would hold.  It would mostly work, but I recall that he very nearly died that way when got between a BBEG and a downed PC and got skewered by a poisoned spear for his trouble after the BBEG made his save.

I guess the point is that almost any concept can work, but only if the player is not going to be an idiot about how to use it.

Well, I think this helps demonstrate a distinction between the involved/party-focused pacifist PC and the self-involved/disruptive pacifist PC.

The former decides they're playing a pacifist and looks for other ways their PC can assist their party (one or more of healing, buffing, support spells, skill monkey and face are good choices).

The latter decides they're going to play "the load" (a character in a typically comedic narrative who must be guarded or protected by the actual protagonist and exists only as source of obstacles to an otherwise straightforward task) and picks pacifism (and likely some other trait like suicidal curiosity or a code/rules that prevents them from doing anything useful) as their means of burdening the rest of the party, ideally until it breaks, because they find it entertaining (at best, they're funny enough be entertaining as they make the actual adventure harder... more typically the joke is funny only to them).

Greetings!

*LAUGHING*!! Exactly, Chris!

I believe it's possible to have a mature and reasonable player play some weird kind of Hippy Pacifist. When you find such a player, that's great!

But, as I discussed previously, or implied, yeah. What is the more commonly encountered player seeking to play such a character? These kinds o characters are on one hand played for laughs--which has some merit, to be sure--but, as you mentioned, is more than likely to get old *fast*.

The majority o the time such characters are played to intentionally derail and jack with the rest of the party and make their life more difficult--all while the weird character's player gets to smugly hee hee at everyone else's expense.

So, yeah. I think the best policy is just to say NO right rom the get go.

I've had groups of all Marines that their characters would just gang on the problem character down and kill them. End of problem. Even later on--and now, most of my current players just wouldn't tolerate such a dysfunctional character.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: tenbones on October 24, 2022, 11:00:54 AM

Quote from: SHARK on October 23, 2022, 04:56:47 PM
Greetings!

Yeah, it doesn't require weird races to be out-of-place. Even a Human character, with some inappropriate profession, religion, philosophy, or ideology, can be a really poor fit for the rest o the group. Not just a poor fit--but just entirely unworkable and inappropriate.

Any kind of fucking "Pacifist" Character. Come on. The DM needs to pull their head out o their ass and grab their own balls and tell such a stupid player NO. NO pacifist hippy druids.

Once, I had a dumb player want to play a genteel, urban schlub with a Rapier. I told him he would die out on the wastes. The second session with his character he was overwhelmed by Beastmen, and a heavily armoured Chaos Warrior brought him down with his Greatsword. The Beastmen proceeded to rip him apart, roast him over the bonfire and devoured him.

Inappropriate armour. Inappropriate weaponry. Inappropriate Character Type. I allowed him to learn the hard way. In future campaigns, I skipped the harsh lessons for the dumber players and just said NO. NO to A, B, C, or D. Whatever. Enforce the standards of the campaign, and of the group.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I play the ball where it lands. I do a lot of setup before I start a campaign, I want my PC's to adapt and overcome. I get a *lot* of players that love the quick rapier wielding effete douche and when we're out in the frontier, they know it well ahead of time. If they're new players, my veteran players always warn them about my... interest... in environmental gameplay.

haha so it's always a blast when I put them through the task of making survival checks and making them go the wringer they set themselves up for - I *expect* them to roleplay it, and start dealing with it or suffer all the ramifications I put barbarian-types when the PC's have to go into the Big City and interact in hoity-toity affairs.

For me - this is all grist for the mill. Pacifist PC's? No problem... but you'll be expected to pull your weight or you can expect that PC to be booted from the group (or likely get himself killed.) But every now and then I'll get a player that sticks to their guns and they figure out how to make their little weird schtick work. But Pacifist? I've had a few players try... it's never worked longer than a session or two. And every single time they ended up becoming blood-curdling killers-of-monsters and men.

I don't *let* anyone make just anything for their PC tho. Players are pitching their PC concept to me (and the rest of the group) *after* I pitch them the campaign. So everyone is well aware of snowflakey concepts someone might bring in, and how it might impact everyone else. And it's my job to contextualize it - and if we can't agree that it might not be fun/appropriate it gets vetoed pretty quick.

There are inappropriate concepts, and then there are disruptive players. Those are important distinctions. You shouldn't have disruptive players at your table, for the obvious reason that there is a correlation between the two issues. New GM's have to usually learn to curate their groups. My players might be "new" relatively, but they learn pretty quick that I'll entertain "snowflake" concepts but they'll equally need to be prepared that they may not like the context... I'm open if they are. But that's also because I try to strongly instill the tone of the setting and my players are mildy mature enough to get it.

Greetings!

Hey Tenbones! "The effete rapier-wielding douche.." ;D *Rolling* Yeah, man! You got that right! It's like, dude, the Rapier didn't replace the plate armoured Knight because it was *better*. It's called *muskets*. In a Medieval or Dark Ages world...a Rapier would be laughed at. In this world, there's a reason why only aristocrats living in highly urban cities use them, and no one else does...*Laughing*

I front load the harsh reality of my game world to players as well. I try and short-cut anyone wanting to be really dumb though. It just saves everyone more time. I try to steer players towards many different character types and classes, but all geared at surviving and playing well within the game world itself.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I don't disagree at all that sometimes players are trouble makers, sometimes they want snowflake characters without regards to the setting, and that the latter you can accommodate if you want.

However, somewhere along the way, I found myself drawing the line in a much simpler method:  Is the request to accommodate the character going to cause me trouble?  Do I think the player has not thought it through?  Is it going to be more work for me to handle it than it is for the player to make it work?  If it starts to drift into that realm, the answer is still, "No."  Yeah, I could make it happen, but I don't want to. 

Naturally, I'll cut the players putting in effort a lot more slack.  One of my central tenets for living in this world is that when I find someone not putting in an effort, I'm looking for a way that it becomes their problem, not mine.

One of my guiding principles in this is that it's really important to not interfere with players' ability to play their characters the way they want.  I get to control the whole world.  They only get to choose their characters' actions.  Taking away even a bit of what little control they have over the world makes the game markedly less fun.  If something is in the campaign and it doesn't give them an unfair advantage over the other players then they're free to do it.  That said, I don't change the world to accommodate oddball ways to play either.  It's a violent world out there and the enemies don't care about your pacifist principles, they'll still kill you if given the chance.  If a player wants to behave in a way that's countersurvival, he'd better be very smart about it or have his next character rolled up and ready to go.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2022, 12:30:08 AM
One of my guiding principles in this is that it's really important to not interfere with players' ability to play their characters the way they want.  I get to control the whole world.  They only get to choose their characters' actions.  Taking away even a bit of what little control they have over the world makes the game markedly less fun.  If something is in the campaign and it doesn't give them an unfair advantage over the other players then they're free to do it.  That said, I don't change the world to accommodate oddball ways to play either.  It's a violent world out there and the enemies don't care about your pacifist principles, they'll still kill you if given the chance.  If a player wants to behave in a way that's countersurvival, he'd better be very smart about it or have his next character rolled up and ready to go.

And I think that this sums it up nicely.

At the end of the day, the game is a cooperative effort between the GM and the Players.  There's got to be some give and take to keep it fun for everyone.  Flexibility, yes; chasing after every Player's whim?  No.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on October 25, 2022, 09:43:00 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 25, 2022, 12:30:08 AM
One of my guiding principles in this is that it's really important to not interfere with players' ability to play their characters the way they want.  I get to control the whole world.  They only get to choose their characters' actions.  Taking away even a bit of what little control they have over the world makes the game markedly less fun.  If something is in the campaign and it doesn't give them an unfair advantage over the other players then they're free to do it.  That said, I don't change the world to accommodate oddball ways to play either.  It's a violent world out there and the enemies don't care about your pacifist principles, they'll still kill you if given the chance.  If a player wants to behave in a way that's countersurvival, he'd better be very smart about it or have his next character rolled up and ready to go.

And I think that this sums it up nicely.

At the end of the day, the game is a cooperative effort between the GM and the Players.  There's got to be some give and take to keep it fun for everyone.  Flexibility, yes; chasing after every Player's whim?  No.

I think WOTC's latest epiphany, is that not only should the game be about the DM catering to the players' whims; the rules as written should both allow and encourage it.  WOTC wants to pigeon hole DM's into that role.

I wholeheartedly agree. WOTC seems to be contributing to the tide of player entitlement that has become a problem for myself and other GMs - expecting the GM to bend over backwards to accommodate all of their crazy demands for a game. The GM is not being paid (usually), so why should we pander to their unreasonableness?

Quote from: phantomness on November 08, 2022, 07:43:11 PM
The GM is not being paid (usually), so why should we pander to their unreasonableness?

If the GM was being paid, firing the unreasonable customer(s) would be prudent. The expectation used to be bringing an appropriate character to game, like bringing skates and a hokey stick to an ice hokey game, instead of of the currently promoted make a game out of whatever whacky trash players fancy. Garbage in, garbage out, so I do not see how one could make a great game around bad characters. However, it is seen as unfashionable to declare any concept nonfunctional or inappropriate and turn it away, it must be the GM;s fault for failing to turn lead into gold.

Quote from: Wisithir on November 08, 2022, 08:19:49 PM

Quote from: phantomness on November 08, 2022, 07:43:11 PM
The GM is not being paid (usually), so why should we pander to their unreasonableness?

If the GM was being paid, firing the unreasonable customer(s) would be prudent. The expectation used to be bringing an appropriate character to game, like bringing skates and a hokey stick to an ice hokey game, instead of of the currently promoted make a game out of whatever whacky trash players fancy. Garbage in, garbage out, so I do not see how one could make a great game around bad characters. However, it is seen as unfashionable to declare any concept nonfunctional or inappropriate and turn it away, it must be the GM;s fault for failing to turn lead into gold.

Welcome to theRPGsite, phantomness.

In my experience, I'd prefer to deal with this by selecting players. I find that if a player really wants to bring an inappropriate character who will ruin the game, then I don't want them in my game even if they're forced to take a more standard character.

What I'm curious about for anyone is - how would you say that WOTC is contributing to the problem? They're publishing new races and new classes, but D&D has always had a steady stream of those. As I see it, they're available options if the DM wants them.

Going to acknowledge that I misspoke there - the only way I would probably say WOTC would be directly contributing to the problem of player entitlement would be if they made RAW state that the DM must put the player's needs before their own - in which case I would probably stop GMing for any edition of D&D.

Thanks for the welcome, jhkim!

All I have noticed from my experience hanging out on the official D&D Discord is seeing how self-identified players and GMs interact in chat, and how people who have differing opinions get shouted over and publicly shamed a lot while the moderators there do not always respond to what is happening. 

WotC contributes to the problem by having new content come with a use anywhere/everywhere implication and never encouraging curating or culling contents. They want sales so are pushing a buy and use everywhere mentality instead of simply expanding options. A book of options is great, and one might choose to use none of them, but X more core classes implies that there are now N+X options to choose from instead of a GM curated selection of Y choices out of N+X possibilities.

I recruited on Roll20 for a 5e game. The expectation among the '5e public' is definitely that anything should be allowed, even though I explicitly said PHB + Xanathar's only. Often players don't know or care where stuff comes from, it appears on eg D&D Beyond and that's enough for them.

Quote from: jhkim on November 08, 2022, 08:58:58 PM
In my experience, I'd prefer to deal with this by selecting players. I find that if a player really wants to bring an inappropriate character who will ruin the game, then I don't want them in my game even if they're forced to take a more standard character.

What I'm curious about for anyone is - how would you say that WOTC is contributing to the problem? They're publishing new races and new classes, but D&D has always had a steady stream of those. As I see it, they're available options if the DM wants them.

1: Thats ever been a problem unfortunately. If someone intends to cause trouble no amount of rules or talking is going to prevent them finding a way to cause trouble.

2: Honestly right now there is not any real indicator other than the gradual push WOTC has been doing to slowly curtail the DM in various small ways. You cant do this, you cant do that. Players have gotten gradually more dictation over the DM. A few years back and even now there has been this little push of "always say Yes". Especially over on BGG.

Alot of this is not so much WOTCs fault as it is infiltration by the more loony bin of the storygamers. With WOTC being too stupid to notice that bad advice is bad advice.

Honestly that is WOTCs obsession for decades. They gravitate to bad advice. They listen to it far more than they ever do the good advice and even the the good advice will eventually be abolished later.

Failure is the only option. Success will not be tolerated.

Six of one, half a dozen of another.  If a player walks because I don't cave on their demands, does it really matter whether it was because they were going to be unreasonable no matter what to mess up the game or that they were simply a bad fit for the game?  Either way, they don't belong at the table. 

Sure, I guess it matters if you plan to run a lot of different things in a lot of different styles.  You might have a fit for a reasonable player in some of those.  However, I'm not out to start a gaming club, or promote "gaming" in general, let alone any of that other "gaming community" bullshit.  I'm out to run games that I enjoy running, so that the experience will be enjoyable for me--and as a related consequence, also enjoyable for my current and future players that enjoy the same thing.  I don't have a shortage of players.  Some random new person doesn't get to trump that with their preferences.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 09, 2022, 07:47:37 AM
Six of one, half a dozen of another.  If a player walks because I don't cave on their demands, does it really matter whether it was because they were going to be unreasonable no matter what to mess up the game or that they were simply a bad fit for the game?  Either way, they don't belong at the table. 

Sure, I guess it matters if you plan to run a lot of different things in a lot of different styles.  You might have a fit for a reasonable player in some of those.  However, I'm not out to start a gaming club, or promote "gaming" in general, let alone any of that other "gaming community" bullshit.  I'm out to run games that I enjoy running, so that the experience will be enjoyable for me--and as a related consequence, also enjoyable for my current and future players that enjoy the same thing.  I don't have a shortage of players.  Some random new person doesn't get to trump that with their preferences.

To be fair, someone out to ruin your game would just select the least controversial thing possible and then behave badly. I could easily wreck a game with a LG or CG Human Fighter (played as a mix of Stupid Good + Lawful or Chaotic Stupid) if I was really determined to.

I'd rather take someone who's character concepts are on the edge if they're interested in participating constructively in the group dynamic than someone who disrupts games while they play totally in-bounds characters.

Also, not everyone has the abundance of players you do and so if someone wants to play something atypical, as long as that's the only 'disruptive' thing about them, I'll generally try to work with them. Sometimes the result might even be better than expected.

Quote from: S'mon on November 09, 2022, 02:22:30 AM
I recruited on Roll20 for a 5e game. The expectation among the '5e public' is definitely that anything should be allowed, even though I explicitly said PHB + Xanathar's only. Often players don't know or care where stuff comes from, it appears on eg D&D Beyond and that's enough for them.

OK, fair enough. I don't see anything in the WOTC books explicitly encouraging this, but I don't see anything explicitly discouraging it either. For example, the 5E DMG has sections on tailoring your campaign, but it doesn't specifically mention disallowing certain races or classes, while it does mention creating new races and/or subclasses. That goes in line with commissioning a setting like Eberron, which was made with a requirement that it allow all core races and classes.

From a business standpoint, I suspect interoperability helps grow the player base via the network effect. i.e. The easier it is to go back and forth between different campaigns, the better it is for recruiting and retaining. Someone recruited for one game can go to another if their initial game folds. The trick is keeping that center popular among enough DMs and players.

Quote from: Omega on November 09, 2022, 02:45:20 AM
Alot of this is not so much WOTCs fault as it is infiltration by the more loony bin of the storygamers. With WOTC being too stupid to notice that bad advice is bad advice.

Honestly that is WOTCs obsession for decades. They gravitate to bad advice. They listen to it far more than they ever do the good advice and even the the good advice will eventually be abolished later.

Failure is the only option. Success will not be tolerated.

I find this strange to say. In business terms, WOTC is one of the most successful game companies ever. It went from publishing fringe RPGs like Talislanta and The Primal Order, to now being pivotal to a mainstream gaming company Hasbro - as its CEO was just promoted. Its products are often not to my tastes, but I can't see calling it a failure.

Something I keep in mind is that the vast majority of DMs and players aren't like most posters here. We're the hard-core extremes, who discuss games daily on the Internet - while most DMs are more casual.