Quote: "At the same time, that faith [in govt] turns out to be founded on a pack of lies. Reagan doesn't just free the hostages from Iran in 1981. Instead, in 1980, he negotiates for them to be held until his inauguration, to help him win the election."
Speaking of a pack of lies: consider the source. In real life, this long-disproven conspiracy theory was first proposed by congressional democrats in the second half of the 1990s. Well, the game does bill itself as set in "the 1980s that never were".
Does the game claim that actually happened, or is it just part of their gameworld's timeline? I would assume the latter, just as Twilight 2000 still has the Soviet Union in power after 1991.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 10:32:29 PM
Does the game claim that actually happened, or is it just part of their gameworld's timeline? I would assume the latter, just as Twilight 2000 still has the Soviet Union in power after 1991.
If latter, the game needs to make that 100% clear. Something like, "Instead of X happening, Y does." Without a qualifying statement, it's a bald-faced lie.
Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 01:54:14 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 27, 2022, 10:32:29 PM
Does the game claim that actually happened, or is it just part of their gameworld's timeline? I would assume the latter, just as Twilight 2000 still has the Soviet Union in power after 1991.
If latter, the game needs to make that 100% clear. Something like, "Instead of X happening, Y does." Without a qualifying statement, it's a bald-faced lie.
I never assume timelines in my game books are going to be historically accurate. Why would you?
I deducted that it was a lie, not an in-universe change, because 1) everything else in the history section tried to be actual accounting of 1980s history, 2) That was a real lie that was floating around for a short time in the 1990s, 3) The paragraph on Reagan was cynical to begin with, rather than objective, and 4) Nothing in the section indicted this was a rewrite of history.
Also, 5) In my 1980s RPG, I go to great lengths to get the history correct, and assume a larger company would, too.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 05:11:55 AM
I never assume timelines in my game books are going to be historically accurate. Why would you?
That would depend on the nature of the writing. If the paragraph heading was something like, "That all changed in 1980" or "The World is the Same, But History Isn't," then it'd be fine to write all the "false," alternate info as facts. If the book is mixing actual history with game history, then there's a potential for spreading lies (whether that was the author's intention or not).
Like OP mentioned, this was a real lie used to muck Reagan at a time when "Reagan-esque" republicans started to reemerge. It's possible the writer believed the lie as fact and was too stubborn to look beyond their own biases.
The other indicator would be a through-line for the change. What purpose would it serve the story to have Reagan "game" the electorate rather than just winning because people liked what he said (or because "Democrat" became synonymous with "Carter" ;) )? If there's no payoff or follow-through, it's another good indication they are presenting it as an actual fact of history.
OP is spot on. It is taken from a section around life in the 80's in America. Here is the referenced material, plus some other material presented:
Quote
The '80s is the era of Ronald Reagan, the former actor who becomes the nation's oldest-ever President by promising a "morning in America." It's a time when Americans want to have faith in their government re- stored to them after it's been shattered by Watergate and President Nixon's resignation. The threat of an imminent nuclear holocaust may cast a shadow over everything, but by the end of the decade, the Soviet Union is knocked onto the ropes, and it seems there's nothing America can't do.
At the same time, that faith turns out to be founded on a pack of lies. Reagan doesn't just free the hostages from Iran in 1981. Instead, in 1980, he negotiates for them to be held until his inauguration, to help him win the election.
Not too much later, the CIA refuses to obey Congress' ban on helping prop up the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Congress also cuts off funding to CIA efforts to over- throw the Sandinistas in that war-torn nation, but CIA agents illegally procure their own funds for the cause by selling weapons to America's enemies in Iran instead.
There are 6-7 more paragraphs of this.
I own the product. I have played the game. It generally paints socialist Sweden with a more positive brush, contrasted by jabs on conservatives when discussing America. Where it does give U.S. credit are in areas never questioned, our celebrities and entertainment. So there is that.
For those who disagree, go scan the material. I'll help you, it starts on page 38. Come back here with two or three other examples of 'alternative history'.
Umm... seems the author just memory-holed an entire presidency between Nixon and Reagan (two of the most popular presidents in American history). What were people doing for six years after Nixon's resignation that they felt Reagan would restore their faith? It's almost like there was an entirely different reason for them to lose it... hmmm...
Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 03:13:58 PM
Umm... seems the author just memory-holed an entire presidency between Nixon and Reagan (two of the most popular presidents in American history). What were people doing for six years after Nixon's resignation that they felt Reagan would restore their faith? It's almost like there was an entirely different reason for them to lose it... hmmm...
Yep, I never caught this the first time. Also,to think about it, no one had their faith shattered with the Iran hostage negotiation lie,since it never happened! (It was Carter who shattered everyone's confidence, and by the way, people who put faith in government are doomed from the start.) The more I read, the more I'm glad I borrowed this book from a friend rather than bought it.
Quote from: Cathode Ray on August 28, 2022, 03:20:34 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 03:13:58 PM
Umm... seems the author just memory-holed an entire presidency between Nixon and Reagan (two of the most popular presidents in American history). What were people doing for six years after Nixon's resignation that they felt Reagan would restore their faith? It's almost like there was an entirely different reason for them to lose it... hmmm...
Yep, I never caught this the first time. Also,to think about it, no one had their faith shattered with the Iran hostage negotiation lie,since it never happened! (It was Carter who shattered everyone's confidence, and by the way, people who put faith in government are doomed from the start.) The more I read, the more I'm glad I borrowed this book from a friend rather than bought it.
Why? Does the historical inaccuracy impact gameplay in some significant way?
The game is made by liberal Swedes; the same group ruined Twilight 2000 by making the war the fault of the West, specifically a "Trump in all but name" US President, and gems like Israel hating the Palestinians so much that they use nuclear weapons on the Gaza strip (you know, their own side yard).
With regard to Tales itself, I just ignore their bullshit and use the paranormal/Fortean events that come from fucking around with Loop tech and set the game in Central Florida in the 1980s, otherwise things are the same (well there's some differences: in the last TFTL game I ran on Free RPG Day, for example, the director of NASA in the 1980s was Gus Grissom, because I deleted the Apollo 1 fire).
Quote from: thedungeondelver on August 28, 2022, 04:14:38 PM
The game is made by liberal Swedes; the same group ruined Twilight 2000 by making the war the fault of the West, specifically a "Trump in all but name" US President, and gems like Israel hating the Palestinians so much that they use nuclear weapons on the Gaza strip (you know, their own side yard).
With regard to Tales itself, I just ignore their bullshit and use the paranormal/Fortean events that come from fucking around with Loop tech and set the game in Central Florida in the 1980s, otherwise things are the same (well there's some differences: in the last TFTL game I ran on Free RPG Day, for example, the director of NASA in the 1980s was Gus Grissom, because I deleted the Apollo 1 fire).
The new Twilight 2000 has a group of Soviet hardliners that succeeded in the 1991 coup seeking to keep the USSR intact, including retaking the Balkan states. Not sure how this is "the fault of the West" or how having culpability for engaging in a war of mutually assured destruction detracts from the themes of Twilight 2000 in the least.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 04:22:59 PM
The new Twilight 2000 has a group of Soviet hardliners that succeeded in the 1991 coup seeking to keep the USSR intact, including retaking the Balkan states. Not sure how this is "the fault of the West" or how having culpability for engaging in a war of mutually assured destruction detracts from the themes of Twilight 2000 in the least.
Then they changed it significantly from early playtests. I know some folks who were hardcore about T2k the way I am about 1e AD&D who got onto the playtests and they were so appalled by the writers obvious political direction they noped out. Good to see they got their shit together then.
Quote from: thedungeondelver on August 28, 2022, 04:28:15 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 04:22:59 PM
The new Twilight 2000 has a group of Soviet hardliners that succeeded in the 1991 coup seeking to keep the USSR intact, including retaking the Balkan states. Not sure how this is "the fault of the West" or how having culpability for engaging in a war of mutually assured destruction detracts from the themes of Twilight 2000 in the least.
Then they changed it significantly from early playtests. I know some folks who were hardcore about T2k the way I am about 1e AD&D who got onto the playtests and they were so appalled by the writers obvious political direction they noped out. Good to see they got their shit together then.
Sorry, that should have said "Baltic states." Also, they did have a hawkish US president that defeated Clinton's re-election, but the move towards war was basically everyone (except the Poles and Swedes...) being dicks.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 04:12:45 PM
Why? Does the historical inaccuracy impact gameplay in some significant way?
Does it make it any less of a lie if it doesn't?
Impact on gameplay is irrelevant.
Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 05:35:22 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 04:12:45 PM
Why? Does the historical inaccuracy impact gameplay in some significant way?
Does it make it any less of a lie if it doesn't?
Impact on gameplay is irrelevant.
It's a fucking game. Impact on how it plays should be the MOST relevant factor.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 06:08:24 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 05:35:22 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 04:12:45 PM
Why? Does the historical inaccuracy impact gameplay in some significant way?
Does it make it any less of a lie if it doesn't?
Impact on gameplay is irrelevant.
It's a fucking game. Impact on how it plays should be the MOST relevant factor.
It's irrelevant to the fact it's still a lie, which is all this thread is pointing out. Stop deflecting.
Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 06:08:24 PM
Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 05:35:22 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 04:12:45 PM
Why? Does the historical inaccuracy impact gameplay in some significant way?
Does it make it any less of a lie if it doesn't?
Impact on gameplay is irrelevant.
It's a fucking game. Impact on how it plays should be the MOST relevant factor.
It's irrelevant to the fact it's still a lie, which is all this thread is pointing out. Stop deflecting.
I'm not deflecting. The guy said he was glad he didn't buy the book. Why not? Did he consider buying it for gaming, or for historical reference?
I'm glad I didn't buy the book because I wasn't going to play the game, but I thought it would be cool if I have it in my collection because I absolutely love the 1980s. I'm glad I didn't because I wouldn't want to buy a book that lies about that topic. My personal preference, that's all.
Quote from: Cathode Ray on August 28, 2022, 10:21:17 PM
I'm glad I didn't buy the book because I wasn't going to play the game, but I thought it would be cool if I have it in my collection because I absolutely love the 1980s. I'm glad I didn't because I wouldn't want to buy a book that lies about that topic. My personal preference, that's all.
OK, but I do find it odd that you wouldn't consider a non-fiction book about the 80s (you can't have read them all) as a source rather than a sci-fi RPG book?
In fairness to Cathode Ray, if we are being honest, a lot of non-fiction history book are in fact mislabeled fiction.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 28, 2022, 10:53:47 PM
Quote from: Cathode Ray on August 28, 2022, 10:21:17 PM
I'm glad I didn't buy the book because I wasn't going to play the game, but I thought it would be cool if I have it in my collection because I absolutely love the 1980s. I'm glad I didn't because I wouldn't want to buy a book that lies about that topic. My personal preference, that's all.
OK, but I do find it odd that you wouldn't consider a non-fiction book about the 80s (you can't have read them all) as a source rather than a sci-fi RPG book?
Like I said, I love the 80s,and to quote Depeche Mode, "I just can't get enough". I haven't read all the 1980s books, by a long shot, but not for lack of trying!!!!! I read the 3rd edition Trouser Press Guide to New Music from cover to cover, for instance. And I have almanacs that I consult regularly. My friend knew I love the 80s and thought I'd love to borrow Tales from the Loop.
Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 07:43:13 PM
It's irrelevant to the fact it's still a lie, which is all this thread is pointing out. Stop deflecting.
You're pretty insistent in claiming that it's a lie; it seems to me that a more correct statement would be "The US Congress investigation decided it wasn't likely to be true", which ... is a conclusion that has been wrong before. There are plenty of people on here who disagree with the US Congress over other decisions or judgements it's made, some of them quite recent. There are still multiple people, from both governments, who would have had direct knowledge, who claim it's true.
What data do you have that I'm missing? Does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory err in stressing the two-sidedness of the question?
And given that it's not entirely settled, you (plural) seem to be protesting an awful lot about a game assuming its truth. I really want to read over our host's latest Silk Road publications, but should I complain here about any historical inaccuracies he may have indulged in in favour of gameability? I'm no expert, but I did own a copy of Arrows of Indra, and I seem to recall it simplifying some things...
Wikipedia.... they don't choose sides.
It is odd wikipedia likes to act as if there is some good chance a conspiracy around an election could be true....so long as the conspiracy points in the right direction. I would say the conspiracy theory being presented as a fact in a game would not really bother me, and honestly I would not doubt if we had the really hard truth, that it could be true anyway. For the game and for history, it worked out better (better is not the same as good) that Carter was sent packing.
Quote from: Naburimannu on August 29, 2022, 08:57:20 AM
Quote from: Effete on August 28, 2022, 07:43:13 PM
It's irrelevant to the fact it's still a lie, which is all this thread is pointing out. Stop deflecting.
You're pretty insistent in claiming that it's a lie; it seems to me that a more correct statement would be "The US Congress investigation decided it wasn't likely to be true", which ... is a conclusion that has been wrong before.
I'm not making legal statements here. The distinction you're trying to make is like arguing over whether someone is "innocent" rather than "not guilty." But if you really want to dive into semantics, fine... the book is making a positive claim that something happened. Positive claims need to be substantiated with credible evidence, which does not exist for this claim. Ergo, the claim is false; a lie. Dismissing a positive claim for the affirmative IS NOT support of a positive claim to the contrary; I'm NOT saying "it absolutely did not happen whatsoever," I'm only saying it's not true that it absolutely did.
QuoteAnd given that it's not entirely settled, you (plural) seem to be protesting an awful lot about a game assuming its truth. I really want to read over our host's latest Silk Road publications, but should I complain here about any historical inaccuracies he may have indulged in in favour of gameability? I'm no expert, but I did own a copy of Arrows of Indra, and I seem to recall it simplifying some things...
I brought this up already. I questioned whether the change had some further impact on the lore or not. If the game wanted to turn Reagan into a secret Iranian plant for whatever reason, okay fine. Not sure how that would fit in with the wider plot of the game, but "fictional world" and whatever. As it stands, though, that doesn't seem to be the case. The author is clearly pushing a bias, further evidenced by the fact they tried to credit Reagan's win on the people having woe's over Nixon's resignation... an event that happened six years earlier. That'd be like saying Obama won because of the Monica Lewinski scandal. Then calling him a Kenya-born muslim commie to boot (a claim Congress found no evidence for, but Hey!, they were wrong before right?).
I think that while the concept of the 'October Surprise' is a valid one, going back centuries in politics, the 1980 Reagan campaign story has been fairly discredited...I believe the first proponent of the theory that Reagan et al. negotiated with Iranian leaders secretly to win the 1980 election in a tit-for-tat agreement was started by Lyndon Larouche, of all people, and within a month after the '80 election. (Larouche, not exactly a man known for his moderate and balanced views, was a bit of a moonbat, but quite fascinating. More games should include Larouche elements of conspiracy, intellectual hubris, and paranoia.)
Gary Sick did the most to bolster this rumour with establishment credentials and less-insane credibility. But he was also clearly not an unbiased observer and researcher...a former member of the Carter administration, he had reputation, pride, and (via Oliver Stone, I believe) financial reasons to believe in the rumour....
As for the text the OP quotes...that's what it says, clearly. I am not sure which paragraphs FingerRod is referring to, but most of the rest of the text is pretty anodyne—neither wrong nor particularly flavourful, either. But the writers are Swedish...anyone who has spent a decent amount of time in Sweden knows that they generally skew left (unless they are pretty far right), and that there is a general animosity toward American politics. When I was there studying the language, natives would react to their discovery that I was American by asking me how I felt about capital punishment, e.g. It was a low-level of anti-Americanism, but one which really only extended to the political, not the cultural or personal (they didn't mind me, just the U.S. government). I find this to be in marked contrast to, say, Canada, another place I have spent a very long time: Canadians have been more likely, in my own experience, to dismiss the culture AND the people...endemic to vicinity with a superpower, I guess.
I can't fault the Swedes too much for still believing that the Reagan October Surprise myth has some reality in it...after all, more than half of all Americans also believed it was true for a while in 1992. Many might do still...
I like the idea of opposing factual carelessness like this...kudos! But I honestly don't think it makes a big difference in the game, or the setting. I like Tales from the Loop, and its Things from the Flood companion piece. I love the setting, and find it pretty evocative and fun. Not the only to play the 80s and 90s, but it can do a Stranger Things vibe very well, and even a juvenile Gamma World or many comics stories very well. And if you know Swedes, while they would rather live in Sweden, they love almost everything about American media and myth. That's where they want to game...it's a complex relationship.
This question was not answered:
How does this change the game in play?
I feel the same way about T2k, too, by the way. It doesn't really matter how WWIII started, what matters is that you're in this hodge-podge unit and there's no more chain of command or front line and heaps of cities have been destroyed. How did that happen? Well, do you think the Russian and German soldiers at Stalingrad carefully considered the merits of Germany's demands for a Danzig Corridor, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? I'd say they had better things to think of, day-to-day.
Games can have all sorts of nonsense backgrounds to them, what matters is what shows up in play. I mean, I know we all like to occasionally indulge in some righteous nerdfury, but...
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on August 30, 2022, 07:38:38 AM
This question was not answered:
How does this change the game in play?
I feel the same way about T2k, too, by the way. It doesn't really matter how WWIII started, what matters is that you're in this hodge-podge unit and there's no more chain of command or front line and heaps of cities have been destroyed. How did that happen? Well, do you think the Russian and German soldiers at Stalingrad carefully considered the merits of Germany's demands for a Danzig Corridor, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? I'd say they had better things to think of, day-to-day.
Games can have all sorts of nonsense backgrounds to them, what matters is what shows up in play. I mean, I know we all like to occasionally indulge in some righteous nerdfury, but...
It was not answered because it is not the topic. The original post is about a lie put into the history portion of the game. Happy replied asking if it was trying to rewrite history, or change it as a gameplay element. The next 8-9 posts go on to show it was being passed off as 'real'. Then goal posts were moved.
Whether it affects gameplay is not relevant to someone who does not want to spend money on a product that goes out of their way to spread old propaganda. As Effete pointed out, pushing the topic to gameplay is deflecting away from this.
Two things can be true, though. And that is what I found to be interesting in anthologos' post. So yes, the writers believe and pushed it, but it was not necessarily placed there to subvert. That matches the general tone when you factor in the positives around culture. Speaking of tone...
note for anthologos: I was referring to the tone of the writing when discussing anything from the conservative government. For example, Reagan's age and how people laughed at Nancy's 'Just say no" campaign.
Kyle, I am a fan of the overall TFL product. The art alone is worth the price of the product, and the book is gorgeous. I do not like the system for a sustained campaign, but the setting is fantastic and nothing stops you from using a better system with it. It hit all of the nostalgic chords. I even created an Apple Music playlist from the one provided in the book. Fantastic. I would recommend the product. At the same time...
Some remain patriotic and are
done with the bullshit and lies. We're going to call it out when we see it. And while it is not the topic, if that fact causes somebody to want to play the game less, then indirectly, yes it will impact gameplay. We've all been at tables where people pull away from the setting.
Quote from: FingerRod on August 30, 2022, 08:28:16 AM
It was not answered because it is not the topic.
Gaming should always be the topic. If you want to get indignant over things that are irrelevant in play, there's always rpg.net.
Quote from: anthologos on August 30, 2022, 05:05:32 AM
I think that while the concept of the 'October Surprise' is a valid one, going back centuries in politics, the 1980 Reagan campaign story has been fairly discredited...I believe the first proponent of the theory that Reagan et al. negotiated with Iranian leaders secretly to win the 1980 election in a tit-for-tat agreement was started by Lyndon Larouche, of all people, and within a month after the '80 election. (Larouche, not exactly a man known for his moderate and balanced views, was a bit of a moonbat, but quite fascinating. More games should include Larouche elements of conspiracy, intellectual hubris, and paranoia.)
I did not realize LaRouche started this. And you are right about both counts: he is out there and he is an interesting character. I read one of his books back in the 1980s, and it's thought-provoking. I haven't gotten too much into politics in Radical High, since the game's main focus is high school students, but when I cover 1980s politics, I won't forget to include him.
Quote from: FingerRod on August 30, 2022, 08:28:16 AM
Kyle, I am a fan of the overall TFL product. The art alone is worth the price of the product
That is correct: it has excellent art it looks like stills from a VHS tape. (But this has nothing to do with the gameplay so Kyle might say we can't discuss the art)
The server double-posted this, so disregard this one. (Or read this one and disregard the original.)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on August 30, 2022, 08:38:25 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on August 30, 2022, 08:28:16 AM
It was not answered because it is not the topic.
Gaming should always be the topic. If you want to get indignant over things that are irrelevant in play, there's always rpg.net.
That's my view too. But here, by bringing up gaming, I apparently interrupted the Two Minutes of Hate that others were trying to get going...much as we have seen on RPGnet.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on August 30, 2022, 07:38:38 AM
Games can have all sorts of nonsense backgrounds to them, what matters is what shows up in play.
If that's so, then one wonders why the author included all of the nonsense background. I think the latter is the question this thread begs an answer to. If the content of a game book beyond a rules summary is irrelevant, then why are people writing it, and why are people reading it?
The entirety of the content matters to me if I'm purchasing or reading a product.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 30, 2022, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on August 30, 2022, 08:38:25 AM
Gaming should always be the topic. If you want to get indignant over things that are irrelevant in play, there's always rpg.net.
That's my view too. But here, by bringing up gaming, I apparently interrupted the Two Minutes of Hate that others were trying to get going...much as we have seen on RPGnet.
I hope you aren't including me in this statement. Nothing I said was "hateful" toward the book or the creators. The worst I said was that the writers were biased, but I think that's been objectively shown. Nothing "hateful" about that. In fact, as I looked into the game, it really resonated with me and I'm actually considering buying it, biases and all. You're right, gameplay is all that really
should matter, but that's also not the topic of this thread. Do you think lactose-intolerance should be discussed in a topic about favorite ice cream flavors?
Quote from: Effete on August 30, 2022, 11:05:06 AM
I hope you aren't including me in this statement. Nothing I said was "hateful" toward the book or the creators. The worst I said was that the writers were biased, but I think that's been objectively shown. Nothing "hateful" about that. In fact, as I looked into the game, it really resonated with me and I'm actually considering buying it, biases and all. You're right, gameplay is all that really should matter, but that's also not the topic of this thread. Do you think lactose-intolerance should be discussed in a topic about favorite ice cream flavors?
My sentiments exactly. It's about RPGs. I saw this, noted it, and didn't think the lie should stand unchallenged. This game isn't for me, but NOT because of the lie, although that is a turn-off. It's just not the 80s universe for me. For other people, this is a perfect setting, and that's also fine.
Quote from: HappyDaze on August 30, 2022, 09:37:17 AM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on August 30, 2022, 08:38:25 AM
Quote from: FingerRod on August 30, 2022, 08:28:16 AM
It was not answered because it is not the topic.
Gaming should always be the topic. If you want to get indignant over things that are irrelevant in play, there's always rpg.net.
That's my view too. But here, by bringing up gaming, I apparently interrupted the Two Minutes of Hate that others were trying to get going...much as we have seen on RPGnet.
Nobody was hating on anything. Go back and read my posts. I praised the product and said I would recommend it. That is not indignant. Telling people to leave and go to another forum shows how weak both of your arguments are.
Oh, for fuck's sake! Please stop treating Happyderp as if his opinion is based on anything other than shilling for lefties in gaming and trolling this site. If the game had a conspiracy that denigrated lefty ideas or historical leftists, he'd be the first to claim that it destroyed the setting and had everything to do with the "game." The reality is that the lefty writers of this game included revisionist history for no reason other than it suits their biases. It also suits Happyderp's biases, so he sees no problem with it. Were it a right-wing conspiracy, he'd treat it completely differently.
If you want to play the game, fine. If not, that's fine, too. But the idea that the setting has nothing to do with players' and GMs' reaction to the game is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. If these authors had blamed the AIDS epidemic in the 80s on promiscuous gays recruiting underaged kids and molesting them, causing a mutated illness, none of these leftists here would be claiming that it was no big deal and that it had no effect on the game or its players. Lying liars are gonna lie...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 30, 2022, 10:36:51 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake! Please stop treating Happyderp as if his opinion is based on anything other than shilling for lefties in gaming and trolling this site. If the game had a conspiracy that denigrated lefty ideas or historical leftists, he'd be the first to claim that it destroyed the setting and had everything to do with the "game." The reality is that the lefty writers of this game included revisionist history for no reason other than it suits their biases. It also suits Happyderp's biases, so he sees no problem with it. Were it a right-wing conspiracy, he'd treat it completely differently.
If you want to play the game, fine. If not, that's fine, too. But the idea that the setting has nothing to do with players' and GMs' reaction to the game is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst. If these authors had blamed the AIDS epidemic in the 80s on promiscuous gays recruiting underaged kids and molesting them, causing a mutated illness, none of these leftists here would be claiming that it was no big deal and that it had no effect on the game or its players. Lying liars are gonna lie...
You're full of shit. I don't care about historical inaccuracies in my RPGs regardless which way they blow in the political winds. I buy games to play them (or to chew up for material to run other games), not to use as a history primer.
Everybody here missed the obvious answer?
They wanted to include a short overview of 1980's history. Wanted to make the US government come of as a bit shady in that overview, because that fits in nicely with some of the broader themes of the game. So they included the Iran Contra scandal and misremembered the details, because the specifics of the scandal aren't important for the game, so they did not bother look them up.
Quote from: igor on August 31, 2022, 01:53:59 AM
Everybody here missed the obvious answer?
They wanted to include a short overview of 1980's history. Wanted to make the US government come of as a bit shady in that overview, because that fits in nicely with some of the broader themes of the game. So they included the Iran Contra scandal and misremembered the details, because the specifics of the scandal aren't important for the game, so they did not bother look them up.
"Everybody" missed that?
Read the thread again fucko. I said in my very first post that if the authors were purposely revising history, they need to make that clear. I also alluded to the possibility that they simply believed the conspiracy theory and didn't look beyond their own biases.
Also, the Iran Contra scandal was something completely different from the Iranian Hostage Crises, which is what the book is misrepresenting.
You didn't allude strongly enough...
Because I missed that, if that was the intend.
(It was actually hidden away in your 2nd post)
Sorry. I'm being petty.
I think that is the proper explanation. It's actually one of the few conspiracy theories that makes a bit of sense. So people who aren't paying closes attention can easily pick it up and just believe it is the way it happened.
Quote from: igor on August 31, 2022, 02:52:28 AM
Sorry. I'm being petty.
Big on you for saying this!
Much respect!
QuoteI think that is the proper explanation. It's actually one of the few conspiracy theories that makes a bit of sense. So people who aren't paying closes attention can easily pick it up and just believe it is the way it happened.
Yes. Occam's Razor.
People love to have their biases validated. Ergo: they will believe whatever confirms their biases.
For the record. The conspiracy is that the Reagan election campaign convinced the Iranian government to drag their feet during the hostage negotiations, promising them a better deal if they get into power. That works and that better deal manifests as the Iranian half of the Iran Contra scandal. 8)
This makes sense. Especially because the Nixon campaign actually did something like this during the Vietnam peace negotiations in Paris during Nixon's first successful presidential campaign.