Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 28, 2023, 09:01:49 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 26, 2023, 06:37:27 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 26, 2023, 11:55:14 AM
The book is infinitely better, Verhoeven didn't even read it IIRC. Or if he did he understood jack shit, and it shows since his movie fails to present the Bugs as anything but genocidal communist monsters, the humans as justified and the Federation as a fair government.

I highly recomend you to read it.

That's the hilarious thing about the film. It makes Fascism look justified and correct. As a satire, it's garbage.
It is a good satire of people who misunderstand satire, but I doubt Verhoeven went that meta intentionally.

As a mindless action flick, I put in on par with flicks like Transformers (live action) or Battleship. And I think that's where it's popularity mostly resides.

The book is one of Heinlein's best, amongst an oeuvre of some of the greatest sci-fi books ever written (raging Heinlein fanboy here). And I've always thought it was correct about how much citizenship should cost. Voting should only be a right for those who have paid the price with public service and their putting their life on the line (so firemen, paramedics, etc. should get voting rights). This lowest common denominator and trying to give everyone voting rights, including illegal immigrants, is part of what is destroying politics in America.

A quibble here, in the book it said you needed to do federal service to get citizenship, but it also said that not all such service needed to be dangerous.  Something like the peace corp or working in a government office would also work.  Johnny's childhood friend who died on Pluto was there working as a scientist, not a soldier.

EDIT:  Also a huge fan of Heinlein's early work (his later work is so different that I have to think he suffered a brain-altering event like a stroke or LSD)  I agree with your assessment of the point of the book.  It's about philosophy and the action. while good, is just in there to keep you reading and illustrate the point.

Trying to keep this back onto fantasy gaming rather than politics or Heinlein. I don't agree with HyveMynd's suggestion from the original post. I can easily have a racist game while following that advice, say.

That said, there can be fine fantasy games with humans as the only intelligent species - like in Conan and other Sword & Sorcery games. In my alternate-history vikings games, say, humans were the primary antagonists - and the only others were unique monsters and/or spirits. Even if there are other races, there are already many settings where it is not good races vs. evil races. A game could have the PCs as good humans, elves, and dwarves -- and they're fighting against evil humans, elves, and dwarves. That describes Castle Falkenstein, for example, or 7th Sea.

Some of the pushback against the OP statement goes beyond just disagreeing about the politics into dismissing perfectly good options for fantasy games over what some woke poster says.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on August 26, 2023, 07:56:56 PM
Criticizing the original points from a perspective these calls never consider -- that of what makes a working game and business product.

1. Don't link ability modifiers to species.

The reason preset ability modifiers, or ability sets, are listed for species backgrounds isn't because of a biased belief in essentialism, or to deny players or GMs the capacity to create variants that go outside the standard parameters (which they can do at any time).  It's purely and simply to save time.

Character templates of any kind are shortcuts that let players select prepackaged sets of design decisions rather than having to review and choose every single option themselves every time.

Ability modifiers aren't a template though. It's just as easy to make a character with no modifiers (like a human). It isn't faster to make an elf character with stat modifiers compared to making a modifier-less character like a human. And there can be human templates. One can easily have all the speed of templates without having ability modifiers, which are a complication that if anything slows things down.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on August 26, 2023, 07:56:56 PM
2. Don't present species as monolithic.

The average bestiary entry in a classic-sized hardback core rulebook takes up a third to a half of a page. If every even semi-intelligent species with something resembling a culture has to be given at least three different subcultures to not appear monolithic, this is going to increase the page count of the volume by at least 25%, probably more.

The plain truth is that what most GMs need and want out of a potential antagonist are their combat stats and an excuse or two for them to fight the PCs, nothing more. Overloading a book with unneeded fluff is a good way to create a product that loses money, and a product that loses money is a good way to discourage further such products.

Non-monolithic species aren't useless fluff, though. The entries on dragons in D&D, say, isn't useless fluff - never mind the various human entry types. Non-monolithic species can present interesting, varied antagonists -- which includes having multiple combat templates for things like elf scout, elf knight, elf mystic, etc.  Trollpak for RuneQuest as a good example from back in 1982. It offers lots of options for trolls including trolls as PCs as well as rivals, allies, and enemies.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on August 26, 2023, 07:56:56 PM
3. Don't list intelligent species as foes to fight in your bestiary.

This is like saying that you have to create a separate list of statted entities which cannot be used as foes, which is not only inefficient (this now either takes up space in other corebooks or requires a separate new book of its own) but pointless (wherever a statted entity is listed, if the GM wants to use it as a player opponent, he will).

All game-tailored simulations of any element of reality are going to simplify that element to an implausible degree once sufficiently analyzed. You want to eliminate racism from a secondary world? Set it in Eden before the Fall, and see how long it takes your players to get bored.

One can have entries listed like "Human Guard" or "Human Scout" - which can and are used as foes, but doesn't paint humans as racial enemies.

(I have had a campaign where humans were the evil species, and the PCs were various other creatures who fought them.)

As for Eden bring boring, there are tons of possible sources of conflict in a game other than racism. Heck, in my alternate-medieval vikings game, there was no racism. There was plenty of conflict over politics and religions and resources, but no one particularly cared about race - which also fit with history. The vikings didn't give a damn about racial purity. They were happy to take foreign women as wives and looked no differently on their children with such foreign wives. They raided each other as often as raiding foreign ports.

Quote from: Mishihari on August 29, 2023, 01:02:35 PM

A quibble here, in the book it said you needed to do federal service to get citizenship, but it also said that not all such service needed to be dangerous.  Something like the peace corp or working in a government office would also work.  Johnny's childhood friend who died on Pluto was there working as a scientist, not a soldier.

I should have put a paragraph break before the Voting sentence so it would read:

QuoteThe book is one of Heinlein's best, amongst an oeuvre of some of the greatest sci-fi books ever written (raging Heinlein fanboy here). And I've always thought it was correct about how much citizenship should cost.

In my opinion voting should only be a right for those who have paid the price with public service and their putting their life on the line (so firemen, paramedics, etc. should get voting rights). This lowest common denominator and trying to give everyone voting rights, including illegal immigrants, is part of what is destroying politics in America.

Yes, that is how far I am from the thinking of the Democrats where everyone should vote. History has shown that Democracies always end up in the turmoil of mob rule, which is why the founders gave us a Republic.

But, now we've completely departed from the point of this thread. To get back on track a little, any group, or tribe, is going to have strife with another. There are going to be wars over resources, power, influence, and so on. And to make an interesting fantasy world you have to have "racism" (if we can equate tribalism with racism). You'd think the Woke would like this in their campaign because it gives them something for their characters to do to fix the situation.

Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 29, 2023, 02:53:57 PM
But, now we've completely departed from the point of this thread. To get back on track a little, any group, or tribe, is going to have strife with another. There are going to be wars over resources, power, influence, and so on. And to make an interesting fantasy world you have to have "racism" (if we can equate tribalism with racism). You'd think the Woke would like this in their campaign because it gives them something for their characters to do to fix the situation.

Tribalism isn't the same as racism if there is no sense that the bloodline of the other tribe is the conflict.

If one side welcomes those of the opposition who are willing to switch sides, then it's about politics or religion or culture, not race.

I do not accept the framing of anyone telling me what I can and can't do, or need to do at my table. I'm not a child.

Conflict is good. People who advocate otherwise in TTRPG's are infants who want to play infantile games. Which is fine. But I don't run infantile games or play with children. When I do, I treat them as children. That means exactly what it should mean.

If you're an adult that wants to be treated as a child, well, I'm not your guy... and is your problem not mine.

Quote from: jhkim on August 29, 2023, 03:15:54 PM

Tribalism isn't the same as racism if there is no sense that the bloodline of the other tribe is the conflict.

If one side welcomes those of the opposition who are willing to switch sides, then it's about politics or religion or culture, not race.

Of course it isn't the same. A difference is a difference. But for the sake of discussion we can equate them in the sense that the original point of the thread was that there can be no differences in an RPG, according to the Woke.

And also according to the Woke, if a black person becomes a Republican they are racists against their own kind.

Quote from: tenbones on August 29, 2023, 03:24:05 PM
I do not accept the framing of anyone telling me what I can and can't do, or need to do at my table. I'm not a child.

Conflict is good. People who advocate otherwise in TTRPG's are infants who want to play infantile games. Which is fine. But I don't run infantile games or play with children. When I do, I treat them as children. That means exactly what it should mean.

If you're an adult that wants to be treated as a child, well, I'm not your guy... and is your problem not mine.

Hey, let's not dignify what is going on here by comparing it to children.  Children are better than that.  That's why when left to their own devices, they gravitate to fairy tales.  Plenty of conflict in those.  An adult throwing a sophist tantrum is much uglier than anything a child ever did, and not just because an adult show know better. Children are often unsophisticated, ignorant, and willful, but on those occasions when they combine all three into one ugly package, they usually have the decency to be ashamed by it.

You should also stop using the words: Tribe, Tribal, Tribalism acording to WotKKK, they already sanitized MtG from it, comming to your D&D6e soon.

Quote from: jhkim on August 29, 2023, 02:13:48 PMAbility modifiers aren't a template though. It's just as easy to make a character with no modifiers (like a human). It isn't faster to make an elf character with stat modifiers compared to making a modifier-less character like a human.

Perhaps my point becomes clearer if I explain that by "ability modifiers" I mean anything and everything mechanical related to the character design process. Yes, the base elf template might include no mechanical design decisions (stat modifiers, starting skills, racial Comeliness advantages, etc.) that a human template wouldn't have, or even no mechanical decisions at all (the player has to pick abilities based purely on the fluff description), but this misses the biggest point of templates, which is the time saved by pre-selected decision packages.

QuoteNon-monolithic species aren't useless fluff, though. The entries on dragons in D&D, say, isn't useless fluff - never mind the various human entry types.

Granted, and you're right. But my point is that if every possible antagonist gets the detail of dragons in the Monster Manual, or trolls in Trollpak, and you try to cram all that into a single product, you wind up with a sourcebook either physically unproduceable for size or impractical to use for volume.

QuoteOne can have entries listed like "Human Guard" or "Human Scout" - which can and are used as foes, but doesn't paint humans as racial enemies.

I agree, but I think you're giving the argument of the OP too much credit for good faith here. It's the presence of intelligent nonhumans in a bestiary as potential enemies at all that they are objecting to as creating "racist" implications.

My point was that the only way you can avoid something not being seen as a potential enemy in an RPG is simply not to give it stats at all. (Which is, in fact, why in my game designs, I never give stats to beings like angels or gods. They are placed outside the realm of PC defeatability by definition.)

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on August 29, 2023, 04:29:19 PM

Quote from: jhkim on August 29, 2023, 02:13:48 PMAbility modifiers aren't a template though. It's just as easy to make a character with no modifiers (like a human). It isn't faster to make an elf character with stat modifiers compared to making a modifier-less character like a human.

Perhaps my point becomes clearer if I explain that by "ability modifiers" I mean anything and everything mechanical related to the character design process. Yes, the base elf template might include no mechanical design decisions (stat modifiers, starting skills, racial Comeliness advantages, etc.) that a human template wouldn't have, or even no mechanical decisions at all (the player has to pick abilities based purely on the fluff description), but this misses the biggest point of templates, which is the time saved by pre-selected decision packages.

QuoteNon-monolithic species aren't useless fluff, though. The entries on dragons in D&D, say, isn't useless fluff - never mind the various human entry types.

Granted, and you're right. But my point is that if every possible antagonist gets the detail of dragons in the Monster Manual, or trolls in Trollpak, and you try to cram all that into a single product, you wind up with a sourcebook either physically unproduceable for size or impractical to use for volume.

QuoteOne can have entries listed like "Human Guard" or "Human Scout" - which can and are used as foes, but doesn't paint humans as racial enemies.

I agree, but I think you're giving the argument of the OP too much credit for good faith here. It's the presence of intelligent nonhumans in a bestiary as potential enemies at all that they are objecting to as creating "racist" implications.

My point was that the only way you can avoid something not being seen as a potential enemy in an RPG is simply not to give it stats at all. (Which is, in fact, why in my game designs, I never give stats to beings like angels or gods. They are placed outside the realm of PC defeatability by definition.)

You're giving Jhkim too much good faith assumption.

He's fully in the camp of depicting Orcs as evil is Waaaaaacist or at the very least wrongbadfun.

As for your Dragon example:

It doesn't apply, because you would need to have Red Dragons that are of every alignment, same with every other Dragon type.

Quote from: jhkim on August 29, 2023, 02:13:48 PMAbility modifiers aren't a template though. It's just as easy to make a character with no modifiers (like a human). It isn't faster to make an elf character with stat modifiers compared to making a modifier-less character like a human. And there can be human templates. One can easily have all the speed of templates without having ability modifiers, which are a complication that if anything slows things down.

From a Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E perspective, humans are intended to be the most versatile race, hence the ability to spread modifiers as flexibly as possible.  If you make all races like that, then the point of playing a human is mostly lost.

If you get rid of modifiers altogether, then either the point buy pool needs to be increased, or rolling for stats needs to be boosted slightly.  Or, alternatively, enemies should be watered down slightly, at least in the beginning.  Granted, some players do enjoy hard mode.

Quote from: jhkim on August 29, 2023, 02:13:48 PMOne can have entries listed like "Human Guard" or "Human Scout" - which can and are used as foes, but doesn't paint humans as racial enemies.

(I have had a campaign where humans were the evil species, and the PCs were various other creatures who fought them.)

As for Eden bring boring, there are tons of possible sources of conflict in a game other than racism. Heck, in my alternate-medieval vikings game, there was no racism. There was plenty of conflict over politics and religions and resources, but no one particularly cared about race - which also fit with history. The vikings didn't give a damn about racial purity. They were happy to take foreign women as wives and looked no differently on their children with such foreign wives. They raided each other as often as raiding foreign ports.

Fair enough, although any player exceptionally sensitive about fictional races fitting a stereotype is probably not the most pleasant person to have in a gaming group.  If anything, political correctness is like a litmus test of who not to allow in the group.

Quote from: jhkim on August 29, 2023, 03:15:54 PM

Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 29, 2023, 02:53:57 PM
But, now we've completely departed from the point of this thread. To get back on track a little, any group, or tribe, is going to have strife with another. There are going to be wars over resources, power, influence, and so on. And to make an interesting fantasy world you have to have "racism" (if we can equate tribalism with racism). You'd think the Woke would like this in their campaign because it gives them something for their characters to do to fix the situation.

Tribalism isn't the same as racism if there is no sense that the bloodline of the other tribe is the conflict.

If one side welcomes those of the opposition who are willing to switch sides, then it's about politics or religion or culture, not race.

I would agree, although in the real world, they're often conflated -- probably intentionally.

Quote from: jhkim on August 29, 2023, 02:13:48 PM
As for Eden bring boring, there are tons of possible sources of conflict in a game other than racism. Heck, in my alternate-medieval vikings game, there was no racism. There was plenty of conflict over politics and religions and resources, but no one particularly cared about race - which also fit with history. The vikings didn't give a damn about racial purity. They were happy to take foreign women as wives and looked no differently on their children with such foreign wives. They raided each other as often as raiding foreign ports.

You mean the Vikings didn't look differently upon other white children even if those children's mothers were taken from other white cultures and raped?

Not the moral high ground you think this is.

As long as all the enemies are white men or immobile non-thinking boulders you should be fine.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 29, 2023, 04:09:38 PM
You should also stop using the words: Tribe, Tribal, Tribalism acording to WotKKK, they already sanitized MtG from it, comming to your D&D6e soon.

oh, crap, I almost forgot that. They've really completely lost their minds.