It is easy to make your fantasy world not racist, just follow these steps. Make sure there are no differences between the races, and do not fight any intelligent species. Have a nice cup of tea with them instead. And sex of course, lots of sex.
(https://i.imgur.com/qxmC9hM.png)
Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 24, 2023, 08:35:45 PM
It is easy to make your fantasy world not racist, just follow these steps. Make sure there are no differences between the races, and do not fight any intelligent species. Have a nice cup of tea with them instead. And sex of course, lots of sex.
(https://i.imgur.com/qxmC9hM.png)
I agree, it's really easy.
What should we call it? Bores and Baristas?
i will become MORE racist
(https://i.imgur.com/qxmC9hM.png)
As far as 3) Wouldn't leaving some races out mean those races are a bit monolithic?
Humans fight each other all the time over resources, doesn't mean either side is 'evil' or that racism is involved.
Does that girl fuck horses?
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 09:06:35 PM
Does that girl fuck horses?
^^^^This^^^^^ I believe they do. LOL
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 09:06:35 PM
Does that girl fuck horses?
Bold to claim poster is a girl
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 09:06:35 PM
Does that girl fuck horses?
ain't gonna listen to the opinion of a horsefucker then
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 09:06:35 PM
Does that girl fuck horses?
For a moment I thought the name was: "The Lady Doth Thirst For Epussy".
My lysdexia made me read the "q" backwards.
...or maybe it was just my dirty mind.
Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on August 24, 2023, 09:24:27 PM
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 09:06:35 PM
Does that girl fuck horses?
^^^^This^^^^^ I believe they do. LOL
That does seem to be what "she" is saying.
BTW. This kind of thinking is the prevalent mindset at current WotC and its fans. They literally think that it is racist to have any differences between D&D fantasy character races...excuse me
species.
I don't care if my fantasy world is racist.*
*I reject their usual "progressive" connotations about race anyway.
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 09:06:35 PM
Does that girl fuck horses?
The implications of the handle alone are just ruthlessly stupid.
Yes, yes good D&D players across the realm. Do not engage intelligent humanoids in battle engage them in sex! Can't you see it? The fierce warrior with the mind flayer's tentacles wrapped about his pecker in the tavern enjoying a flagon chai tea as he virtue signals to the other patrons about the equity to be found in his adventuring party! The new D&D is here.
I already thought that species were not monolithic... :o
So another trans-activist is trying to get attention by woke scolding gamers.
Frankly, this horse fucker is looking for attention, clout, and controversy. Deny them all of it by simply ignoring and going about your day,
Species.
Now it's racist to claim a kangaroo jumps better than a turtle.
I prefer to move away from depicting intelligent opponents as generically evil and instead focus on their specific values and motives. Some may simply be so alien that peaceful coexistence is impossible. To call them evil is a matter of perspective: if they're trying to kill you, then obviously you'll think they're evil. They may not see it that way. They might see themselves as the heroes for exterminating a pest, or be apathetic to the suffering of other species.
To say "fighting intelligent beings is bad!" sounds like it would make for a really boring game. Even more boring than "all your opponents are evil so you need not feel guilty for slaughtering them." That might be enough for some people, but sometimes I like some moral ambiguity in my fiction, ya know?
Well, it is since I play D&D that I felt we needed two different words to distinguish "races" in, let's say, men, and "races" as in men, elves etc. It was not front and center in my thoughts - a corner of my mind simply found using the same word for two different concepts a bit confusing.
Now wokeism gifted us "species". English is not my first language so I don't know the woke-score of the term. However, the idea by itself fills what I felt was a practical need.
In our new, not racist rpg all characters are equal. All tasks are treated the same. You always succeed and you always win. There is a fixed target number to be awesome. If you can roll a 6 on a d6 you are spectacularly awesome and can describe your success however you want as long as it is not sexist, racist, ableist, Caucasian, European, or Christian because those things are not awesome. Our game has 69 genders, 128 hair colours, and hundreds of amazing floral tatoos for you to detail your character with. In the awesome setting you can attend classes, seminars, and rallies in the collectivist commune where nothing bad ever happens and everyone has just as much as everyone else and there is never any strife or discontent. This is surely the most groundbreaking and epicly AWESOME role playing game of all time.
Quote from: Reckall on August 25, 2023, 07:27:52 AM
I already thought that species were not monolithic... :o
To be fair, my setting has a tall race made of stone. They are pretty much by definition "monolithic."
This is doubly hilarious as I can recall old Dragon Magazine letters talking about how to challenge PCs, and one was 'use intelligent opponents'.
Heck, Tucker's Kobolds is a case of making the opposition a little TOO intelligent. But the point stands.
Quote from: Reckall on August 25, 2023, 07:27:52 AM
I already thought that species were not monolithic... :o
Oh a yeah by 6E's rules, you can have a half lizardman and half warforged and totes mcgotes legit. Yup lizards can fuck metal and give birth.
Did you know that Verisimilitude is now racist and white supremacist if you bring it up to critique the race marxists creative endeavors.
I would never bother arguing with this person, because they're obviously a moron, but it'd be funny to see how they'd respond to someone pointing out that they've suggested banning dragons from Dungeons and Dragons. Not to mention vampires, demons, genies, liches, giants, aliens, harpies, Gorgons, werewolves, etc. That's not even asking the question of whether we can still have stats for "town guard" or if they just expect the DM to homebrew every NPC individually.
Also, if all the monsters are unintelligent, doesn't that mean the PCs are just going around slaughtering innocent animals? Doesn't sound very progressive to me...
Funny thing but 99% of people don't know the real definition of racism.
Here it is from The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language: racism The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
Therefore you can now correctly acuse all FRPG's (to my knowledge) of being racist cucks. Just substitute [race name] for human in the definition.
I split the difference in my current D&D campaign.
I don't use humanoid opponents*, but the setting is ultra human-centric. You want to play a dragonborn? Go ahead, but you'll be the only one, some kind of mutant or curse victim that no one completely trusts. The players got the message quick.
* That said, some of my monsters are effectively orcs in everything except name and appearance. I just make them weird quadrupeds with inhuman faces. I'll bet you a dollar that none of the "orcs are racist" crowd would realize what I'm up to if they sat down at my pleasant little table. ::) Such superficial, hypocritical killjoys.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 08:12:43 AM
I prefer to move away from depicting intelligent opponents as generically evil and instead focus on their specific values and motives. Some may simply be so alien that peaceful coexistence is impossible. To call them evil is a matter of perspective: if they're trying to kill you, then obviously you'll think they're evil. They may not see it that way. They might see themselves as the heroes for exterminating a pest, or be apathetic to the suffering of other species.
To say "fighting intelligent beings is bad!" sounds like it would make for a really boring game. Even more boring than "all your opponents are evil so you need not feel guilty for slaughtering them." That might be enough for some people, but sometimes I like some moral ambiguity in my fiction, ya know?
If you look at the "Alex Jone's was Right" jar, it might not be a good idea to state intelligent creatures are not evil. Evil is self serving. Lets look at our world. We have the WEF controlling huge swathes of the West, stealing land from farmers and stopping food production. Food production we need to keep from killing billions due to starvation. They state its "climate change", its not climate change they are afraid of non-renewable resources being expended. They are lying about the reasoning to kill billions from famine, and yes its coming. Then lets look at the wealthy being caught on Epstein's Island, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew are the noted degenerates. And then by some miracle Epstein was killed in jail and all the cameras failed and the guards were asleep and no one could say how it happened. And for some reason not a single one of the John's faces are posted publicly. I can go to my county newspaper and see the faces of pedophiles, murderers, drug dealers etc caught, but not the billionaires who do the same thing and they will never be charged?
We are talking about generically evil behavior (self serving behaviors leading to famine and pedophelia), oh a yeah we have real world analogs to generic evil operating in the open. Those orcs are not black men (sorry race marxists), they are Larry Fink and Klaus Schwab. Depict them accordingly. I have done that in my campaign to great effect using a Scro invasion of my game world and using WEF type tactics (stop using magic it just made a desert see (the scro did a magic equivalent on a desert to prove their point) and you all need to cut down on farming look at all the plant monsters because your magic polluted your soil and seeds (they dropped shambling mounds) and instead buy and use our Kelpa Fruit it will sustain you (it sterilizes those who eat it) to kill people by famine, all to get a base to hunt Elves. Fun campaign, seeing as three players were some form of an elf. And seeing their elvish families dying of famine gave them one hell of an incentive to kill those thieving scumward Scro off the planet. When the bad guys presented themselves as the Scro Economic Foundation for Good, one of my players said "we are fighting the WEF", I was like yes, then he followed up "genocide them".
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
Bye, don't let the door hit you in your brains.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
It depends, are the bugs red meat or white meat?
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 01:01:49 PM
It depends, are the bugs red meat or white meat?
Irrelevant. They all taste like chicken
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
The book Starship Troopers or the movie Starship Troopers?
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 25, 2023, 01:25:31 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
The book Starship Troopers or the movie Starship Troopers?
The book mainly but the same applies to the movie since Verhooven failed miserably at trying to make it an allegory for fascism.
Quote from: MeganovaStella on August 24, 2023, 10:19:04 PM
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 09:06:35 PM
Does that girl fuck horses?
ain't gonna listen to the opinion of a horsefucker then
This made me laugh coffee out of my nose with mirth. Thank you for a great laugh!
It think it very foolish to ignore intelligent species as enemies. There's all sorts of evidence that intelligent creatures (like ogres and trolls) see humans and demi-humans as a food source. Unless a fantasy realm is going to insist all the sophonts eat kale and lentils alot of intelligent species (aka monsters) are going to die of malnutrition. Nice job SJWs you just committed genocide.
I like my fantasy worlds like I like my SJWs: RACIST AF and open about it.
Except I don't like SJWs, and don't consider the presence of even actual racism (much less things purposefully misconstrued as rAcIsT) in a fantasy world to make the game itself "racist". But rather to be frank depictions of what life might be like in that world that don't reinforce real life racism, nor promote it. If anything, they often help depict how bad it is and give PCs an excuse to fight their adversaries.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
That wasn't my point. Why do you need to change the WEF to non-humans in order to justify exterminating them? Them being human makes them
more heinous imo. Other species aren't obligated to peacefully coexist with us over eating us. The WEF are greedy traitorous fuckwits with no loyalty to their own species.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 04:56:08 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
That wasn't my point. Why do you need to change the WEF to non-humans in order to justify exterminating them? Them being human makes them more heinous imo. Other species aren't obligated to peacefully coexist with us over eating us. The WEF are greedy traitorous fuckwits with no loyalty to their own species.
I don't need to change anything, I would happily hunt the fuckwits even if they were humans in game. But It's not my world, I didn't create the cult, and I'm also not saying it's wrongbadfun to have it.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 08:12:43 AM
I prefer to move away from depicting intelligent opponents as generically evil and instead focus on their specific values and motives. Some may simply be so alien that peaceful coexistence is impossible. To call them evil is a matter of perspective: if they're trying to kill you, then obviously you'll think they're evil. They may not see it that way. They might see themselves as the heroes for exterminating a pest, or be apathetic to the suffering of other species.
To say "fighting intelligent beings is bad!" sounds like it would make for a really boring game. Even more boring than "all your opponents are evil so you need not feel guilty for slaughtering them." That might be enough for some people, but sometimes I like some moral ambiguity in my fiction, ya know?
I can agree with this to a degree, although there really are people out there that are evil for evil's sake. Psychopaths are often this way. Many who commit evil acts don't view themselves as evil, but some really do celebrate being evil.
I prefer stories with a combination of these things. Some villains are sympathetic, while others are utterly terrifying.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 25, 2023, 01:25:31 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
The book Starship Troopers or the movie Starship Troopers?
The book mainly but the same applies to the movie since Verhooven failed miserably at trying to make it an allegory for fascism.
Base on the book, then yes. By the time of the events in the book, The Bug War was becomming a war of extermination against the humans.
I just want to make jokes about how everything is about track and field in my setting so I have the most racist game going.
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 25, 2023, 08:14:57 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 25, 2023, 01:25:31 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
The book Starship Troopers or the movie Starship Troopers?
The book mainly but the same applies to the movie since Verhooven failed miserably at trying to make it an allegory for fascism.
Base on the book, then yes. By the time of the events in the book, The Bug War was becomming a war of extermination against the humans.
The Verhoven movie is bad satire that ivory tower morons praise as good satire to inflate their egos. Being indistinguishable from genuine propaganda doesn't make something good satire. It means it runs afoul of Poe's Law. Just look at the
Dark Dungeons movie: it isn't satire, it's an accurate depiction of what fundamentalists believe!
To add insult to injury, the crowd calling it good satire vehemently despise every other product for the IP. The original novel, the sequel movies, the cgi cartoon show, the video games, and the various tabletop games (most of these you can't get legally now, and the fandom wiki is mostly garbage). Sony has recently licensed several new video games for reasons I cannot fathom. The tone is cringe propaganda, but the objective is still to kill all bugs. How is that remotely satire?
Sony can eat shit and die in a fire
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 26, 2023, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 25, 2023, 08:14:57 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 25, 2023, 01:25:31 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
The book Starship Troopers or the movie Starship Troopers?
The book mainly but the same applies to the movie since Verhooven failed miserably at trying to make it an allegory for fascism.
Base on the book, then yes. By the time of the events in the book, The Bug War was becomming a war of extermination against the humans.
The Verhoven movie is bad satire that ivory tower morons praise as good satire to inflate their egos. Being indistinguishable from genuine propaganda doesn't make something good satire. It means it runs afoul of Poe's Law. Just look at the Dark Dungeons movie: it isn't satire, it's an accurate depiction of what fundamentalists believe!
To add insult to injury, the crowd calling it good satire vehemently despise every other product for the IP. The original novel, the sequel movies, the cgi cartoon show, the video games, and the various tabletop games (most of these you can't get legally now, and the fandom wiki is mostly garbage). Sony has recently licensed several new video games for reasons I cannot fathom. The tone is cringe propaganda, but the objective is still to kill all bugs. How is that remotely satire?
Sony can eat shit and die in a fire
It's shit material bastardizing a book from one of my favorite authors. The fact that movies isn't relegated to shadowy knowledge of forgotten movie nerds is beyond me. The only good media that was bases on Heinlein's book I have seen was the game book.
The one thing I think it could do well if someone were willing to do up some 3D models is a TT war game. Alas, I fear that Sony would make hash out of it.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 26, 2023, 10:35:42 AM
The Verhoven movie is bad satire that ivory tower morons praise as good satire to inflate their egos. Being indistinguishable from genuine propaganda doesn't make something good satire. It means it runs afoul of Poe's Law. Just look at the Dark Dungeons movie: it isn't satire, it's an accurate depiction of what fundamentalists believe!
To add insult to injury, the crowd calling it good satire vehemently despise every other product for the IP. The original novel, the sequel movies, the cgi cartoon show, the video games, and the various tabletop games (most of these you can't get legally now, and the fandom wiki is mostly garbage). Sony has recently licensed several new video games for reasons I cannot fathom. The tone is cringe propaganda, but the objective is still to kill all bugs. How is that remotely satire?
Sony can eat shit and die in a fire
Verhoeven is generally a hack, but I found the movie entertaining. It's a good example of a film that tries to make one side look evil (the humans) when it actually encourages you to somewhat root for them.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know how it compares, but it sounds like the book is far better.
In a weird parallel, this is like the Barbie movie. Many people called it woke garbage, but other people viewed it as a subtle criticism of feminism where Ken is basically the "good guy" to root for.
Quote from: BadApple on August 26, 2023, 11:06:55 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 26, 2023, 10:35:42 AM
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 25, 2023, 08:14:57 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 25, 2023, 01:25:31 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
The book Starship Troopers or the movie Starship Troopers?
The book mainly but the same applies to the movie since Verhooven failed miserably at trying to make it an allegory for fascism.
Base on the book, then yes. By the time of the events in the book, The Bug War was becomming a war of extermination against the humans.
The Verhoven movie is bad satire that ivory tower morons praise as good satire to inflate their egos. Being indistinguishable from genuine propaganda doesn't make something good satire. It means it runs afoul of Poe's Law. Just look at the Dark Dungeons movie: it isn't satire, it's an accurate depiction of what fundamentalists believe!
To add insult to injury, the crowd calling it good satire vehemently despise every other product for the IP. The original novel, the sequel movies, the cgi cartoon show, the video games, and the various tabletop games (most of these you can't get legally now, and the fandom wiki is mostly garbage). Sony has recently licensed several new video games for reasons I cannot fathom. The tone is cringe propaganda, but the objective is still to kill all bugs. How is that remotely satire?
Sony can eat shit and die in a fire
It's shit material bastardizing a book from one of my favorite authors. The fact that movies isn't relegated to shadowy knowledge of forgotten movie nerds is beyond me. The only good media that was bases on Heinlein's book I have seen was the game book.
The one thing I think it could do well if someone were willing to do up some 3D models is a TT war game. Alas, I fear that Sony would make hash out of it.
Only if you want the models to resemble the descriptions in the book (as you should).
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 11:31:50 AM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 26, 2023, 10:35:42 AM
The Verhoven movie is bad satire that ivory tower morons praise as good satire to inflate their egos. Being indistinguishable from genuine propaganda doesn't make something good satire. It means it runs afoul of Poe's Law. Just look at the Dark Dungeons movie: it isn't satire, it's an accurate depiction of what fundamentalists believe!
To add insult to injury, the crowd calling it good satire vehemently despise every other product for the IP. The original novel, the sequel movies, the cgi cartoon show, the video games, and the various tabletop games (most of these you can't get legally now, and the fandom wiki is mostly garbage). Sony has recently licensed several new video games for reasons I cannot fathom. The tone is cringe propaganda, but the objective is still to kill all bugs. How is that remotely satire?
Sony can eat shit and die in a fire
Verhoeven is generally a hack, but I found the movie entertaining. It's a good example of a film that tries to make one side look evil (the humans) when it actually encourages you to somewhat root for them.
I haven't read the book, so I don't know how it compares, but it sounds like the book is far better.
In a weird parallel, this is like the Barbie movie. Many people called it woke garbage, but other people viewed it as a subtle criticism of feminism where Ken is basically the "good guy" to root for.
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.
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.
Thanks. I've always heard good things about Heinlein.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 12:10:13 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.
Thanks. I've always heard good things about Heinlein.
Also from him "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", one of my all time favourite Sci-Fi books.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 26, 2023, 12:45:23 PM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 12:10:13 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.
Thanks. I've always heard good things about Heinlein.
Also from him "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", one of my all time favourite Sci-Fi books.
TANSTAAFL
Considering the definition of "racist" changes every day, yes, it is hard.
Also, no one can agree on what "racist" means. Trying to satisfy the imaginary criteria of a million mental patients is not easy.
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 26, 2023, 01:04:41 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 26, 2023, 12:45:23 PM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 12:10:13 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.
Thanks. I've always heard good things about Heinlein.
Also from him "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", one of my all time favourite Sci-Fi books.
TANSTAAFL
Indeed
Quote from: David Gerrold on Starship Troopers
I am going to make a declarative assertion.
Stand back. I don't want anyone getting hurt.
Here we go.
Starship Troopers is the single most misunderstood book in the entire SF genre.
Now, putting aside the observation that all science fiction since Heinlein is either imitation of Heinlein or reaction to Heinlein, let's simply talk about three things:
What was Heinlein trying to do?
How well did he do it?
Was it worth doing in the first place?
It's that first question that requires the long answer.
Heinlein had been working on Stranger In A Strange Land. He saw a paid ad advocating a unilateral US ban on nuclear testing. It pissed him off enough that he published a counterblast in his home newspaper and formed a group to advocate in favor of continued testing.
And then he stopped working on Stranger and wrote Starship Troopers. Originally, he wrote it as a juvenile, but his editor at Simon & Schuster rejected it and he never wrote another juvenile for them (or anyone else) ever again.
(BTW, as others have noted, he regarded both Stranger In A Strange Land and Starship Troopers as "thought experiments," not advocacy. And yet, they both still read like advocacy.)
Starship Troopers was serialized in the fall of 59 in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, one of the few serials they ever published. The following year, it was published in book form.
Starship Troopers traces the career of Johnny Rico, a Filipino living in Buenos Aires, who joins the Mobile Infantry, a high-tech version of the marines. The Mobile Infantry is fighting a ferocious war against "the bugs."
The book is more about Rico's training than it is about the war. Just as Space Cadet was about teaching Matt Dodson how to think like a professional, so is Starship Trooper about teaching Rico the responsibilities of a military person.
Those discussions are the heart and soul of the book. They are the whole point of the book. The bugs are secondary to those essays. And the point of the entire effort is to discuss the relationship of the individual to the society that has nurtured, protected, and educated them. A human being benefits from their participation in a civil society. Therefore, that same human being has an obligation to keep that society functioning — not just for themselves, but for everyone else who exists as part of that society.
While Heinlein doesn't use this analogy, it's a fair one. A society is a functioning organism. Every part of the organism has a function — whether it's growing crops or maintaining the roads or making sure the plumbing works. Those who benefit and do not contribute to the well-being of the organism are parasites, feeding but not contributing.
Heinlein's point is simple. When the civil organism is under attack, the members of the organism have a corresponding responsibility to defend against the attack. Otherwise, the civil organism dies. In the human body, white blood cells are the front line against infection by invaders: viruses, germs, microbes — bugs. In the war that Heinlein postulates, the Mobile Infantry are the white blood cells defending against the alien bugs.
That's it. That's the point.
When your nation is under attack, you must become a part of the defense. Heinlein's experience was World War II — when the home front was as important as the battlefields. Women went to work in the factories. Schoolchildren had scrap metal and rag and paper drives. Housewives collected their bacon fat which was used to make ammunition.
Now, Heinlein added a couple interesting twists to hammer home the point. Only those who had served were allowed to vote — because part of their service was to be trained in the responsibility that a citizen owed to the society that had raised and nurtured and educated them.
The second part was the History and Moral Philosophy courses that were mandatory in high school — and which functioned somewhat as a recruiting course for the military.
Many people have said that this is a fascist wet dream, indoctrination and recruitment — and you can point to Nazi Germany for the closest example. Fair enough. But that's not the whole story.
Sidebar: Various human potential companies created Large Group Awareness Trainings — the most famous were est and Lifespring. The Landmark Forum is still around. People who did not understand the nature of these courses compared them to cults, compared the philosophies of personal effectiveness to brainwashing or indoctrination. But really, most of the courses (the ones that I'm familiar with) were a kind of westernized zen delivered with a fire hose. (ie. "Get over yourself.")
What Heinlein posited was also misinterpreted as brainwashing and indoctrination — when its purpose was simply to introduce a new perspective about the nature of military service as a necessary function for the protection of a civilization under attack.
Now, to be fair — Heinlein stacked the deck. Not the first time, not the last time. In this book, the enemy exist as a relentless, unending horde of mindless giant insects. Bugs. There is nothing there to empathize with. They are killing machines — chitinous terminators. The only response is kill or be killed. And in that context, Heinlein's assertin is justifiable.
Now, consider if the enemy was not some kind of alien bug — but instead, another branch of humanity. Or even just another nation with a shared border. And consider that the battle is not so much a fight to the death, but an argument over whether eggs should be broken at the big end or the little end. At that point, the whole discussion of military service breaks down with one simple question, "Are you fucking kidding me? You want me to die on that fucking hill?"
Second question? How well did Heinlein do it? Well, we're still talking about the book 60 years later, so I would say that he did a damn good job. Except that we're not just talking about the book, we're arguing ferociously about it. So maybe his point wasn't as clear as he intended it to be. The accusations of fascism have pretty much obscured the more interesting point, which is worth discussion even if we're not at war:
What is the obligation of a citizen toward the nation in which he lives? If the citizen benefits from their participation, what is their obligation — but also if the citizen does not benefit, what are their options?
Also — what are the responsibilities of those who do vote? Heinlein's thesis was that the vote is so sacred that one does not just vote out of prejudice and certainly not out of ignorance, but out of rational examination of the consequences of the choice.
These are the real questions in Starship Troopers and the ones that few analysts and critics have ever addressed in depth. Because it's so much easier to do a Donald Sutherland, point the finger and scream. Roll credits.
Third question — was it worth doing in the first place? I say yes. Despite all the sidebars and accusations and misinterpretations and blah blahs, there are questions raised in the book that need to be addressed and discussed at length.
Now ... about that movie. The director wanted to do a satire on fascists who aren't aware that their behavior is fascist. Fair enough. He used the book as a jumping off point. In doing so, he missed the much larger questions. Of course, that would have been a much harder movie to make.
And ... by the way, he was given a choice. There was a limit on the budget. He had to choose. Power Armor or bugs. He chose bugs. Which is why the soldiers portrayed in the film are woefully under-armed, fighting monstrous insects with the futuristic equivalent of an AK-47. Not a bad weapon, but the wrong weapon for fighting giant killer insects. Those soldiers needed flame-throwers, daisy cutters, and the smell of napalm in the morning. What the movie portrays is one military disaster after another — and the soldiers are nothing more than disposable cannon fodder.
(BTW, I thought those bugs were badly conceived. Beautifully rendered, but hard to believe.)
The movie version of Starship Troopers is bad military strategy, it's bad science fiction, and even if the intention is satire — it's bad satire. It's a bad movie. Seeing Doogie Howser show up in an SS uniform provoked howls of laughter at the screening I sat through.
To really do Starship Troopers justice requires a producer and director who have a genuine affection for the book and are willing to tell it as Rico's story. Heinlein's structural model for the book was All Quiet On The Western Front — and perhaps even a fairly substantial film of the era, Battle Cry. Those efforts were about the experience of the grunt — and that's what Starship Troopers is really about. It's a growth arc for Johnny Rico — from high school student to Lieutenant Rico. The war is not the point. The "indoctrination" is not the point — it's about Rico learning what he needs to learn so he can accept his responsibilities in the circumstances.
That's what too many of the book's critics have missed. It's certainly what the film so badly missed.
IMHO.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Some food for thought that has a direct bearing on the creation of believable RPG settings.
Quote from: Horace on August 26, 2023, 01:08:53 PM
Considering the definition of "racist" changes every day, yes, it is hard.
Also, no one can agree on what "racist" means. Trying to satisfy the imaginary criteria of a million mental patients is not easy.
Just use the real definition. Not something like, "Whatever you say that I disagree with." I posted the real definition upstream. And NO there is no other legit definition.
Quote from: Scooter on August 26, 2023, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: Horace on August 26, 2023, 01:08:53 PM
Considering the definition of "racist" changes every day, yes, it is hard.
Also, no one can agree on what "racist" means. Trying to satisfy the imaginary criteria of a million mental patients is not easy.
Just use the real definition. Not something like, "Whatever you say that I disagree with." I posted the real definition upstream. And NO there is no other legit definition.
Unfortunately that is not what it means to a majority of people. And the commies use language as a weapon by redefining terms. This is how they smuggle in their insane warped world view and make inroads into cultures. Sadly, they've destroyed America from the inside and I don't know how this country recovers.
We are living on the fumes of the great 80's, which in turn were a shadow of the truly great 50's. Think of everything great in pop culture, the MCU was good when it was bringing to life the Marvel comics of the 80's, Stranger Things was a cloudy mirror of 80's culture. What great cultural things do we have in the 21st century? Nothing. It's all gone to crap. And I'm not even being a crotchety old man here, it is objectively true. The music sucks, the movies suck, the culture sucks.
Even 5th edition D&D was only good in so much as it recaptured some of the magic of 80's D&D.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 26, 2023, 03:48:37 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 26, 2023, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: Horace on August 26, 2023, 01:08:53 PM
Considering the definition of "racist" changes every day, yes, it is hard.
Also, no one can agree on what "racist" means. Trying to satisfy the imaginary criteria of a million mental patients is not easy.
Just use the real definition. Not something like, "Whatever you say that I disagree with." I posted the real definition upstream. And NO there is no other legit definition.
Unfortunately that is not what it means to a majority of people. And the commies use language as a weapon by redefining terms. This is how they smuggle in their insane warped world view and make inroads into cultures. Sadly, they've destroyed America from the inside and I don't know how this country recovers.
We are living on the fumes of the great 80's, which in turn were a shadow of the truly great 50's. Think of everything great in pop culture, the MCU was good when it was bringing to life the Marvel comics of the 80's, Stranger Things was a cloudy mirror of 80's culture. What great cultural things do we have in the 21st century? Nothing. It's all gone to crap. And I'm not even being a crotchety old man here, it is objectively true. The music sucks, the movies suck, the culture sucks.
Even 5th edition D&D was only good in so much as it recaptured some of the magic of 80's D&D.
While I agree with you on the political stuff, I think there's been a lot of good music from the 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s, but it's just rarely played on the radio. You have to look for the good stuff that's new. Plenty of indie musicians are great, but the radio is just the lowest common denominator. It's been that way for the last 20 years or so.
As for gaming, 3.0 and 3.5 D&D were pretty good IMHO. So is Pathfinder 1E. All of those were in the 2000s. WOTC surely has a lot of problems as a company, but their initial run with D&D was good. And 5E serves its purpose as a simplified version of D&D for newer players. Granted, I'm not optimistic about the upcoming 5.5.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 03:55:30 PM
As for gaming, 3.0 and 3.5 D&D were pretty good IMHO.
Not in my opinion. I quit D&D during the 3E playtest because I hated the direction it was going. That's not to say it was objectively bad, but it sure stunk to me at the time (and still does). I'll take 2E's simplicity over 3E's bloated mess any day of the week. Feats ruin D&D for me.
One of my retroclone ideas (I got a list) is a pastiche of Starship Troopers that doesn't try and fail to be satire. I hate how Sony turned the IP to shit.
It starts in a utopian future where a freak disease killed all men and now women maintain civilization using assistive reproductive technology. They replaced the men with androids that look like Fabio and are programmed to act like 1950s housewives, while women fulfill the 1950s husband role.
Oh wait, sorry, that's my failed attempt at satire for a hypothetical Black Mirror episode.
I haven't started writing anything
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 26, 2023, 05:51:06 PM
One of my retroclone ideas (I got a list) is a pastiche of Starship Troopers that doesn't try and fail to be satire. I hate how Sony turned the IP to shit.
It starts in a utopian future where a freak disease killed all men and now women maintain civilization using assistive reproductive technology. They replaced the men with androids that look like Fabio and are programmed to act like 1950s housewives, while women fulfill the 1950s husband role.
Oh wait, sorry, that's my failed attempt at satire for a hypothetical Black Mirror episode.
I haven't started writing anything
That sounds thematically similar to the Barbie movie.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 26, 2023, 03:48:37 PM
Unfortunately that is not what it means to a majority of people. And the commies use language as a weapon by redefining terms.
Of course the majority of people, as proven by testing, have a vocabulary no greater than a 4th grader and even lower general education level. Courtesy of the libtards run the public EDU system. Easier to control idiots that educated people.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 03:55:30 PM
While I agree with you on the political stuff, I think there's been a lot of good music from the 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s, but it's just rarely played on the radio.
Of course there is. The problem is that unlike the 60's, 70's & early 80's 99% of it is total crap and you have to mine the cesspool for days to find anything good.
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.
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 03:55:30 PM
As for gaming, 3.0 and 3.5 D&D were pretty good IMHO. So is Pathfinder 1E. All of those were in the 2000s. WOTC surely has a lot of problems as a company, but their initial run with D&D was good. And 5E serves its purpose as a simplified version of D&D for newer players. Granted, I'm not optimistic about the upcoming 5.5.
3.0/3.5 hasn't aged well, but it did make some important improvements like ascending AC.
I was surprised at how good 5e was, after 4 I was so jaded I wouldn't have anything to do with WotC D&D so I came to 5e kicking and screaming.
6.0 or whatever they call it is a train wreck. It's painfully obviously going to be terrible.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 26, 2023, 06:44:01 PM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 03:55:30 PM
As for gaming, 3.0 and 3.5 D&D were pretty good IMHO. So is Pathfinder 1E. All of those were in the 2000s. WOTC surely has a lot of problems as a company, but their initial run with D&D was good. And 5E serves its purpose as a simplified version of D&D for newer players. Granted, I'm not optimistic about the upcoming 5.5.
3.0/3.5 hasn't aged well, but it did make some important improvements like ascending AC.
I was surprised at how good 5e was, after 4 I was so jaded I wouldn't have anything to do with WotC D&D so I came to 5e kicking and screaming.
6.0 or whatever they call it is a train wreck. It's painfully obviously going to be terrible.
For me, Pathfinder 1E was the best system because of its expansion from D&D 3.5E mechanics.
I can see the appeal of D&D 2E, but I only played it when I was very young. I remember enjoying it, but 3E just has so much more customization.
For systems that have less number crunching, I actually prefer the old World of Darkness games. They even have several medieval modules if you dislike modern settings.
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. If someone honestly thinks taking that kind of shortcut is going to promote racism among gamers in real life, I'd suggest his or her opinion of humanity is already so low that wanting to voluntarily associate with them for leisure and entertainment makes no sense.
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.
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.
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.
What complete moron came up with this idea? Just fight that which has animal or lower int?
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.
If the Federation were black communists exterminating white capitalists, he'd probably consider them heroes.
Also, there's no evidence given in the movie that they're fascist. They're never depicted heroically executing people for wrong think, when it's easy to find wokebros being celebrated for abusing women for wrongthink. I cannot take Verhoven seriously when the global left are the fascists now. Or "communists" as they call themselves. As if that makes a difference.
In the original book, Johny was actually named Juan and Filipino. The movie adaptation is lambasted by Filipino scifi fans as racist whitewashing. So Verhoven is literally guilty of multiple counts of whitewashing. I don't think many of the characters actually have their precise appearances or races stated. You could make a multiracial cast and be perfectly in line with the novel.
It's not even fascist. The text is too vague to make a statement either way. The Federation even takes prisoners of war to negotiate with the bugs, so they're not actually a faceless genocidal horde. For all we know, the war is eventually resolved with a treaty and less genocide than Ender's Game. Heinlein should've focused more on the politics and war itself to actually explain the culture.
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. If someone honestly thinks taking that kind of shortcut is going to promote racism among gamers in real life, I'd suggest his or her opinion of humanity is already so low that wanting to voluntarily associate with them for leisure and entertainment makes no sense.
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.
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.
All of this and then some:
So there's NO intelligent species as enemies... What happens when we reach third level? how many of the beasts of the world present a threat anymore? You would need to make say Dragons beasts to have them be dangerous and suitable enemies, part of what makes D&D Dragons dangerous is precisely their intelligence.
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.
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.
Not going to quote your entire post, but there was much to disagree with and a few things to agree with. You are right about the problems with making intelligent cultures non-monolithic in the space of an entry. You'd have to write an entire book to even do a single intelligent culture, say elves or kangaroo men, justice. A monster entry is short hand.
Monsters, and character races are more than a bag of hit points. Monsters are best thought of as puzzles for the player's to solve how to defeat. Shear combat stats are not the sum of the problem. Likewise character races are chosen more for flavor, of course some player's are min-maxers, but they tend to disrupt the fun for everyone.
But ability bonus/penalties are every bit a part of flavor as anything else. I'd expect a rhino-man race to have a higher strength than a mouse-man race. To make them the same is to ruin what makes them interesting, the distinction, and the fun.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 27, 2023, 12:26:52 PMMonsters, and character races are more than a bag of hit points. Monsters are best thought of as puzzles for the players to solve how to defeat. Sheer combat stats are not the sum of the problem.
That's a very good point, and you're right. But while the numbers aren't the be-all and end-all they are an indispensable component, at least of anything that's resolved through the mechanical systems of the game.
The point I was criticizing was the original argument's claim that it's "racist" to quantify a standard baseline for an entity type, by pointing out that you can't have an actual viable game product if you refuse to do this. (This is also one of the reasons that I never considered FUDGE to be a finished complete roleplaying game; it gave you all the tools you need to build such a game, but it didn't actually make enough of the decisions to give you a ready-to-play out-of-the-box product.)
QuoteBut ability bonus/penalties are every bit a part of flavor as anything else. I'd expect a rhino-man race to have a higher strength than a mouse-man race. To make them the same is to ruin what makes them interesting, the distinction, and the fun.
This also is true -- the division between "fluff" and "crunch" is not as absolute as it seems, and the simple product of choices in crunch will imply a lot of fluff all by itself.
What the original argument seems to think is that the fluff is the
only place where you can allow creature types to be differentiated, or to have comparative advantages or disadvantages over each other -- that the moment you make this something numerical that affects dice outcomes, it's "racist".
Five pages of this shit.
Want to know how to make your TTRPG is not racist? Simply remember that you can't be racist against an imaginary being. Orcs don't exist except in your imagination, so therefore it is easy to not be racist against them in the Real World.
It's called keeping reality and fantasy separate, people.
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 27, 2023, 09:20:43 PM
Five pages of this shit.
Want to know how to make your TTRPG is not racist? Simply remember that you can't be racist against an imaginary being. Orcs don't exist except in your imagination, so therefore it is easy to not be racist against them in the Real World.
It's called keeping reality and fantasy separate, people.
racism isn't necessarily a bad thing. Saying that Japanese average higher IQ than a Europeans is both racist AND true. So, not bad.
"In My Game" if you're not an Orc, you're not a person. You're sport, then you're food. If you're an Orc, or an especially entertaining beast, You get a chance to die in combat. Then you're food. If you're especially annoying, you'll get treated extra special.
This is why we do not treat with Orcs. They are savage beasts that happen to walk on two legs and look vaguely humanoid. That is just further mockery. Put them down, and harvest the bacon. Lastly, never listen to the lies that Half-Orcs are a thing. They are not a thing, and if ever one existed, surely it was a damned thing deserving only of cleansing fire (heh).
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:49:01 PM
Saying that Japanese average higher IQ than a Europeans is both racist AND true.
How is that racist? Have the Left changed the definition again this week?
Quote from: Krazz on August 28, 2023, 04:29:19 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:49:01 PM
Saying that Japanese average higher IQ than a Europeans is both racist AND true.
How is that racist? Have the Left changed the definition again this week?
The "Left" changes the definition of racism every week. But then again Scooter likes to do that too. For every word he uses. Cuz he's super high IQ like that.
Quote from: Scooter on August 26, 2023, 06:35:58 PM
Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 26, 2023, 03:55:30 PM
While I agree with you on the political stuff, I think there's been a lot of good music from the 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s, but it's just rarely played on the radio.
Of course there is. The problem is that unlike the 60's, 70's & early 80's 99% of it is total crap and you have to mine the cesspool for days to find anything good.
I was thinking how to respond to Nameless Mist, but you nailed it.
In the eighties there were tons of good songs, and a dozen or so great songs every year. Now there are some good songs occasionally and a great song when? Once or twice a decade maybe. Same is true of virtually every other medium: movies, comics, games. The only caveat I'll give is that boardgames did have their moment in the 2010's, but that seems to have died down.
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.
I happen to love the movie for completely different reasons and think it should not bear the name "Starship Troopers" because it has nothing to do with the book. And it is hilarious that Verhoeven was trying to make an anti-fascist movie and unintentionally created one of the best pro-fascism movies of all time.
Have you ever seen the CG animated series that came out after that? It is actually the Starship Troopers we wanted. Soldiers in power suits going on combat missions with the comradery that only men who've fought together can have.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on August 27, 2023, 09:11:21 PM
What the original argument seems to think is that the fluff is the only place where you can allow creature types to be differentiated, or to have comparative advantages or disadvantages over each other -- that the moment you make this something numerical that affects dice outcomes, it's "racist".
Well said. I hadn't thought of it in terms of "fluff" and "crunch", those terms aren't bandied about as much as they used to. They are inextricably linked when a monster or character is well designed. And only allowing variation in fluff but not the crunch is devastating to the game design. You might as well be sitting around playing tea time. Which is suitable for our effeminate times I suppose.
Quote from: Krazz on August 28, 2023, 04:29:19 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:49:01 PM
Saying that Japanese average higher IQ than a Europeans is both racist AND true.
How is that racist? Have the Left changed the definition again this week?
sigh. Here is the actual definition of racism from The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language: racism,
The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.The left thinks that saying I hate [race] is a racist statement. It isn't. It might be bigoted but it isn't racist.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 28, 2023, 09:06:55 AM
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on August 27, 2023, 09:11:21 PM
What the original argument seems to think is that the fluff is the only place where you can allow creature types to be differentiated, or to have comparative advantages or disadvantages over each other -- that the moment you make this something numerical that affects dice outcomes, it's "racist".
Well said. I hadn't thought of it in terms of "fluff" and "crunch", those terms aren't bandied about as much as they used to. They are inextricably linked when a monster or character is well designed. And only allowing variation in fluff but not the crunch is devastating to the game design. You might as well be sitting around playing tea time. Which is suitable for our effeminate times I suppose.
So true
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.
I happen to love the movie for completely different reasons and think it should not bear the name "Starship Troopers" because it has nothing to do with the book. And it is hilarious that Verhoeven was trying to make an anti-fascist movie and unintentionally created one of the best pro-fascism movies of all time.
Have you ever seen the CG animated series that came out after that? It is actually the Starship Troopers we wanted. Soldiers in power suits going on combat missions with the comradery that only men who've fought together can have.
I bought the dvds because it isn't on streaming. It's an interesting show. Very military scifi and has philosophical moments. It's very much anti-fascist. The bugs are the obvious aggressors. The human characters are very compassionate towards other species, the opposite of gung-ho. The bugs are the aggressors here and humanity is only acting in self-preservation. One episode suggests sufficiently intelligent AIs are people too. One episode has the characters recording final messages for their families in case they don't survive. It's a neat show, more
Forever War than whatever Verhoven was writing. He'd probably try to "satirize"
Forever War as fascist too.
Quote from: Scooter on August 28, 2023, 09:10:59 AM
Quote from: Krazz on August 28, 2023, 04:29:19 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:49:01 PM
Saying that Japanese average higher IQ than a Europeans is both racist AND true.
How is that racist? Have the Left changed the definition again this week?
sigh. Here is the actual definition of racism from The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language: racism, The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
The left thinks that saying I hate [race] is a racist statement. It isn't. It might be bigoted but it isn't racist.
Saying the Japanese have higher average IQ than Europeans isn't the same as saying that their IQ is determined by their race. Most human abilities are a mixture of nature versus nurture, and clearly the Japanese tend to be raised differently from Europeans.
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.
Veering off topic. I love the book, but I take all the politics with a huge grain of salt. It's literally a case of "This society works because I said so."
QuoteI happen to love the movie for completely different reasons and think it should not bear the name "Starship Troopers" because it has nothing to do with the book. And it is hilarious that Verhoeven was trying to make an anti-fascist movie and unintentionally created one of the best pro-fascism movies of all time.
Have you ever seen the CG animated series that came out after that? It is actually the Starship Troopers we wanted. Soldiers in power suits going on combat missions with the comradery that only men who've fought together can have.
Nah. I got a very low production value vibe off the animated series, so I didn't watch.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on August 28, 2023, 02:08:41 PM
Nah. I got a very low production value vibe off the animated series, so I didn't watch.
Heh. It is probably only good in my memory, I'd likely hate it if I watched it now. I won't so I can keep my fond memories. :D
The CGI looks terrible nowadays, but it was state of the art at the time for tv budgets. I watched it recently and I thought it held up fine, at least if you focus on the plots. The plotting is actually very good and you're doing yourself a disservice. You can watch the first half for free on Crackle last I checked, if you just want to check it out without spending money. Unfortunately they don't have the second half, and if they did then it would still end on a cliffhanger.
But it's easily the best writing in Sony's abortion of the IP.
Quote from: Scooter on August 28, 2023, 09:10:59 AM
Quote from: Krazz on August 28, 2023, 04:29:19 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:49:01 PM
Saying that Japanese average higher IQ than a Europeans is both racist AND true.
How is that racist? Have the Left changed the definition again this week?
sigh. Here is the actual definition of racism from The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language: racism, The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
The left thinks that saying I hate [race] is a racist statement. It isn't. It might be bigoted but it isn't racist.
That's not the definition I grew up with. "Racism" was the belief that some races were superior to others. Sounds like the ODE has gone woke. According to their definition, simply saying that one's skin color is determined by one's race now makes you a racist.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't even bother to mention this but the conversation has gone this way. It's meaningful now that we are digging at the root of the word Racism.
Racism as a word is an artificially planted word in western culture. It comes from the Marxist/Stalinist movement as an intentional linguistic sabotage of western culture. It basically takes a Judaeo-christian value of seeing people as being equal under moral and spiritual code and twists it in an attempt to beat westerners over the head for being hypocritical for having any tribalistic social structure. If you see your own culture as being better because it works better for you then you're bad because you see those of other races as being bad. (Cultural differences were generally along ethnic lines until very recently.) The word and it's definition were intentionally created to be vague malleable so that it can be used however the wielder wants. The term itself is a poison pill, a weapon to tear western culture apart. Sadly, due to our inherent cultural values, we bought it and allowed it to be used against us.
Please note, I personally believe in taking measureof each individual by their character regardless if ethnic or cultural difference. However, I also look at cultural traits and judge them objectively for morality or utility.
Quote from: BadApple on August 28, 2023, 09:53:36 PM
(Cultural differences were generally along ethnic lines until very recently.)
Thomas Sowell's great book "Black Rednecks, White Liberals" addresses this point brilliantly. What we associate as "black culture" is in fact the culture from a very specific region of England in the 1700's/1800's right down to the way of speaking and certain societal behaviors and work ethics.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 28, 2023, 05:41:11 PM
The CGI looks terrible nowadays, but it was state of the art at the time for tv budgets. I watched it recently and I thought it held up fine, at least if you focus on the plots. The plotting is actually very good and you're doing yourself a disservice. You can watch the first half for free on Crackle last I checked, if you just want to check it out without spending money. Unfortunately they don't have the second half, and if they did then it would still end on a cliffhanger.
But it's easily the best writing in Sony's abortion of the IP.
Glad to hear that. I already have more entertainment on my list than I can watch in a lifetime, so I'm not likely to revisit this show even if it is free.
This is also why the writer's/actor's strike is doomed. We have more shows and movies than we need. Just like it was easy to drop Bud Light because there are so many other piss-water beer options available for cheap.
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.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 30, 2023, 11:42:30 AM
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.
Their reasoning for it is especially crazy. They claim this
English word is somehow "owned" by Native Americans. Completely ignoring that the word has multiple meanings in real life that apply to different groups worldwide. The USA is divided into political tribes, for example. I can understand removing it from
certain contexts due to the baggage that "tribal" equates to "Native American caricature", but this is just insane. For comparison, the protoss in the obscure starcraft series of games were an advanced civilization of space elves loosely divided into tribes who specialized in maintaining different aspects of their civilization, such as their aerospace forces, government bureaucracy, engineering and manufacturing, assassins and black-ops, etc.
Quote from: Krazz on August 28, 2023, 01:32:10 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 28, 2023, 09:10:59 AM
Quote from: Krazz on August 28, 2023, 04:29:19 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:49:01 PM
Saying that Japanese average higher IQ than a Europeans is both racist AND true.
How is that racist? Have the Left changed the definition again this week?
sigh. Here is the actual definition of racism from The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language: racism, The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
The left thinks that saying I hate [race] is a racist statement. It isn't. It might be bigoted but it isn't racist.
Saying the Japanese have higher average IQ than Europeans isn't the same as saying that their IQ is determined by their race.
YOU should rent an IQ before responding. "Japanese" IS the race in the sentence I wrote.
Quote from: Horace on August 28, 2023, 07:16:13 PM
That's not the definition I grew up with.
I didn't say you grew up with a high level of English language comprehension. The depth of your English didn't include the word bigot and I'm sure thousands of other words and their meanings.
Can this thread get more stupid?
We're debating on how using retard's views of "racism" might or might not apply to those of us that don't use those terms in the same way?
Jesus fucking Christ. You guys are LARPING as Replicants giving yourselves the Voight-Kampff Test and trying to suss out who is real.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 30, 2023, 12:50:24 PM
Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 30, 2023, 11:42:30 AM
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.
Their reasoning for it is especially crazy. They claim this English word is somehow "owned" by Native Americans.
A native American is anyone born in the America's
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 30, 2023, 12:50:24 PM
Quote from: Thor's Nads on August 30, 2023, 11:42:30 AM
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.
Their reasoning for it is especially crazy. They claim this English word is somehow "owned" by Native Americans. Completely ignoring that the word has multiple meanings in real life that apply to different groups worldwide. The USA is divided into political tribes, for example. I can understand removing it from certain contexts due to the baggage that "tribal" equates to "Native American caricature", but this is just insane. For comparison, the protoss in the obscure starcraft series of games were an advanced civilization of space elves loosely divided into tribes who specialized in maintaining different aspects of their civilization, such as their aerospace forces, government bureaucracy, engineering and manufacturing, assassins and black-ops, etc.
It's a funny thing, I print t-shirts for a living and we do a lot of shirts for the local Blood Tribe, and they love the caricature North American Indian and get it on hockey jerseys and shirts all the time. And I guess that's there right but what happens if I buy one to support one of their various charity causes and wear it? Am I now a racist? It boggles the mind.
Quote from: tenbones on August 30, 2023, 01:09:26 PM
Can this thread get more stupid?
We're debating on how using retard's views of "racism" might or might not apply to those of us that don't use those terms in the same way?
Jesus fucking Christ. You guys are LARPING as Replicants giving yourselves the Voight-Kampff Test and trying to suss out who is real.
The turtle is still on its back, struggling to right itself. Why aren't you helping the turtle right itself, tenbones? /adjusts camera focus
8)
Quote from: tenbones on August 30, 2023, 01:09:26 PMYou guys are LARPING as Replicants giving yourselves the Voight-Kampff Test and trying to suss out who is real.
Oh, I've always known I wasn't real. Nobody real is as full of hot air as I am. ;D
Quote from: Opaopajr on August 30, 2023, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: tenbones on August 30, 2023, 01:09:26 PM
Can this thread get more stupid?
We're debating on how using retard's views of "racism" might or might not apply to those of us that don't use those terms in the same way?
Jesus fucking Christ. You guys are LARPING as Replicants giving yourselves the Voight-Kampff Test and trying to suss out who is real.
The turtle is still on its back, struggling to right itself. Why aren't you helping the turtle right itself, tenbones? /adjusts camera focus
8)
/starts shooting randomly secretly confused why I don't look like any of the pictures of myself in the wallet they handed me. Why does this turtle make me think of me not helping me? Does not compute. Must shoot.
Quote from: Opaopajr on August 30, 2023, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: tenbones on August 30, 2023, 01:09:26 PM
Can this thread get more stupid?
We're debating on how using retard's views of "racism" might or might not apply to those of us that don't use those terms in the same way?
Jesus fucking Christ. You guys are LARPING as Replicants giving yourselves the Voight-Kampff Test and trying to suss out who is real.
The turtle is still on its back, struggling to right itself. Why aren't you helping the turtle right itself, tenbones? /adjusts camera focus
8)
I heard the turtle say, "cowabunga". So did tenbones.
I concur with tenbones that trying to label things as "racist" or not, or debating its meaning, is pointless. Particularly in this forum, though, there are some specific gaming topics that are handled, like
1) Ability modifiers and/or templates for fantasy races
2) Non-monolithic fantasy creatures
3) What types of creatures are enemies of the PCs
These are concrete game issues that aren't necessarily part of woke gamers.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on August 29, 2023, 04:29:19 PM
Quote from: jhkim on August 29, 2023, 02:13:48 PMNon-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.
One can just have fewer types of antagonists, which is fine since with detail those antagonists can be just as varied. One can have a great game with only humans as antagonists. Or with only humans or dragons as antagonists. For example, I ran a long fantasy campaign based on the "Temeraire" novels where there were only humans and dragons in the setting.
Quote from: Brad on August 24, 2023, 09:06:35 PM
Does that girl fuck horses?
Was this question ever answered one way or another? Literally the only thing that actually matters.
Quote from: Scooter on August 30, 2023, 01:04:00 PM
Quote from: Krazz on August 28, 2023, 01:32:10 PM
Quote from: Scooter on August 28, 2023, 09:10:59 AM
Quote from: Krazz on August 28, 2023, 04:29:19 AM
Quote from: Scooter on August 27, 2023, 09:49:01 PM
Saying that Japanese average higher IQ than a Europeans is both racist AND true.
How is that racist? Have the Left changed the definition again this week?
sigh. Here is the actual definition of racism from The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language: racism, The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race.
The left thinks that saying I hate [race] is a racist statement. It isn't. It might be bigoted but it isn't racist.
Saying the Japanese have higher average IQ than Europeans isn't the same as saying that their IQ is determined by their race.
YOU should rent an IQ before responding. "Japanese" IS the race in the sentence I wrote.
Rather than resorting to insults, why not just admit that you're clearly vastly out of your depth with logic? OK, let me break it down into chunks small enough for you can understand. I did explain this in my prior post, but you appear not to have groked that.
1) Yes, the Japanese are a race
2) Yes, they have higher average IQ than Europeans
3) Correlation does not imply causation
Why do Japanese have higher IQ? Here are two possible explanations (there may be more):
a) Because of their race. They have better genes for IQ
b) Because of Japan's culture and education system
If somebody made claim (a) then it would be racist, according to the obscure definition you've dredged up. If you claimed it was because of (b), that wouldn't be racist. And if you claim neither (a) nor (b), then that's not racist.
Let's check your original claim:
Quote
Saying that Japanese average higher IQ than a Europeans is both racist AND true.
There's no claim of why there's a difference, so no suggestion that the difference is due to race, so the statement isn't racist and you've wasted everybody's time over the last few pages spouting nonsense.
Quote from: tenbones on August 30, 2023, 01:09:26 PM
Can this thread get more stupid?
We're debating on how using retard's views of "racism" might or might not apply to those of us that don't use those terms in the same way?
Jesus fucking Christ. You guys are LARPING as Replicants giving yourselves the Voight-Kampff Test and trying to suss out who is real.
As the OP I am thoroughly enjoying it. Everyone here has passed the Voight-Kampff Test.
We share a hobby with horsefucking troons.
Lovely.
BTW, I love 'racism' in settings - especially fun when you play up the animosity between various monster groups.
It's even fun among PCs! My dwarf cleric just feels bad for human miners. It's like watching toddlers dig holes. And don't get me started on human "craftsmanship" or when they talk about "this is really old".
Quote from: Spinachcat on August 30, 2023, 09:34:28 PM
BTW, I love 'racism' in settings - especially fun when you play up the animosity between various monster groups.
It's even fun among PCs! My dwarf cleric just feels bad for human miners. It's like watching toddlers dig holes. And don't get me started on human "craftsmanship" or when they talk about "this is really old".
Agreed. I've had plenty of enjoyment with racism in settings - like in some of my
pulp / Golden Age (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/elements-and-styles-of-a-golden-age-supers-campaign/msg1262490/#msg1262490) games. However, there are some campaigns/one-shots where racism isn't a feature - because it isn't important in the context of the campaign.
Like, it wasn't significant in my Vikings & Skraelings campaign, and it isn't significant in my current high fantasy D&D campaign.
In other games, it was significant. My Dawn of Fire campaign had a lot of factional fighting -- and my Temple of the Elements campaign was all about fighting an evil race.
Is my fantasy world racist? No. Is there racism in my fantasy world? Quite sure there is. And, there's slavery. And war. It makes for interesting storytelling.
Now as for the ASI, it is generally accepted that a common goliath would be stronger than a common gnome, except when magic comes into play. Therefore, for example an increase in strength as a basic score is justified. It isn't racist.
The carob rations are equally distributed among comrades in my settings. ;) The chocolate is reserved for inner circle loyalists to the party cause. ;D Dear Leader loves his illustrious victory hot cocoa. Mini marshmellows are only available for Dear Leader when YOU upright that struggling turtle. You want to upright the struggling turtle, don't YOU? :o
(Seriously though, a land of no antagonists loses a lot of dramatic thrust. That's eventually how you get people killing each other over minutiae. I think Dr. Seuss elaborated on that with Sneetches... I think maybe human history, too, but I forget. ;D)
Why would you want to make a fantasy world where racism didn't exist?
Quote from: Scooter on September 01, 2023, 10:58:33 AM
Why would you want to make a fantasy world where racism didn't exist?
You know why. And precisely none of it has anything to do with actual racism.
But some people love to feel drunk on faux-righteousness drinking that sweet sweet Pseudo Virtue UnKool-Aide.
Quote from: jeff37923 on August 25, 2023, 01:25:31 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 25, 2023, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 12:33:24 PM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on August 25, 2023, 12:09:07 PM
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on August 25, 2023, 11:42:54 AM
The WEF are the same species as us. I think it loses something when you make them a different species and then say it's okay to genocide them.
That's from the elf and they were being genocided by the Scro Economic Foundation for Good. Now if you think the WEF considers you human, that's quaint, they view most people as being useless, at least the lead advisor to Schwab does. Creepy really. You might consider them human, they don't consider you human, you don't have enough money for that. Its more altered carbon for those nutters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZP5lIzGNT8
Okay, I don't care anymore. Have fun playing your justified genocide simulator.
You play as you want but...
Isn't saying ALL Orcs are evil the exact same thing?
It's a fantasy game.
Are the humans justified in Starship Troopers? Even if they wiped every single bug of the face of the universe?
The book Starship Troopers or the movie Starship Troopers?
There was no movie.
There was though an anime series that had little to do with the books but was somehow more Starship Troopers than this movie everyone claims was made. 8)
Damn, these are a lot of posts, over a ONE comment from a social media rando, who apparently wants to fuck horses. I know I commented at one point, but that was days ago, and I barely took it seriously.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2023, 04:55:29 PM
Damn, these are a lot of posts, over a ONE comment from a social media rando, who apparently wants to fuck horses. I know I commented at one point, but that was days ago, and I barely took it seriously.
It's kind of funny. The reason I posted it was the comment encapsulated the ridiculousness that is current progressive thinking. And it was a lot of fun batting it around.
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2023, 04:55:29 PM
Damn, these are a lot of posts, over a ONE comment from a social media rando, who apparently wants to fuck horses.
She took the brony thing too seriously. I bet her name is Catherine (the Great).
I need advice on making it more racist
Quote from: Domina on September 06, 2023, 01:38:32 AM
I need advice on making it more racist
Just use official WotC material from the past 5 years or so.
Quote from: Thor's Nads on September 01, 2023, 06:48:59 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on September 01, 2023, 04:55:29 PM
Damn, these are a lot of posts, over a ONE comment from a social media rando, who apparently wants to fuck horses. I know I commented at one point, but that was days ago, and I barely took it seriously.
It's kind of funny. The reason I posted it was the comment encapsulated the ridiculousness that is current progressive thinking. And it was a lot of fun batting it around.
I think I may have had an ulterior motive even I didn't know about.
I criticized the original argument not as being immoral but simply as being impractical, in terms of what made for a good and useful game product, and it only just occurred to me that if a sufficiently manic Wokester bought that argument, ze might decide simply that RPGs,
any and all RPGs, are simply inherently too racist as an activity to be redeemed. Which would be a great incentive to get Wokeness out of the hobby.
Quote from: Reckall on August 25, 2023, 07:27:52 AM
I already thought that species were not monolithic... :o
Except for the ones who choose to throw a bone at a big blaCK Rectangular Thing...
-Ed C.
ALSO:
I have Never thought of D&D as 'blatantly racist'....
-Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar on September 07, 2023, 10:00:56 PM
ALSO:
I have Never thought of D&D as 'blatantly racist'....
-Ed C.
Oh come on now, there is plenty of evidence pointing at Gygax himself being a flaming racist! In the DMG, which he authored, he described the D&D world as being humanocentric. The horror! What were all the elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings to think of this? As further evidence look at the non-human draconian level limits imposed on beings he considered less than human. We must erase all evidence of him being connected to D&D at once! ::)
Quote from: Domina on September 06, 2023, 01:38:32 AM
I need advice on making it more racist
Anything made before this morning is racist, homophobic, bigoted, etc. So of course everything Gary ever wrote is totally racist.
There is no such thing as Christophobia. It does not exist. Just like it is impossible for anyone not-white to be racist. There is no such thing as racism against white people.
That covers most of it. Did I miss anything?
I do not, on a fundamental level, understand the need to "sanitize" RPGs.
If you look at Romantic Fantasy, which is, like... the most wokest of the fantasy literature genres? It's still not like this. Yes, the heroes are presented as being good, shining people, and maybe they even come from a very woke, progressive nation within the world, where all the heroes ride talking white horses and everything is great on the surface...
But the worlds themselves are never shining and clean. Actually they usually have some really bad, nasty shit going on. Because without the bad things, there's not really anything to talk about. It's like taking a sandbox video game and removing all the enemies and just having people walk around an empty game world. What's the point, at that point?
You can absolutely run a progressive game where every person in the game is a trans person of color and disabled, but you have to have something for them to DO. It's like that scam fake native american sci fi game that came out a year or two ago. Great, but what do you do with it? It's a good (using the term loosely) example of world building, but there's no game to be had.
Orcs are Evil...
In the Movie version of "LOTR" they were shown being created as an evil army.
One back story has it that JRR himself said they corrupt or fallen 'elves'.
By-the-way, when the movie "Star Wars: The Return of The Jedi" was in theaer I saw the Gamorrean guards and thought "Ah, that is what Orcs must look like!"
- Ed C.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 09:23:20 AM
I do not, on a fundamental level, understand the need to "sanitize" RPGs.
If you look at Romantic Fantasy, which is, like... the most wokest of the fantasy literature genres? It's still not like this. Yes, the heroes are presented as being good, shining people, and maybe they even come from a very woke, progressive nation within the world, where all the heroes ride talking white horses and everything is great on the surface...
But the worlds themselves are never shining and clean. Actually they usually have some really bad, nasty shit going on. Because without the bad things, there's not really anything to talk about. It's like taking a sandbox video game and removing all the enemies and just having people walk around an empty game world. What's the point, at that point?
You can absolutely run a progressive game where every person in the game is a trans person of color and disabled, but you have to have something for them to DO. It's like that scam fake native american sci fi game that came out a year or two ago. Great, but what do you do with it? It's a good (using the term loosely) example of world building, but there's no game to be had.
And the one big attempt to create a romantic fantasy RPG,
Blue Rose, created a boring game (at least in the True20 iteration...I've been told the FATE version isn't) because it missed something key in its source material: the ability to fail, to be a bad person.
I was very disappointed in BR.
I think this is also a parallel to the consent thread about mind flyers. Both come from the same mindset where your favorite TV show being cancelled is an existential crisis. I honestly think these people were so sheltered they never learned failure can happen and be survived, leading to growth.
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 02:43:51 PMAnd the one big attempt to create a romantic fantasy RPG, Blue Rose, created a boring game (at least in the True20 iteration...I've been told the FATE version isn't) because it missed something key in its source material: the ability to fail, to be a bad person.
I was very disappointed in BR.
The second version was AGE, not FATE, and it was /worse/ than the T20 version. The T20 version still allowed some nuance and subtlety. The AGE version did away with it and shoved the progressiveness down your throat even more.
I bought it for the artwork. I'm a huge fan of Stephaine Pai-Mun Law's art. But the game was terrible. And I say this as someone who is actually a consumer of romantic fantasy novels, and theoretically in the target market for Blue Rose.
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 02:51:33 PM
The second version was AGE, not FATE, and it was /worse/ than the T20 version. The T20 version still allowed some nuance and subtlety. The AGE version did away with it and shoved the progressiveness down your throat even more.
I bought it for the artwork. I'm a huge fan of Stephaine Pai-Mun Law's art. But the game was terrible. And I say this as someone who is actually a consumer of romantic fantasy novels, and theoretically in the target market for Blue Rose.
I've always wondering ... how heavy-handed
did they get with Jarzon in Blue Rose 2E? (I glanced at 1E out of interest in the system, the art, and a certain level of sympathy for optimistic fantasy, but various elements, including Jarzon, turned me off.)
Quote from: Bruwulf on September 10, 2023, 02:51:33 PM
Quote from: PulpHerb on September 10, 2023, 02:43:51 PMAnd the one big attempt to create a romantic fantasy RPG, Blue Rose, created a boring game (at least in the True20 iteration...I've been told the FATE version isn't) because it missed something key in its source material: the ability to fail, to be a bad person.
I was very disappointed in BR.
The second version was AGE, not FATE, and it was /worse/ than the T20 version. The T20 version still allowed some nuance and subtlety. The AGE version did away with it and shoved the progressiveness down your throat even more.
I bought it for the artwork. I'm a huge fan of Stephaine Pai-Mun Law's art. But the game was terrible. And I say this as someone who is actually a consumer of romantic fantasy novels, and theoretically in the target market for Blue Rose.
Ah, got confused (maybe it was Freeport they did a FATE version of).
I bought BR for the rules which we later got as T20 a game I love but just didn't get any traction.
I can't imagine more heavy handed, but given it is Green Ronin, no surprise. Glad I didn't bite on it.
The sad thing is there is a cool setting to be made from that source material. I doubt one I'd run, but that would appeal to a lot of the modern 5e crowd who do understand without risk there can be no triumph.