Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 06, 2023, 04:28:11 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on April 04, 2023, 07:45:07 PM
https://wyrmworkspublishing.com/product/limitless-heroics/

WTF!? Who wants to rp someone so mentally ill? I get pretending to be evil, but this....it's beyond the pale.

I commonly give my NPCs one of the eight standard personality disorders to make it easier to roleplay them. One player in a game I played in wanted to roleplay a schizophrenic. And my Call of Cthulhu character is both going insane and effectively a "brain on a stick" as a feeble 82-year-old psychiatrist. I don't see why having more roleplay options is ludicrous or morbid in principle.

That said

• the cover art of this product is ugly,
• the notion of a wheelchair-bound man wielding a battle-axe to any effect is absurd (if not the situation itself inconceivable), and
• the general tone insinuating one's moral obligation to be sensitive and work to include disabilities in order to make one's play a moral paragon, rather than primarily an escapist adventure, is repellant to anyone with mythic sensibilities.

Overall the thing appears to be out to "disable" the heroic fantasy aspect of gaming and replace it with sappy consciousness raising moralism. I say this as one who believes gaming can morally raise consciousness without being sappy--that is, without rewriting reality to presume that disabilities aren't things to rue.

I think it's absolutely possible to play a character with a mental illness and have it be both interesting and fun for the entire group, but that's only if you are playing a character who has a mental illness, not a character for whom it is the only characteristic the player focuses on. One of the things that makes a character with mental illness played well interesting is that the flaw is not treated as an insurmountable barrier. They can have an entire character arc in the game where they are coming to terms with it and either working around it or succumbing to it. Either way, there is movement in how it is dealt with. What I see of all the people running around claiming to be mentally ill currently is that they treat it as something to be proud of while pretending they think it's terrible. They think mental illness is a static characteristic when it's not. And since they want to play themselves in a game, that's how they play their Mary Sue characters.

As for the physical disabilities in games, my eyes end up rolling so hard it's amazing they're still in my head. I thought the combat wheelchair was a joke when it first made its appearance. I really wish it had been. Not because I have any particular animus towards people confined to wheelchairs, but because it makes zero sense within the worlds it is meant to be used. Nobody in a village beset by goblins is hiring a hero with spina bifida to clear out cave, let alone I giant red dragon. And we're talking about games where death isn't even permanent, so there is no reason that a hero who breaks their back and becomes a paraplegic has to be stuck that way beyond the player and/or the GM wanting them to be.

Quote from: jhkim on April 05, 2023, 12:33:07 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on April 05, 2023, 11:28:18 AM
In one sentence, you have captured the difference (broad caricature of course) between the hobby's core player base until about 2016 and the player base that has joined since 2016.

The newer players have a much higher proportion (majority?) of people for whom "the character is me". I don't even mean the old "I'm playing me if I was this person" but a genuine complete identification.

Thus the need for features that a person centers their identity on to be available in the game and not to be negative.

This was Pundit's claim in his character death video, and I'm extremely skeptical. The whole schtick of Knights of the Dinner Table since it started 1990 was that the characters were versions of the players, and those were old stereotypes even then. Greg Porter's Timelords RPG from 1987 was based on the premise that players literally play themselves thrown across time in a strange device, and had rules for players rating their own attributes. Playing a fantasy version of oneself was always common, especially among casual and/or new players.

Even if the PC isn't a fantasy version of the player, core identity like gender tends to strongly correlate. Male players play mostly male PCs, and female players mostly female PCs. There are plenty of exceptions, but they're uncommon and they're usually the harder-core player types.

More generally, I don't think that the release of a fringe product like Limitless Heroics is representative of the mainstream of new D&D players. Someone might be upset that even a tiny fringe would buy such a product, but it doesn't represent the majority of new players since 2016.

So KoDT: one of the reasons they are funny is we know people who overly identified with characters and generally found them a bit off. The humor is in the extremity.

Time Lords is far from the first "play yourself" coming a decade after V&V and Timeship did that. But they stood out because that was not normative. 

As for majority, you'll noticed I said a higher proportion (and then majority with a '?' as an aside, indicating it might be but I would not yet claim that) have this tight identity.

That indicates I accept it existed before, but that the mix has changes over the past few years. Maybe my break point is off, but it seems more players coming in are on the "the character is me" end of the spectrum than the "the character is just an avatar" end.

The existence of Limitless Heroes is an indication of the change. We didn't see products focusing on representing you in real life as the character this tightly in the past. It has a market and that there is sufficient market indicates it is more common that in 1983.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 05, 2023, 01:19:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 05, 2023, 12:33:07 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on April 05, 2023, 11:28:18 AM
In one sentence, you have captured the difference (broad caricature of course) between the hobby's core player base until about 2016 and the player base that has joined since 2016.

The newer players have a much higher proportion (majority?) of people for whom "the character is me". I don't even mean the old "I'm playing me if I was this person" but a genuine complete identification.

Thus the need for features that a person centers their identity on to be available in the game and not to be negative.

This was Pundit's claim in his character death video, and I'm extremely skeptical. The whole schtick of Knights of the Dinner Table since it started 1990 was that the characters were versions of the players, and those were old stereotypes even then. Greg Porter's Timelords RPG from 1987 was based on the premise that players literally play themselves thrown across time in a strange device, and had rules for players rating their own attributes. Playing a fantasy version of oneself was always common, especially among casual and/or new players.

Even if the PC isn't a fantasy version of the player, core identity like gender tends to strongly correlate. Male players play mostly male PCs, and female players mostly female PCs. There are plenty of exceptions, but they're uncommon and they're usually the harder-core player types.

More generally, I don't think that the release of a fringe product like Limitless Heroics is representative of the mainstream of new D&D players. Someone might be upset that even a tiny fringe would buy such a product, but it doesn't represent the majority of new players since 2016.

"Why are you an angry gamer?"

No Jim, no one is upset someone might buy that book, not even if all the "new players since 2016" bought it would we be upset.

We're criticizing a product, and a mentality (that you might share hence your disingenuous defense of it) that my disabilities ARE my identity and I'm nothing else but those disabilities. Therefore those disabilities MUST be represented in the game as a bonus and don't have ANY negative aspects.

Now back to our pointing and mocking the retards that created the book and the even more retarded idiots who will buy it.

I'm not criticizing or mocking. Yes, I have criticism of identities tied to immutable traits that are limiting...such as identifying as depressed.

But in this case I'm observing. There is a change in the average level of identification in newer players. Not that we're seeing something we never saw before, but that we're seeing it more often.

That is vital information if you at looking at joining a new table or find new players. It's something that is more important to consider when feeling new situations out.

In fact, jhkim decided to ignore my last line:

"We'll just probably play at different tables if we can get all the posers trying for ally cookies to leave both groups alone. We'd probably even eventually swap war stories."

Once people who just embrace $THING to get ally cookies are gone, we can play at our tables and swap stories online/at the store/at cons.

That seems 180 degrees from being mad it exists. Maybe I'm just not eloquent enough to express my intent.

Quote from: PulpHerb on April 06, 2023, 05:13:24 PM
But in this case I'm observing. There is a change in the average level of identification in newer players. Not that we're seeing something we never saw before, but that we're seeing it more often.

That is vital information if you at looking at joining a new table or find new players. It's something that is more important to consider when feeling new situations out.

This comes down to what level of identification means. My illustration here is Knights of the Dinner Table. All the players there play fantasy versions of themselves - so that's a high level of identification. But of the changes we're seeing post-2016, I don't think we're seeing more players like the KoDT crew.

For example, the KoDT crew are fine with a PC dying -- they just roll up a new fantasy version of themselves. They're not particularly political, nor do they talk about cultural issues like disability representation.

So I don't think more players like the KoDT crew leads to books like from the original post ("Limitless Heroics"). I think there's a simpler explanation that the expansion of social media and partisan politics since 2016 has lead to an expansion of politically-marketed fringe products.

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2023, 07:09:20 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on April 06, 2023, 05:13:24 PM
But in this case I'm observing. There is a change in the average level of identification in newer players. Not that we're seeing something we never saw before, but that we're seeing it more often.

That is vital information if you at looking at joining a new table or find new players. It's something that is more important to consider when feeling new situations out.

This comes down to what level of identification means. My illustration here is Knights of the Dinner Table. All the players there play fantasy versions of themselves - so that's a high level of identification. But of the changes we're seeing post-2016, I don't think we're seeing more players like the KoDT crew.

For example, the KoDT crew are fine with a PC dying -- they just roll up a new fantasy version of themselves. They're not particularly political, nor do they talk about cultural issues like disability representation.

So I don't think more players like the KoDT crew leads to books like from the original post ("Limitless Heroics"). I think there's a simpler explanation that the expansion of social media and partisan politics since 2016 has lead to an expansion of politically-marketed fringe products.

The difference is, the cartoon characters used to be in a magazine, and we'd laugh at their behavior. Now they sit at tables, and we're terrified to laugh at them.

Quote from: Wasteland Sniper on April 06, 2023, 05:04:54 PM
I think it's absolutely possible to play a character with a mental illness and have it be both interesting and fun for the entire group, but that's only if you are playing a character who has a mental illness, not a character for whom it is the only characteristic the player focuses on. One of the things that makes a character with mental illness played well interesting is that the flaw is not treated as an insurmountable barrier. They can have an entire character arc in the game where they are coming to terms with it and either working around it or succumbing to it. Either way, there is movement in how it is dealt with. What I see of all the people running around claiming to be mentally ill currently is that they treat it as something to be proud of while pretending they think it's terrible. They think mental illness is a static characteristic when it's not. And since they want to play themselves in a game, that's how they play their Mary Sue characters.

A wise thought.

QuoteAs for the physical disabilities in games, my eyes end up rolling so hard it's amazing they're still in my head. I thought the combat wheelchair was a joke when it first made its appearance. I really wish it had been. Not because I have any particular animus towards people confined to wheelchairs, but because it makes zero sense within the worlds it is meant to be used. Nobody in a village beset by goblins is hiring a hero with spina bifida to clear out cave, let alone I giant red dragon. And we're talking about games where death isn't even permanent, so there is no reason that a hero who breaks their back and becomes a paraplegic has to be stuck that way beyond the player and/or the GM wanting them to be.

For that matter, why isn't dwarfism considered a disability in RPGs? Some of the art for Warhammer, for instance, is ridiculous--short people with no knees, just feet at the ends of their thighs. Such people would have little maneuverability and leverage in a fight, axe or no axe. I suppose dwarfism must be distinguished from Dwarvenism, but even so, isn't being short a disadvantage in combat? Goliath was not short, and that was an advantage, stone-slingers or no stone-slingers.

  Handy Quacks, the RPG! Family Guy was ahead of the curve! (I get to say this because I believe I have disabilities... and I am also a duck.  )

One thing I noticed is "chat with me on Mastadon" at the end of the page.  Mastadon is a Twitter alternative that caters to left-wing extremists and their ideology. Mastadon's publisher is overt about censoring conservative speech.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on April 08, 2023, 06:41:37 AM
One thing I noticed is "chat with me on Mastadon" at the end of the page.  Mastadon is a Twitter alternative that caters to left-wing extremists and their ideology. Mastadon's publisher is overt about censoring conservative speech.

It must be great for them to get away from Twitter and it's far-right bias, and censoring of all left-wing thought.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on April 08, 2023, 06:41:37 AM
One thing I noticed is "chat with me on Mastadon" at the end of the page.  Mastadon is a Twitter alternative that caters to left-wing extremists and their ideology. Mastadon's publisher is overt about censoring conservative speech.

The venue choice might be indicative of the author's political leanings, but Mastodon isn't a centralized network and anyone can run a server, so censorship across the entire platform isn't technically possible.

Quote from: Zalman on April 08, 2023, 07:42:06 AM

Quote from: Cathode Ray on April 08, 2023, 06:41:37 AM
One thing I noticed is "chat with me on Mastadon" at the end of the page.  Mastadon is a Twitter alternative that caters to left-wing extremists and their ideology. Mastadon's publisher is overt about censoring conservative speech.

The venue choice might be indicative of the author's political leanings, but Mastodon isn't a centralized network and anyone can run a server, so censorship across the entire platform isn't technically possible.

Every time someone says something like this, or 'OSR is decentralized, so it's safe,' Wokists just take that as a challenge. And they have a bodycount.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 08, 2023, 07:56:12 AM
Every time someone says something like this, or 'OSR is decentralized, so it's safe,' Wokists just take that as a challenge. And they have a bodycount.

No idea what this means. If something is decentralized the only way to use it as a censorship platform is for no one else to participate.

Quote from: Zalman on April 08, 2023, 08:10:13 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 08, 2023, 07:56:12 AM
Every time someone says something like this, or 'OSR is decentralized, so it's safe,' Wokists just take that as a challenge. And they have a bodycount.

No idea what this means. If something is decentralized the only way to use it as a censorship platform is for no one else to participate.

It means nothing is truly decentralized. All it would take it something like a 'board of users created to review servers for inappropriate behavior' and there's your censorship.

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 08, 2023, 08:17:42 AM
It means nothing is truly decentralized. All it would take it something like a 'board of users created to review servers for inappropriate behavior' and there's your censorship.

I think you're missing the point. It's not physically possible, any more than it's possible for a "review board" to censor what happens at my own gaming table in my home. So yeah, they could send guys with guns to my house to censor my Mastodon server. Short of that, they're out of luck.

This is why decentralized technology terrifies the centralized establishment, it can't be manipulated like that. They have to resort to outlawing the tech itself (like they'd love to do with Bitcoin, for example).

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 08, 2023, 08:17:42 AM

Quote from: Zalman on April 08, 2023, 08:10:13 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on April 08, 2023, 07:56:12 AM
Every time someone says something like this, or 'OSR is decentralized, so it's safe,' Wokists just take that as a challenge. And they have a bodycount.

No idea what this means. If something is decentralized the only way to use it as a censorship platform is for no one else to participate.

It means nothing is truly decentralized. All it would take it something like a 'board of users created to review servers for inappropriate behavior' and there's your censorship.

Dude, NO ONE is saying they couldn't censor every forum, but they CAN'T control the OSR, because it's decentralized, heck make a blockchain store and then they can't even stop you from selling.