Quote from: Slambo on December 27, 2021, 10:53:18 AM

Quote from: Dropbear on December 27, 2021, 12:38:10 AM

Quote from: Thornhammer on December 27, 2021, 12:19:04 AM
Ordered a copy of this. I'm not hep on demihumans in my sword and sorcery, but fuck it I can make adjustments.

If it's any consolation for you, the Elves of Thule are a dying whacked out race of drug addicts hopelessly lost in their memories of their glorious past lives on their home world, the Dwarves are a minuscule population that lives in an isolated mountain city, and Halflings are pretty much just jungle Pygmy savages. "Demi-Human" races are not of any notably large population. The 5E version notes that just about any race from the core could come from out of the lost wild areas within the continent. I don't know what the PF version says, as I didn't bother to buy it. The Savage Worlds version makes no note of any race beyond Human, Atlantean, Elf, Dwarf or Halfling that I have found.

I asked my players to build Humans and leave the other races alone in this one. I got the inevitable request for a Demi-human character, and said fine one player character only, but all Demi humans are othered peoples and humans are automatically suspicious of them. They are pretty much on par with demons and monsters, alien creatures that are not to be trusted. So this group will have one of those addled Elves with them that they will likely either have to defend or save at one point during their adventures, and probably many times over. The player understood and took it in stride at character generation but we will see how he deals with all of that further along in game. We are using SW.

The Elves sound like Melniboneans so that gets a pass from me. Id pick it up...but i dont play 5e

As S'Mon stated, there's a SW version. That's what I'm using.

Quote from: Wntrlnd on December 25, 2021, 07:41:07 PM
One start to think what the end-goal of the woke products will be if there are no antagonists, no monsters, no conflicts.

Are the Players adventurers whose greatest deeds will be to save kittens down from trees?

Back just before 5e started its playtest and then during it, Storygamers were complaining about how D&D was all violence and there were no rules for... talking to people... And most of them just could not wrap their heads around the concept of... you know... role playing talking to NPCs...

What the hell do they really want? They hate systems, but demand systems, but cant seem to grasp doing the thing they are advocating for?

And then yeah we have the prude patrol wanting to abolish all violence and bad-think in games because that will surely cure violence in the world. Especially when they so love to resort to threats and even violence to get their way.

Quote from: Omega on December 28, 2021, 03:49:44 AM
Back just before 5e started its playtest and then during it, Storygamers were complaining about how D&D was all violence and there were no rules for... talking to people... And most of them just could not wrap their heads around the concept of... you know... role playing talking to NPCs...

What the hell do they really want? They hate systems, but demand systems, but cant seem to grasp doing the thing they are advocating for?

Is this a genuine question? I've played and interacted with a lot of story gamers over the years - and arguably am one myself, so I can talk about what they seem to enjoy. I'm cross-over in that I'll play various games including D&D, other traditional RPGs like Call of Cthulhu, story games like Monster of the Week, as well as custom larps, murder mystery party games, and others.

Story gamers have published many systems that they enjoy, so I don't think they're all that mysterious. The two most popular strains now are FATE and Powered by the Apocalypse, which I think are reasonably representative.

Most are familiar with systemless role-played interaction, but they prefer having a system especially when there is a challenge to overcome. Overcoming a challenge by systemless talking can feel unsatisfying. It's much similar to how some D&D players complain about "mother may I" situations - where victory is purely dependent on GM judgement.

"Owning slaves or profiting from the slave trade
Reprehensible uses of mind-control magic
Villains might engage in such acts, but they won't happen "on-screen" or won't be described in detail. Many groups choose to not have villains engage in these activities at all, keeping these reprehensible acts out of mind entirely."

Somebody better never tell these frail, shirking daisies that the "A" series exists or else they'll all die of The Vapors.  Quick, get the fainting couches!

In case you're curious, in A2, there's a whole dungeon area where we meet up with Markessa, an elven magic-user who is fucked up six ways from Sunday.  She force-breeds different races together and accidentally created the Boggle from her experiments, she has labs full of surgery disasters and cast-offs, she has repeatedly (via magic) erased and rewritten the mind of a female slave who is not an elf but she has surgically altered (not Polymorph...no, she cut the woman up) to look like an elf, specifically her, to work as a body double - and she (Markessa) isn't even Drow.  She's just that fucked up.

She is a villainess and killing her should be a crowning achievement for the party, as well as liberating and healing those she's hurt.  But I guess in Paizo's universe that is nicht gerwehr and not permitted.

Anyway, pinkos, eat your own.  I'll be pointing and laughing.

Quote from: thedungeondelver on December 28, 2021, 02:49:22 PM
"Owning slaves or profiting from the slave trade
Reprehensible uses of mind-control magic
Villains might engage in such acts, but they won't happen "on-screen" or won't be described in detail. Many groups choose to not have villains engage in these activities at all, keeping these reprehensible acts out of mind entirely."

Somebody better never tell these frail, shirking daisies that the "A" series exists or else they'll all die of The Vapors.  Quick, get the fainting couches!

In case you're curious, in A2, there's a whole dungeon area where we meet up with Markessa, an elven magic-user who is fucked up six ways from Sunday.  She force-breeds different races together and accidentally created the Boggle from her experiments, she has labs full of surgery disasters and cast-offs, she has repeatedly (via magic) erased and rewritten the mind of a female slave who is not an elf but she has surgically altered (not Polymorph...no, she cut the woman up) to look like an elf, specifically her, to work as a body double - and she (Markessa) isn't even Drow.  She's just that fucked up.

She is a villainess and killing her should be a crowning achievement for the party, as well as liberating and healing those she's hurt.  But I guess in Paizo's universe that is nicht gerwehr and not permitted.

Anyway, pinkos, eat your own.  I'll be pointing and laughing.

Holy shit. I gotta find that module.

I had broadly similar rules for the pirate campaign I ran, but I think I had good reasons for doing so.

Basically, with some of my players being African-American, I didn't want the issue of slavery derailing the campaign.

I wanted PG-13 piracy on the high seas, buried treasure, some privateering, and a lost city or two. Rafael Sabatini, Robert Louis Stevenson, and if you want to throw some POTC in there, sure. A straightforward classical pirate game.

But, if slavery is there, and some of the party decided they wanted to stop it, I could see the whole thing turning into "Let's end slavery in 1690." Especially if your party are supposed to be "good pirates."  It might even be a good idea for a campaign, but it wasn't the campaign I wanted to run.

So I basically ran in an airbrushed version of the 1600s. In the real 1690s, as much as a third of the population of Port Royal were slaves, but in my game, it was just a rowdy town full of pirates, with a bunch of civilians thrown in.

Rape was similarly off-limits. Characters were expressly forbidden from going there, and for my part I as GM would not bring the subject up.

Should that be the rule across an entire game line? I don't know. While it worked for me, and I'd certainly suggest it to others as a good practice, I wouldn't go so far as to force my rules upon others.

so they want to make the games more kid friendly. I have no problem with that.

what I have a problem with is grown ass adults pretending that child-friendly stuff is what *I* am supposed to be consuming, then shitting on me for not wanting what I'm served.

This, again, is why I say - these Brands and their owners are not serving us. Do not give them your money. They *do not want it*. They do not like *US*. Take your money and give it to those that want you as a customer. Support those that want your patronage.

Quote from: Lurkndog on December 28, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
I had broadly similar rules for the pirate campaign I ran, but I think I had good reasons for doing so.

Basically, with some of my players being African-American, I didn't want the issue of slavery derailing the campaign.

I wanted PG-13 piracy on the high seas, buried treasure, some privateering, and a lost city or two. Rafael Sabatini, Robert Louis Stevenson, and if you want to throw some POTC in there, sure. A straightforward classical pirate game.

But, if slavery is there, and some of the party decided they wanted to stop it, I could see the whole thing turning into "Let's end slavery in 1690." Especially if your party are supposed to be "good pirates."  It might even be a good idea for a campaign, but it wasn't the campaign I wanted to run.

So I basically ran in an airbrushed version of the 1600s. In the real 1690s, as much as a third of the population of Port Royal were slaves, but in my game, it was just a rowdy town full of pirates, with a bunch of civilians thrown in.

Rape was similarly off-limits. Characters were expressly forbidden from going there, and for my part I as GM would not bring the subject up.

Should that be the rule across an entire game line? I don't know. While it worked for me, and I'd certainly suggest it to others as a good practice, I wouldn't go so far as to force my rules upon others.

This might be a generational thing - half of one of my LA crews were black players, and slavery was pretty common in parts of our game (Thay, Calimshan, etc.) where our campaigns were set. Not once did *any* of them ever associate slavery in the game with actual slavery in the United States history. Why do you think that is?

It's not that they weren't aware of it, they were not affected by this weird idea that slavery in a fictional setting was some kind of assumption of a real-world claim about society. Some of them bought slaves in-game, and treated them very well, and eventually freed them.

Again, this sensitivity is a White Liberal issue that has infected everyone else. Slavery is *is happening* right now - all those Apple products and Nike shoes didn't build themselves. This is why I find this whole fascination with "slavery" as some kind of taboo in gaming laughable to the highest degree.

But you know, I'd love for someone to cite me how Slavery in RPG's has a real world affect that actually matters where slavery is being practiced. Somehow... I suspect those places 1) do not give a fuck 2) have no fucking idea what an RPG probably is and if they did  GOTO #1.

Quote from: tenbones on December 28, 2021, 04:48:19 PM
so they want to make the games more kid friendly. I have no problem with that.

Piazzo really should have done Pathfinder 2.0 as a kids RPG. It is a market that is under-served and they could remove all objectionable content without raising a fuss about it because nobody would expect adult themes in a kids RPG. They could pull out of direct competition with WotC, act as an on-ramp to RPG in general, while republishing rated-G version of everything for the new market.

Unfortunately they've already taken the SJW exit and anything they do now would be seen as brainwashing the kids so its most likely too late.

Quote from: tenbones on December 28, 2021, 04:56:00 PMAgain, this sensitivity is a White Liberal issue that has infected everyone else.

There are plenty of black grifters that take advantage of this. To say this is only a 'Whack White people problem' dismisses all the black people without dignity that happily treat themselves as victims for more cash or attention.

Quote from: tenbones on December 28, 2021, 04:56:00 PM

Quote from: Lurkndog on December 28, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
So I basically ran in an airbrushed version of the 1600s. In the real 1690s, as much as a third of the population of Port Royal were slaves, but in my game, it was just a rowdy town full of pirates, with a bunch of civilians thrown in.

Rape was similarly off-limits. Characters were expressly forbidden from going there, and for my part I as GM would not bring the subject up.

Should that be the rule across an entire game line? I don't know. While it worked for me, and I'd certainly suggest it to others as a good practice, I wouldn't go so far as to force my rules upon others.

This might be a generational thing - half of one of my LA crews were black players, and slavery was pretty common in parts of our game (Thay, Calimshan, etc.) where our campaigns were set. Not once did *any* of them ever associate slavery in the game with actual slavery in the United States history. Why do you think that is?

It's not that they weren't aware of it, they were not affected by this weird idea that slavery in a fictional setting was some kind of assumption of a real-world claim about society. Some of them bought slaves in-game, and treated them very well, and eventually freed them.

I don't speak for Lurkndog, but I have had a similar approach in most of my games. I don't assume that fictional slavery, torture, or rape is a real-world claim about society. But I don't necessarily want that content in the games that I play for fun. I've played in games with plenty of grimdark content - but it's not something I want all the time.

In general, I find that even though I am an adult -- stuff labelled as "adult entertainment" isn't my go-to for entertainment.

To Lurkndog's question:

Quote from: Lurkndog on December 28, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
Should that be the rule across an entire game line? I don't know. While it worked for me, and I'd certainly suggest it to others as a good practice, I wouldn't go so far as to force my rules upon others.

Nothing is being forced on anyone either way. The question is just what the default should be for the line. Individual games can go whatever direction they like.

There are game lines that have dark content built-in, like Call of Cthulhu, Bluebeard's Bride, and plenty of others. There are other games that default to lighter content, though, like Star Wars and others.

Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2021, 05:25:48 PMNothing is being forced on anyone either way.

A company feeling pressured to sanatize content is the issue. Framing it any other way is disengenous.

Going a 'Not every company has been put to heel yet' is such a meely wishy washy defense.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 05:28:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2021, 05:25:48 PMNothing is being forced on anyone either way.

A company feeling pressured to sanatize content is the issue. Framing it any other way is disengenous.

Going a 'Not every company has been put to heel yet' is such a meely wishy washy defense.

But is that an accurate complaint against WOTC? At this point, I think WOTC as a company is pretty much woke, and they want to do this. And more power to them. Every follower of a dysfunctional, destructive -ism should have the freedom to toss their livelyhood down the toilet in the pursuit of their ideology.

My big complaint is that they own the rights to product created before the wokening, and can curate that content as they see fit. Which would be a damn shame if such content got memory holed or irreversably changed to conform to their current agenda.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 28, 2021, 05:41:59 PMBut is that an accurate complaint against WOTC?

Its Paizo doing this. And I suppose they want to do this because they think its right just like a cultist might feel right no longer taking the calls of their family and friends. Its true enough that I guess in that sense there isn't any pressure. But that still feels warped and twisted.
Saying 'Well not everybody has joined Scientology' as a rebuttal for criticisms of what has happened since they joined I just feel is made in bad faith.

Much truth spoken.  It's a shame, though.  I guess we are just a bunch of bitter clingers?

[/quote]But is that an accurate complaint against WOTC? At this point, I think WOTC as a company is pretty much woke, and they want to do this. And more power to them. Every follower of a dysfunctional, destructive -ism should have the freedom to toss their livelyhood down the toilet in the pursuit of their ideology.

My big complaint is that they own the rights to product created before the wokening, and can curate that content as they see fit. Which would be a damn shame if such content got memory holed or irreversably changed to conform to their current agenda.
[/quote]