Quote from: jhkim;1095203tenbones - I'm including the quotes above to make clear again. Neither Zalman's post nor mine make reference to specifically homosexuality. The point is that modules and play commonly include heterosexuality.



You're welcome to play however you like. I also find that sexual orientation or gender usually aren't important - but my games usually have a fair amount of detail that isn't immediately relevant. For example, I might include bits of color like "The bartender is a large man with dark black hair and a frequent scowl" or "The bartender is very protective of his shy wife Serla, who comes out to clean the tables every so often". These sorts of details are typically pure color bits, but it will occasionally come up. No one seems to object to my mentioning the bartender's hair color, say, or that he's a man rather than a woman.

"The bartender is a large man with dark black hair and a frequent scowl who is gay"

"The bartender is very protective of his shy wife Serla who is a man because the bartender is gay, who comes out to clean the tables every so often"

The physical description of an NPC is what player characters normally perceive. How do you determine sexual orientation or gender unless you ask (or if the NPC even has one).

How do you include a bit of color about a NPCs sexuality if no sexual or romantic role-playing interaction ever comes up? Most people do not play their games focused on character actions in which the subject matter would naturally come up. Every NPC that the Player Characters interact with could be gay or bi or trans or sexually identify as an attack helicopter and the players would never know unless there was in character game action in which that becomes significant.

The main problem with "inclusion" is that so often the people preaching it are coming directly from Alinksy's rule book, which states in no uncertain terms that the game is first to be noticed, then included, then get control, then exclude everyone else.
 
That is, a person honestly concerned about inclusion in a game is probably going to do something about it--say, run a game and invite whatever people you want to invite.  Not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's the only real way to include anyone, in anything, ever.  For one thing, it's deeply personal, and thus likely to work, given those honest intentions.  (And if the intentions aren't honest, then that will get found out pretty soon and kill the thing before it does too much harm.)  

When "inclusion" is code for "I want to talk about inclusion so that I can get control of who gets included/excluded and then proceed to exclude the ones I want"--that's the problem.  The virtue signalers have the track record AND the creepy vibe that it is their game.   Well, that and the rabid lying about what they are doing, also from Alinksy's book, and which brings us full circle to the subject of the thread.

Oh, by the way, I guarantee I've introduced more people, including women and racial minorities, to the hobby than 99% of the "inclusion" freaks.  And I did it one and two people at a time by running a game that sounded interesting to them, and inviting them because they were interested, not caring what their chromosomes or pigments were.

Quote from: jhkim;1095215Sure, and you've got a right to behave the way you want, particularly in your own home. I appreciate this as a free speech forum where I can talk to Aglondir about his ethno-nationalism or you about your discomfort with LGBT people.

But I don't think either of those is a good thing, and I'd prefer it if those attitudes didn't exist. My family and friends who are LGBT have had to deal with a lot of crap because of attitudes like this. Particularly when he was younger, I wouldn't want my son being exposed to it, as I consider it a sort or bigotry.

Well, I understand what you mean and I also agree that it's not a good quality to have. But I don't walk about with a sign that say "God hates fxxs" (well, I'm atheist) or scream and spit at transgender people. It's all internal and quite calm, all in orderly fashion, the Swedish way. There are worse things in this world than a bit of my inner vitriol. I just don't want somebody flaunting their sexual identities/preferences around my gaming table. If it makes things better, I was revolted the moment when one of my friends and his girlfriend mentioned having sex the entire night before our session. It makes me physically sick to hear about other people's sex lives. Yes, I'm quite sensitive. So there you go - every person has a delicate flower with tiny pink petals hidden deep inside. That goes for serial killers, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Vlad Tepes, Attila and Genghis Khan too.

Quote from: Haffrung;1095129Pretty much. There are two reasons why people publicly and conspicuously enforce group values:

1) To shame the transgressors into conforming to group norms.
2) To demonstrate that the person doing the enforcing is a trustworthy and upright member of the group.

There is also a 3rd one. To push an agenda with all too often no real investment in the agenda other than to use it in some monetization scheme or to tear down the competition. And that second one I have seen used quite a bit. Sometimes both together even.

Usually this is when someone will virtue signal while at the same time denouncing someone else. The odds of it being a marketing ploy jump exponentially if the signaller and/or the target are a publisher/company of some sort or just working in the industry. And this is not a new thing. I saw it way too much in the 90s with viscous artist and indie comic wars. But its reared its ugly head in gaming too from video games to RPGs.

Quote from: jhkim;1095215Sure, and you've got a right to behave the way you want, particularly in your own home. I appreciate this as a free speech forum where I can talk to Aglondir about his ethno-nationalism or you about your discomfort with LGBT people.

But I don't think either of those is a good thing, and I'd prefer it if those attitudes didn't exist. My family and friends who are LGBT have had to deal with a lot of crap because of attitudes like this. Particularly when he was younger, I wouldn't want my son being exposed to it, as I consider it a sort or bigotry.

I'm not an ethno-nationalist. I do believe in Western civilization (I.e. reason, scientific inquiry, the innate freedom of humanity, pizza, etc.) and defend it from the current onslaught of SJW attacks. But I don't believe that one race or nation is innately superior or inferior to any other. I do think that some nations do certain things better than others.

Were you thinking of someone else, or am I an ethno-nationalist and just don't realize it?

Quote from: Opaopajr;1095154All those '70s music videos made me wonder how people watched them back in the heyday.

Off topic: Various TV stations would have a "music video" hour, or more late night. One of our locals way back had a thing for old RKO type movie serieals. Spy Smasher, Radar Men from the Moon, Flash Gordon, and so on.

Thanks for the answers about the 1970s music videos everbody! I always wondered who the audience were for those cool music videos like 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'Pressure', etc. And in fact I find the idea of local channel late night programming discretion a rather gameable tidbit, for everything from White Wolf Changeling inspiration to Vampire encoded warnings.

"When UHF channel 56 repeats late night broadcasts of 'The Wolf-Man' we are having a Lupine attack, 'Dancing Queen' a Changeling attack. Seek shelter and report to the Sheriff when you can by week's end."

-------------------

As for my games, I am quite open and happy to have a diverse cast of NPCs if my demographics warrant it. That said, Jeff's example above is good to illustrate how NOT to incorporate such knowledge naturally. And sadly too many adventure modules seem to go this lazy route to give contextually extraneous concrete detail.

I prefer letting the personality, mannerisms, and dialogue chatter to SHOW rather than TELL any non-player character nuance beyond the immediate exchange. Then it is up to the players to pursue social exploration of these as they see fit. If they are laser focused on the adventure at hand, and miss out on some helpful (but not mission critical) insightful clues, such is life. But it is there for my interest in greater setting depth -- like garnishes and condiments at a buffet.

If I were to redo the above examples, I would put such tidbits under "personality:", "flavor:", or "private:" sub-headings of the NPC write-up. I might even offer extra side-quests, XP, or in-game benefits (knowledge, rumors, favors, etc.) if players tap into them them. But I would not make it a run-on sentence of TMI (too much information); I don't want to make it seem all NPCs are at a bizarre confessional...

Quote from: Opaopajr;1095142As long as 'you can dance' to the Swedish national anthem -- "Dancing Queen," by ABBA -- you're a-ok by me. "... haa-ving the time of your liiiiife. oooh yeah..."

I see we've found another hate criminal.

The Gulag is gonna be full very soon...

Quote from: Opaopajr;1095233As for my games, I am quite open and happy to have a diverse cast of NPCs if my demographics warrant it. That said, Jeff's example above is good to illustrate how NOT to incorporate such knowledge naturally. And sadly too many adventure modules seem to go this lazy route to give contextually extraneous concrete detail.

I prefer letting the personality, mannerisms, and dialogue chatter to SHOW rather than TELL any non-player character nuance beyond the immediate exchange. Then it is up to the players to pursue social exploration of these as they see fit. If they are laser focused on the adventure at hand, and miss out on some helpful (but not mission critical) insightful clues, such is life. But it is there for my interest in greater setting depth -- like garnishes and condiments at a buffet.

If I were to redo the above examples, I would put such tidbits under "personality:", "flavor:", or "private:" sub-headings of the NPC write-up. I might even offer extra side-quests, XP, or in-game benefits (knowledge, rumors, favors, etc.) if players tap into them them. But I would not make it a run-on sentence of TMI (too much information); I don't want to make it seem all NPCs are at a bizarre confessional...

Bolding mine, because I want to make a side note here. If you are using "show, don't tell", please don't be crass about it and go for the ridiculous stereotypes. Gay characters will not all be flamboyant nellie queens. Lesbian characters will not all be overmuscled women who act like dudebros nor will they all be beautiful hypersexual swimsuit models who like to lure men into dark alleys and kill them. Same goes for racial stereotypes. When the ridiculous stereotypes start being used then the character likely destroys the immersion in the game because it then becomes a parody.

For example, lets go back to the gay bartender and his partner the server. To tip off the players that they are a gay couple, have the characters notice that when the server picks up four mugs of ale from the bartender, he gives the bartender a quick kiss. Obvious (for the perceptive) and subtle while maintaining the integrity of the characters believability because it wasn't shoe-horned in and forced or made a parody.

There is a way to do this without being a ham-fisted and turning the minority character into a token.

Quote from: cranebump;1095210Just to be clear, I already said I didn't think white dudes were actively gatekeeping the hobby. I just said it's a white dude's game (but less so these days). I didn't even say that was a bad thing. But it is a thing.

Its interesting you assert that people's backgrounds are too diverse to be meaningful, then, at the same time, assert that women and blacks have respective common reasons for not gaming. Which is it? Nothing in common, or a general conspiracy? And I'm interested to know where you're hearing the "traitor to the race" thing because that, forgive me, just sounds like made up bullshit.

On the whole, I'd agree that It's reasonable to say that each person's experiences are different. It's unreasonable, however, to deny that certain cultures have had a similar history, which can lead to some commonalities in perspective that might be worth my while to know. In that, I think cosmetics can lead to a more shared experience that you'd think. I say this after reading "Between the World and Me," "The Fire Next Time," "Invisible Man," "The Autobiography of Malcolm X," and various poetry by black authors. There's a shared culture there that's certainly different from mine. I cannot, unfortunately vouch for having the experience manifest at my table, but I can say my own understanding is enriched by the readings.

I can't say I've ever discussed race with my black friends, none of whom play D&D.  If we did play together, I feel like we're really not there for a history/culture lesson. I mean, I'm just looking for some good people to game with. We can talk that other stuff outside the monster bashing. I think we're on the same page here, at least. The difference is I'm not going to slam diversity advocates because I know some populations have been shut out of much more important enterprises than stupid elf games. I don't see hypocrisy in their intention, but rather misplaced priorities. A bunch of bearded old grogs isn't doing anything other than wasting their own damned time.

P.S. I do indeed recall when members of the Religious Right (and others) attempting to make everyone stop gaming (which drove up sales, fittingly). Same thing happened with comics when I was a kid. And that's how stacks of what would now be vintage 1970s comics got tossed into a dumpster when I was 12.

Let me introduce you to the radical concept that women and men like different things, there were women in the hobby, the geek ones, most women weren't interested in it. What is similar in the experience of those two groups?

Let me introduce you to the concept of class, people that grew on the ghetto (or the barrio in my case) didn't have the same experiences than the rich ones, even if they share a skin color. Different tastes in music, food, and different interests in entertainment too.

Let me introduce you to the concept of peer pressure (very important the younger you are and in the ghetto/barrio) Humans are tribal, women even more so, for a woman being rejected by her peers is worst than for a man. This is evolutionary, so even if they wanted they didn't because of peer pressure.

Now selecting on the basis of sex, sexuality or race, how is that ensuring me I get the "true" experience of group X? Geeks have more in common with other geeks regardless of their sex, sexuality or race.

Now please goon and keep making the race realist argument, I find it funny.

Quote from: BronzeDragon;1095240I see we've found another hate criminal.

The Gulag is gonna be full very soon...

Busting a nut in a stripper while listening to ABBA's Waterloo is a transcendental experience!  

Quote from: jeff37923;1095244Busting a nut in a stripper while listening to ABBA's Waterloo is a transcendental experience!  

I'm seriously considering Spinachcat's idea of cooking and eating you. I hope you like pepper and onions.

Anyway, as to the OP...who the hell cares? My first group was a bunch of 12-year-olds in a military base, and here in Brazil that means every possible ethnicity you can imagine. No idea if any of them were/would be gay, and frankly nobody cared.

I moved cities a total of 5 times before I was 18, and three more times after that, which means I got to live in almost every region of my country for at least a couple of years, and met all sorts of people and gamed with every one that wanted to game. On a few of the groups there were girls, but mostly it was men, because doing nerdy things like playing RPGs was seen by most people as retarded or socially beneath them, and most girls would not be caught dead mingling with the nerds. As for sexuality, nobody cared. Nobody asked, nobody volunteered the information and even when it was obvious someone was gay, nobody made an issue of it, because it wasn't an issue.

Never gamed with a transexual because, honestly, they are super fucking rare. And most of the ones that do exist are prostitutes or hairdressers, not generally groups of people interested in nerdy gaming. If one somehow got to know our group of friends and showed interest in gaming, nobody would mind, because nobody gives a shit.

That's it, essentially.

Quote from: jhkim;1095215But I don't think either of those is a good thing, and I'd prefer it if those attitudes didn't exist. My family and friends who are LGBT have had to deal with a lot of crap because of attitudes like this. Particularly when he was younger, I wouldn't want my son being exposed to it, as I consider it a sort or bigotry.

I suspect what the issue today - is not yours particularly, but those that are in the politically active LGBT/SJW/"allied" crowd is the fact that they want to passive-aggressively *force* people to accept their behavior as "normal" when in fact, it's not. By definition. It's an outlier.

This doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated well as humans. But it flies in the face of cultural values that simply can't sustain pretending that the way Americans in, say in San Francisco and LA celebrate "Gay Pride" in their parades, where it's highly sexual in nature - should be somehow embraced by those that don't practice such things. I would no more support a sexual parade *in general* as some expression of pride, if only for the sake of not wanting to subject my kids to it (well my kids are grown now - but you get the idea.)

How invested are we *supposed* to be, to your satisfaction of not "preferring" those attitudes to exist? Where exactly is that line to be drawn where YOU say "Yeah, well whatever?". And should gays likewise be exuberant about Heterosexuality too? If not, why not?

Or is this about some passive-aggressive impulse about "revenge" masquerading as "justice"? Smells like it.

Quote from: Kiero;1095100Unfortunately, in Britain we are closer, culturally, to the US. What happens there is upstream of us, thus we now have our own "Black Lives Matters" movement, even though most of their charges are utterly irrelevant in Britain.

Our history on race is very different to the US, what with being the leading power in the fight against Transatlantic slavery. (snip)

Unsurprisingly, the British approached the abolition of slavery in a civilised manner, marshalling institutions and building support for the subsequent abolition via act of parliament for this most heinous crime against humanity.

By contrast, the Americans approached the issue with violence. A war was fought over a tax dispute (much like the rebellion against legitimate British rule in the prior century) and, in order to destroy the economy of the vanquished, slavery was simply declared ended. No institutions were involved. There was no hint that the war involved the issue of slavery. It was simply ended overnight without a framework being put in place to ensure that this enjoyed popular support etc....

The net result? The slavery issue, in reality, took another century to resolve. Slavery might not have existed but the ugly holdovers of that time continued well into the late 20th century. Heck, we're still seeing the matter of reparations being discussed by the economic vandals who think that debasing a currency is sound economic policy.

TL;DR: The USA is a third world country pretending to be first world. That means weird stuff happens on a regular basis that makes no sense to those of us who enjoy the fruits of civilisation.

Quote from: tenbones;1095248I suspect what the issue today - is not yours particularly, but those that are in the politically active LGBT/SJW/"allied" crowd is the fact that they want to passive-aggressively *force* people to accept their behavior as "normal" when in fact, it's not. By definition. It's an outlier.

This doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated well as humans. But it flies in the face of cultural values that simply can't sustain pretending that the way Americans in, say in San Francisco and LA celebrate "Gay Pride" in their parades, where it's highly sexual in nature - should be somehow embraced by those that don't practice such things. I would no more support a sexual parade *in general* as some expression of pride, if only for the sake of not wanting to subject my kids to it (well my kids are grown now - but you get the idea.)

How invested are we *supposed* to be, to your satisfaction of not "preferring" those attitudes to exist? Where exactly is that line to be drawn where YOU say "Yeah, well whatever?". And should gays likewise be exuberant about Heterosexuality too? If not, why not?

Or is this about some passive-aggressive impulse about "revenge" masquerading as "justice"? Smells like it.

I cannot control how someone chooses to live his or her life, or what he or she believes in. Nor would I want to. However, the normalisation of these "outlying" behaviours, which have traditionally been held to be mental illnesses rather than bad biological wiring, has major effects for the most vulnerable in society - children. It's child abuse with horrible ramifications for later in life when they wake up and realise they've been deluded.

It's a crime that approaches paedophilia in terms of damage inflicted on the most vulnerable in our societies and should be treated as such. (And, no, I don't mean, "covered up so powerful people don't get thrown in jail.")

But the LBTQABCDEFGHIJKLM community should be treated with kindness because, ultimately, they're people and people should be treated with kindness. Unless, of course, their behaviour threatens the physical or mental health of my children, family, and/or friends. And, yes, that means I would game with them, just as I game with people whose political or economic views are opposed to mine.

Quote from: Aglondir;1095225Were you thinking of someone else, or am I an ethno-nationalist and just don't realize it?

My apologies, Aglondir. That was a name slip-up on my part. I meant to say Alathon, who described himself as an ethno-nationalist.

I'll go back and edit that to correct my mistake.