TheRPGSite

The new shinny is Accesibility Cantrips...

5E D&D has become the US college town that the players are playing in with the serial numbers filed off.

Thank God for the Lego sex preferences study.

"colour" lens for dyslexia?

I don't think dyslexia works that way.

God, these idiots are getting worse and worse.

Amount of posts before jhkim shows up says (paraphrasing) "well actually it was 2e with their moral panic that (blah, blah, blah) that started it..."

I'm guessing we don't even get off page one before a reply.

I would think this would be problematic for two reasons.

Firstly, the ongoing complaint about how spellcasters get to do everything leaving the less privileged, magically deficient characters unfairly  marginalized by the magicarchy.

Secondly, that being disabled is something that needs to be corrected for by the disabled person and not accommodated for by GM/game rules/monsters/gods/universe.  Like all NPOs and monsters need to know sign language.

A more proper magical spell would be "Magic Mouth and Hands", allowing the magic mouth to also sign for the deaf.

But are they reversable?

From the title I thought it would be much worse.  Something like: "The combat tampon" + berserker mode is the "The bloody combat tampon".  I would not be surprised if that gets made by the fuckwads.

I've seen some dumb stuff in my time, but this takes the cake.

(https://i.giphy.com/9EwnzGNjvmIG4.gif)

But also, this is like...pandering bullshit?

Quote from: David Johansen on April 04, 2024, 08:51:08 PM
But are they reversable?

I owe you a beer for this one.

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* You see? The Stupid Train these Woke morons have just keeps going, never stopping.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I roll to disbelieve.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 04, 2024, 04:19:07 PM
The new shinny is Accesibility Cantrips...

Please tell me that isn't real....

Quote from: blackstone on April 04, 2024, 11:06:51 PM
I roll to disbelieve.

The wheelchair icon on the cover leads me to believe it's a troll.
But ya never know...

Wait?  So if these "Disability Cantrips" require a cantrip slot does that mean they've put an ability cost on disabled characters?  I mean if "Stairs To Gentle No Slip Ramp With Railing" costs a wheel chair bound character a cantrip slot they're deliberately punishing that character in the mechanics for their disability.  Should Halflings have to take "Reach High Shelf" are you saying short people can't reach high shelves?  Why are you charging a premium to play a short character?  Good heavens! What abelist nonsense!

Quote from: brettmb on April 04, 2024, 09:25:17 PM
I've seen some dumb stuff in my time, but this takes the cake.

Give em time. It will get worse.

Soooooo. Isnt making cantrips to "cure" handicaps supposed to be "abliest?"

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 04, 2024, 04:50:29 PM
"colour" lens for dyslexia?

I don't think dyslexia works that way.

Actually it does. My partner has dyslexia and she and other dyslexics she knows can read better off different coloured backgrounds. For her yellow is best, for others blue works better.

Sounds weird, but it does actually work in many cases.

Quote from: Omega on April 05, 2024, 04:49:36 AM

Quote from: brettmb on April 04, 2024, 09:25:17 PM
I've seen some dumb stuff in my time, but this takes the cake.

Give em time. It will get worse.

In the end all characteristics and numbers will be replaced with a short character description and the character sheet will be dominated by a 27 gender option block.  All characters will be required to be non-white, non-christian, and from a non-eurocentric background.  Conflicts in game will be resolved by cancelling, converting, and quoting Oprah.  There will be no dungeons but love dungeons and no dragons but faerie dragons but the name of the game and the title of DM will remain.

Quote from: Omega on April 05, 2024, 04:50:50 AMSoooooo. Isnt making cantrips to "cure" handicaps supposed to be "abliest?"

You would think. These are the same dumbells that claim no spells shy of Regeneration could fix damaged eyeballs, a broken back or whatnot.

 ;D I kinda love it at the same time as it offends my sensibilities. There's probably a word for that in German.

Quote from: Skullking on April 05, 2024, 07:13:52 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 04, 2024, 04:50:29 PM
"colour" lens for dyslexia?

I don't think dyslexia works that way.

Actually it does. My partner has dyslexia and she and other dyslexics she knows can read better off different coloured backgrounds. For her yellow is best, for others blue works better.

Sounds weird, but it does actually work in many cases.

Huh. Well, I stand corrected on that point.

I was going to make a thread about how one would make playing a physically disabled character viable, but why would magic not already be acessible? Is there a person out there arguing that dnd's magic casting system is ableist?

At this point I'm just going to put all disabled characters in a mech suit.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fd6%2Fdb%2Fca%2Fd6dbca7f56d8597cdbd4b93e6f200f3f.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ac4a2f789e3135bca1cb885bf979544680a09dc63310d153bb501ef61bced995&ipo=images

I actually find this totally plausible.  Someone with a disability and the ability to cast spells could well develop a cantrip of no use to people who aren't gimped.  Unlike the combat wheelchair- which is implausible because people who can't walk either wouldn't adventure or would pay for magical healing, and is clearly meant to rudely insert real world stuff into the game- this stuff is just way less aggressive.

It's still being done for bad reasons though.

Screw magic healing, just learn magic jar.

Quote from: Venka on April 05, 2024, 03:29:03 PM
I actually find this totally plausible.  Someone with a disability and the ability to cast spells could well develop a cantrip of no use to people who aren't gimped.  Unlike the combat wheelchair- which is implausible because people who can't walk either wouldn't adventure or would pay for magical healing, and is clearly meant to rudely insert real world stuff into the game- this stuff is just way less aggressive.

It's still being done for bad reasons though.

In a Pseudo-Medieval setting someone with Dislexia would be considered retarded, heck, not so long ago this was still true.

But I agree, this is a better solution to disabilities, except it should be something that permanently erases it, since we're dealing with magic.

Quote from: Crazy_Blue_Haired_Chick on April 05, 2024, 03:01:54 PM
I was going to make a thread about how one would make playing a physically disabled character viable, but why would magic not already be acessible? Is there a person out there arguing that dnd's magic casting system is ableist?

At this point I'm just going to put all disabled characters in a mech suit.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fd6%2Fdb%2Fca%2Fd6dbca7f56d8597cdbd4b93e6f200f3f.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ac4a2f789e3135bca1cb885bf979544680a09dc63310d153bb501ef61bced995&ipo=images

Handicapped adventurers works in a setting where curative magic is few and far between. Or very expensive.

Also works for situations where essentially "This is all we got to throw at the problem." And hope to whatever gods you worship that it does not involve a swamp, the snow, or rough terrain. Stairs, ledges, ladders, etc because then someone in the party is gonna have to carry them.

But no. The moral parasites cant ever see that sort of subtly and it is always some ham handed and demeaning "representation!"

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 05, 2024, 04:54:52 PM

Quote from: Venka on April 05, 2024, 03:29:03 PM
I actually find this totally plausible.  Someone with a disability and the ability to cast spells could well develop a cantrip of no use to people who aren't gimped.  Unlike the combat wheelchair- which is implausible because people who can't walk either wouldn't adventure or would pay for magical healing, and is clearly meant to rudely insert real world stuff into the game- this stuff is just way less aggressive.

It's still being done for bad reasons though.

In a Pseudo-Medieval setting someone with Dislexia would be considered retarded, heck, not so long ago this was still true.

I suppose that depends on the literacy rate. If almost no one can read anyway, seems like it wouldn't be much of an issue.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 06, 2024, 09:47:18 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 05, 2024, 04:54:52 PM

Quote from: Venka on April 05, 2024, 03:29:03 PM
I actually find this totally plausible.  Someone with a disability and the ability to cast spells could well develop a cantrip of no use to people who aren't gimped.  Unlike the combat wheelchair- which is implausible because people who can't walk either wouldn't adventure or would pay for magical healing, and is clearly meant to rudely insert real world stuff into the game- this stuff is just way less aggressive.

It's still being done for bad reasons though.

I'm starting to think that disability is too complex to simulate in a system that doesn't have rules allowing you to smack people with your tail.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Ff0%2Ff4%2F78%2Ff0f4785983bccd6ed996094bb78ca622.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b2097ca6c0f0c604d12e15d4ea506ca96ba1e59c2ea37cadc92ddf2169c67de4&ipo=images)

In a Pseudo-Medieval setting someone with Dislexia would be considered retarded, heck, not so long ago this was still true.

I suppose that depends on the literacy rate. If almost no one can read anyway, seems like it wouldn't be much of an issue.

WOTC should just say that everyone is now cured, healed, and made whole.  All characters are now normal, and ready to start exploring some dungeons!!!  ::)

I've said it before but I'm never averse to repeating myself: It's the desire to see one's experiences of real-life obstacles represented through the character without those experiences actually being an obstacle to the character, because the goal is the simultaneous validation of one's real experience as "enough" while still investing in the fantasized experience of transcending the limits of that experience.

If this is an option some groups can make work for their own satisfying entertainment, more power to them. I don't object to products like this, only to the moral browbeating that always turns up in their marketing (like the "ableist" accusation that conflates acknowledging practical limits with implications of diminished personal worth).

They practically do that already with PCs.

Ok. the new site system is already getting on my nerves.

QuoteWOTC should just say that everyone is now cured, healed, and made whole.  All characters are now normal, and ready to start exploring some dungeons!!!  ::)

They practically do that already with PCs.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 13, 2024, 02:49:34 PMI've said it before but I'm never averse to repeating myself: It's the desire to see one's experiences of real-life obstacles represented through the character without those experiences actually being an obstacle to the character, because the goal is the simultaneous validation of one's real experience as "enough" while still investing in the fantasized experience of transcending the limits of that experience.

If this is an option some groups can make work for their own satisfying entertainment, more power to them. I don't object to products like this, only to the moral browbeating that always turns up in their marketing (like the "ableist" accusation that conflates acknowledging practical limits with implications of diminished personal worth).

This is the best take of the whole bunch. Also describes why I detest these sort of things in the games I play. I'm looking for a different sort of experience which is broken by these sort of real-life inclusions. Wanting to solve puzzles, loot dungeons, and explore an escapist fantasy realm is a totally different sort of experience. The worst part about WOTC in my mind is the pandering to (in my mind) a completely different sort of experience while using the hollowed out husk of the prior experience to sell it.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 05, 2024, 12:25:49 AM

Quote from: blackstone on April 04, 2024, 11:06:51 PMI roll to disbelieve.

The wheelchair icon on the cover leads me to believe it's a troll.

Leaning that direction myself.

Quote from: Skullking on April 05, 2024, 07:13:52 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 04, 2024, 04:50:29 PM"colour" lens for dyslexia?

I don't think dyslexia works that way.

Actually it does. My partner has dyslexia and she and other dyslexics she knows can read better off different coloured backgrounds. For her yellow is best, for others blue works better.

It may be parallel to but not directly related to dyslexia, as other folks like sharpshooters use yellow lenses to help with their accuracy.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 13, 2024, 02:49:34 PMI've said it before but I'm never averse to repeating myself: It's the desire to see one's experiences of real-life obstacles represented through the character without those experiences actually being an obstacle to the character, because the goal is the simultaneous validation of one's real experience as "enough" while still investing in the fantasized experience of transcending the limits of that experience.

Problem is it's potentially triggering for the folks who don't want to be reminded of their limits during play, frustrating for the folks who don't want their immersive experience disrupted by incongruous elements, and it creates a weird ownership dynamic where only players with particular conditions can claim authority over what those conditions imply. Ultimately a choice between maintaining the fictional integrity of the setting and validating a player's lived experiences must be made when they are in opposition, and unless those priorities are clear someone's gonna have a bad time.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on June 27, 2024, 05:45:23 PMUltimately a choice between maintaining the fictional integrity of the setting and validating a player's lived experiences must be made when they are in opposition, and unless those priorities are clear someone's gonna have a bad time.

To be fair, if that's exactly what products like this are trying to do -- i.e. support players in creating settings where the fictional integrity and their desired validations don't have to be in opposition -- then in and of itself I've never had a problem with that, as an optional goal of play.

It's the ongoing implication (and occasional outright assertion) that neglecting to actively include PCs and NPCs who require such support is a moral flaw on the part of those who don't to which I object. This is entertainment, not Sunday school.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 13, 2024, 02:49:34 PMI've said it before but I'm never averse to repeating myself: It's the desire to see one's experiences of real-life obstacles represented through the character without those experiences actually being an obstacle to the character, because the goal is the simultaneous validation of one's real experience as "enough" while still investing in the fantasized experience of transcending the limits of that experience.

Trying to think of a shorthand for this. Disability theater?

Quote from: Aglondir on June 29, 2024, 01:05:26 AM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 13, 2024, 02:49:34 PM...the goal is the simultaneous validation of one's real experience as "enough" while still investing in the fantasized experience of transcending the limits of that experience.

Trying to think of a shorthand for this. Disability theater?

I favour the term "escapism therapy" myself. On at least some level, for some people, the intent is sincerely to help people come to terms with their issues.

That this subsequently gets capitalized on by others who can't resist the power rush of moral browbeating is not the fault of those who mean well.

This is why we play Rifts or Star Wars.  If you're maimed, just buy some cybernetics. 

If your character has an IQ of a potato, just RP that or I'll kick you out of the game group.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on June 29, 2024, 01:46:09 AM

Quote from: Aglondir on June 29, 2024, 01:05:26 AM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on April 13, 2024, 02:49:34 PM...the goal is the simultaneous validation of one's real experience as "enough" while still investing in the fantasized experience of transcending the limits of that experience.

Trying to think of a shorthand for this. Disability theater?

I favour the term "escapism therapy" myself. On at least some level, for some people, the intent is sincerely to help people come to terms with their issues.

That this subsequently gets capitalized on by others who can't resist the power rush of moral browbeating is not the fault of those who mean well.

Unless "those who mean well" are certified therapists their intentions are irrelevant.

Apparently, the women of 6E have all become blobs with legs. I mean, I'm fat, but I sure as Hell don't want to PLAY a fat adventurer. This art is, quite frankly, fucking godawful. Whomever approved this should be tarred and feathered. I sincerely, and with all my heart, hope this new edition crashes and burns and WotC has to eat a massive bag of dicks.

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on July 03, 2024, 12:25:52 AMApparently, the women of 6E have all become blobs with legs. I mean, I'm fat, but I sure as Hell don't want to PLAY a fat adventurer. This art is, quite frankly, fucking godawful. Whomever approved this should be tarred and feathered. I sincerely, and with all my heart, hope this new edition crashes and burns and WotC has to eat a massive bag of dicks.

I agree the art is terrible. That being said, I've coached rugby for 20 years and have seen some seriously tough, athletic "blobs with legs" who will flat run your ass over. Men and women both. Meanwhile, some of the least athletic and frankly softest (in terms of physical courage) players I ever coached were body builders. The general rule in my experience is greater vanity correlates to lesser ability.

So while I have no issue with fat adventurers, I don't find them much fun to look at. Unless we get art of one stiff arming an orc in the face!

Which is my real gripe about the art so far - static, boring, cute. No drama, no conflict, no tension, no menace. It evokes kittens and hugs and fresh-baked cookies, not adventure.

Quote from: Festus on July 03, 2024, 11:30:51 PM

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on July 03, 2024, 12:25:52 AMApparently, the women of 6E have all become blobs with legs. I mean, I'm fat, but I sure as Hell don't want to PLAY a fat adventurer. This art is, quite frankly, fucking godawful. Whomever approved this should be tarred and feathered. I sincerely, and with all my heart, hope this new edition crashes and burns and WotC has to eat a massive bag of dicks.

I agree the art is terrible. That being said, I've coached rugby for 20 years and have seen some seriously tough, athletic "blobs with legs" who will flat run your ass over. Men and women both. Meanwhile, some of the least athletic and frankly softest (in terms of physical courage) players I ever coached were body builders. The general rule in my experience is greater vanity correlates to lesser ability.

So while I have no issue with fat adventurers, I don't find them much fun to look at. Unless we get art of one stiff arming an orc in the face!

Which is my real gripe about the art so far - static, boring, cute. No drama, no conflict, no tension, no menace. It evokes kittens and hugs and fresh-baked cookies, not adventure.

I played a little rugby and I think I know what you mean. In fairness, you can usually spot the difference between "fat but tough" and just "fat". It's a bit hard to explain it beyond "you know it when you see it", a bit like the difference between "fat" and "thicc" I suppose. Just like how you can draw a strong character (male or female) without making them look either ugly or like a body builder.

Like you say, though, the intent here was clearly not to illustrate either strong of tough characters. The vibe they're going for is "happy fantasy fun times", and I'm genuinely not sure why.  This aesthetic isn't popular in any other medium, and I find it hard to believe that the market research said this is what zoomers like. Even their biggest competitor in Pathfinder 2, which also has pretty lackluster art, seems to mostly still be trying to make the characters look heroic.

I like anuthor Andy Weir's description of main characters.  They're people you want to be, or sleep with.

I'm playing games to do cool stuff I can't actually do. 

Being out of shape is not on my to-do list. 

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on July 03, 2024, 12:25:52 AMApparently, the women of 6E have all become blobs with legs. I mean, I'm fat, but I sure as Hell don't want to PLAY a fat adventurer. This art is, quite frankly, fucking godawful. Whomever approved this should be tarred and feathered. I sincerely, and with all my heart, hope this new edition crashes and burns and WotC has to eat a massive bag of dicks.

The people making this new tragic pile of crap have no idea what D&D is about, or even what adventure in general is all about. Monsters are becoming just someone different that you might invite over for tea & biscuits and adventurers just sit around all day getting fat and worrying about their love lives. The art in this version looks like it belongs in the joke GURPS supplement BURPS Folks- yes you too can play an ordinary loser like the ones you see every day at work, while shopping, or across the gaming table! A lot of the pieces actually look like corporate schlock with an AI fantasy veneer. I believe uninspiring would be rather charitable. This is what you get when you put fat lesbians in charge of the art. Any female who is depicted remotely fit & attractive is "oversexualized" even if shown wearing a nun's habit.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on June 27, 2024, 08:43:16 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on June 27, 2024, 05:45:23 PMUltimately a choice between maintaining the fictional integrity of the setting and validating a player's lived experiences must be made when they are in opposition, and unless those priorities are clear someone's gonna have a bad time.

To be fair, if that's exactly what products like this are trying to do -- i.e. support players in creating settings where the fictional integrity and their desired validations don't have to be in opposition -- then in and of itself I've never had a problem with that, as an optional goal of play.

It's the ongoing implication (and occasional outright assertion) that neglecting to actively include PCs and NPCs who require such support is a moral flaw on the part of those who don't to which I object. This is entertainment, not Sunday school.

Except they are doing it at the expense of the majority of players that have decades of time invested in these products, who are now being demonized for not wanting these "experiences" shoved down their throat in the products, and worse for voicing their opinions on it in social media or in person at public events.

The problem is not that the product is trying to represent these experiences for these outlier weirdos, it's that the brand has been co-opted by them, and we're watching it happen in real-time across all of pop-culture for purposes other than actual entertainment.

It might be entertaining for the weirdos - but then that would be defending the purpose of having a nude tea-party in the middle of the Super-Bowl because those weirdos think it's more fun, and claiming "This is now American Football." now all you NFL fans can go fuck off with your tea-phobic views.

This is why I'm in the camp that says - we'll just see if the weirdos can sustain this shit. In the meanwhile, we'll be playing ball over here with the regular folks.

Quote from: tenbones on July 05, 2024, 10:00:06 AMThe problem is not that the product is trying to represent these experiences for these outlier weirdos, it's that the brand has been co-opted by them, and we're watching it happen in real-time across all of pop-culture for purposes other than actual entertainment.

Without disagreeing that the frequency and volume of content aimed at fringe-interest groups is increasing, I have to wonder if declaring the brand to have been wholly co-opted is quite reasonable yet. Roleplaying games have over fifty years of history and an immense collected volume of products, most of which is still available exactly as originally printed (or likely to become so available from, er, let's call them "enterprising amateur distributors" if demand gets high enough); the rush of Current Year items has a long way to go before it can match that, either for volume or longevity.

(As Elmore Leonard said when asked what he thought of how Hollywood movie adaptations had changed his books, "Nobody changed my books. They're right up there on the shelf.")

That said, you may well be right about the basic clash of goals here. Ultimately the problem is the difficulty of finding a middle ground between players who don't want to have to pay an extra surcharge for supplements so they can be explicitly acknowledged and included, and players who don't want to have to pay for core products that include too much content for which they have no interest or use at the expense of content they can use. Even though nowadays it might actually be economically feasible, via PDFs and electronic distribution, to create separate versions of core game products customized to the wishes of differing groups, the problem is that the bad-faith rabble rousers more interested in provoking conflict than resolving it will only throw tantrums at any hint of "separate but equal". It is this last group I particularly dislike and resent.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 05, 2024, 04:14:20 PM

Quote from: tenbones on July 05, 2024, 10:00:06 AMThe problem is not that the product is trying to represent these experiences for these outlier weirdos, it's that the brand has been co-opted by them, and we're watching it happen in real-time across all of pop-culture for purposes other than actual entertainment.

Without disagreeing that the frequency and volume of content aimed at fringe-interest groups is increasing, I have to wonder if declaring the brand to have been wholly co-opted is quite reasonable yet. Roleplaying games have over fifty years of history and an immense collected volume of products, most of which is still available exactly as originally printed (or likely to become so available from, er, let's call them "enterprising amateur distributors" if demand gets high enough); the rush of Current Year items has a long way to go before it can match that, either for volume or longevity.

(As Elmore Leonard said when asked what he thought of how Hollywood movie adaptations had changed his books, "Nobody changed my books. They're right up there on the shelf.")

That said, you may well be right about the basic clash of goals here. Ultimately the problem is the difficulty of finding a middle ground between players who don't want to have to pay an extra surcharge for supplements so they can be explicitly acknowledged and included, and players who don't want to have to pay for core products that include too much content for which they have no interest or use at the expense of content they can use. Even though nowadays it might actually be economically feasible, via PDFs and electronic distribution, to create separate versions of core game products customized to the wishes of differing groups, the problem is that the bad-faith rabble rousers more interested in provoking conflict than resolving it will only throw tantrums at any hint of "separate but equal". It is this last group I particularly dislike and resent.

Citing older editions as proof that WotC and therefore D&D haven't been wholly co-opted is kinda disingenuous, yeah they can't change my books, not because they don't want to, but because those are in my possession and beyond their reach.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 05, 2024, 06:16:55 PMCiting older editions as proof that WotC and therefore D&D haven't been wholly co-opted is kinda disingenuous....

I wasn't intending to be. By "brand" I thought you were talking about RPGs in general as a hobby, not D&D and WotC specifically.

I certainly don't have a high opinion of 5E or the current Wizards management, I just don't think they represent the entirety of the RPG hobby, or even the entirety of what the hobby considers "D&D". There's too much history for that.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 05, 2024, 09:27:35 AMAny female who is depicted remotely fit & attractive is "oversexualized" even if shown wearing a nun's habit.

That dips into a sexual fetish of its own...

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 05, 2024, 04:14:20 PMAs Elmore Leonard said when asked what he thought of how Hollywood movie adaptations had changed his books, "Nobody changed my books. They're right up there on the shelf."

[somethingsomething] Physical Media [/somethingsomething].

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 05, 2024, 09:04:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 05, 2024, 06:16:55 PMCiting older editions as proof that WotC and therefore D&D haven't been wholly co-opted is kinda disingenuous....

I wasn't intending to be. By "brand" I thought you were talking about RPGs in general as a hobby, not D&D and WotC specifically.

I certainly don't have a high opinion of 5E or the current Wizards management, I just don't think they represent the entirety of the RPG hobby, or even the entirety of what the hobby considers "D&D". There's too much history for that.

So, if I say that Disney has tarnished it's brand you understand I'm talking about ALL of Hollyweird?

Let's try with other example: "Ford has tarnished it's brand" Am I talking about ALL car manufacturers?

It might be my Assburguers but I fail to see how can anyone read D&D/WotC and thin we're talking about RPGs in general, except maybe a normie?

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 05, 2024, 04:14:20 PMUltimately the problem is the difficulty of finding a middle ground between players who don't want to have to pay an extra surcharge for supplements so they can be explicitly acknowledged and included...

And there it is.  See, part of what makes the cooption so abrasive is the sense of entitlement and arrogance of these game-tourists.  People who have never been accommodating or tolerant now demand we change the games we've been playing for decades in the name of those principles they have no intention of extending to us.

Allow me to be very clear.  No one explicitly acknowledged or included me in D&D. Ever.  I've played D&D with friends, family, and total strangers.  I've played in home groups, public groups, organized play, and conventions.  None of them "explicitly acknowledged and included" me.  Most didn't know anything about me at all, as that was our first meeting.  But we all shared a love of the game and a desire to play.  So our games were far more "inclusive" than modern political activists' declarations, because I've played games with every color, sex, and culture.    All because the only thing that mattered was that they wanted to play the game.

No game company ever "explicitly acknowledged and included" me, either.  They made the games they wanted to play, and we either played them or changed them or made our own.  Did some games default to heterosexual, male heroism?  Sure.  But that's not because the designers "saw" me.  It's because that was either who the designer was, or who he knew would buy the game.

So, when these people declare a need to be "seen," they are demanding something I never got.  They aren't making something new.  They aren't adding to the universe of gaming.  They are demanding that the games I play change to explicitly cater to their "needs" (which is also infuriating, since they don't "need" any more than I did).  That's arrogance and narcissism.  So, no.  Go make your new game if you need to be "seen."  Pay more for your gay prom adventure set in magic high school.  That's the cost of being "seen."

Don't come to my dance party and tell me that I have to change the music to make you feel more "comfortable," especially when you have no desire to play music that I like at your own parties.  These people aren't poor little victims that need to be "seen"; they're bullies who want to take everyone else's stuff under the moral pretense of not being "acknowledged."  Screw that noise.

Do dungeons now need to have handicap-accessible bathrooms, so handicapped people can make a trip to the can?  Can toilet paper be hidden in a treasure chest, or is that ableist to not have it right there in the can?

Quote from: Cathode Ray on July 07, 2024, 03:31:51 PMDo dungeons now need to have handicap-accessible bathrooms, so handicapped people can make a trip to the can?  Can toilet paper be hidden in a treasure chest, or is that ableist to not have it right there in the can?

How dare you!  Don't you know that some cultures don't use toilet paper?  Are you islamaphobic? /s

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 06, 2024, 11:21:56 PMSo, if I say that Disney has tarnished it's brand you understand I'm talking about ALL of Hollyweird?

Not at all. But the original comment I was responding to -- which actually came from tenbones, not yourself -- said simply "brand". Not "D&D brand" or "WotC brand", just "brand".

Once the conversation expands to the idea of disability-advocacy game products in general, rather than the specific product used as the inspiring example, I assume the subject goes beyond specifics. That's most likely my own form of OC hyperfocus -- I always like to drill down to underlying general principles -- but it certainly wasn't meant to be disingenuous; apologies for giving that impression.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 07, 2024, 02:32:57 PMNo one explicitly acknowledged or included me in D&D. Ever. ...Did some games default to heterosexual, male heroism?  Sure.  But that's not because the designers "saw" me.  It's because that was either who the designer was, or who he knew would buy the game.

So, when these people declare a need to be "seen," they are demanding something I never got.

But that's the entire point of that argument. You (in this context including me as well, and most players who don't have these challenges) did get it: you (and I et al) were "seen". We simply never noticed being "seen" (goes the claim) because everybody around us was also getting the same experience, the experience they never got -- i.e. the experience of being assumed to be part of the baseline audience.

We weren't explicitly acknowledged or included, but we didn't need to be because nothing in the games functionally ex-cluded us, in the sense of making characters like us counterproductive to play in the game -- we (meaning characters who shared our own real limitations) were never consistently and regularly on the short end of situations which required actions most people could execute at least moderately well but we couldn't (being able to climb stairs, run fast, see or hear adequately, speak clearly, manipulate objects precisely, read quickly and accurately, respond apropos and coherently, etc.). Fish don't appreciate that their own water is clean if they've never had to swim in dirty waters.

That most of those browbeating others about this are doing it as an excuse to be bullies or sell products, rather than genuine concern for other players, I don't deny. Likewise I fully concede the hypocrisy and narcissism of saying something like, "I just want to feel as 'normal' and 'effective' and 'represented' as anybody else," and then trying to use one's issues as emotional blackmail to gain special priority, commandeer attention, hog the spotlight, and disregard criticism. But people unjustly exploiting an issue doesn't invalidate the issue. If there's a practical way to thread that needle -- to shut down the bullies and narcissists without screwing over players just looking for ways to improve their own gaming experiences -- I still think it's worth trying to find.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 08, 2024, 12:30:58 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 07, 2024, 02:32:57 PMNo one explicitly acknowledged or included me in D&D. Ever. ...Did some games default to heterosexual, male heroism?  Sure.  But that's not because the designers "saw" me.  It's because that was either who the designer was, or who he knew would buy the game.

So, when these people declare a need to be "seen," they are demanding something I never got.

But that's the entire point of that argument. You (in this context including me as well, and most players who don't have these challenges) did get it: you (and I et al) were "seen". We simply never noticed being "seen" (goes the claim) because everybody around us was also getting the same experience, the experience they never got -- i.e. the experience of being assumed to be part of the baseline audience.

We weren't explicitly acknowledged or included, but we didn't need to be because nothing in the games functionally ex-cluded us, in the sense of making characters like us counterproductive to play in the game -- we (meaning characters who shared our own real limitations) were never consistently and regularly on the short end of situations which required actions most people could execute at least moderately well but we couldn't (being able to climb stairs, run fast, see or hear adequately, speak clearly, manipulate objects precisely, read quickly and accurately, respond apropos and coherently, etc.). Fish don't appreciate that their own water is clean if they've never had to swim in dirty waters.

That most of those browbeating others about this are doing it as an excuse to be bullies or sell products, rather than genuine concern for other players, I don't deny. Likewise I fully concede the hypocrisy and narcissism of saying something like, "I just want to feel as 'normal' and 'effective' and 'represented' as anybody else," and then trying to use one's issues as emotional blackmail to gain special priority, commandeer attention, hog the spotlight, and disregard criticism. But people unjustly exploiting an issue doesn't invalidate the issue. If there's a practical way to thread that needle -- to shut down the bullies and narcissists without screwing over players just looking for ways to improve their own gaming experiences -- I still think it's worth trying to find.

When I started playing I was a skinny, four eyes, nerd...

As me how many PCs I built that were skinny, four eyes, nerds?

None, because the game's point isn't to play your exact copy, but to become something you aren't. What was preventing someone with disabilities from playing? No books on braille, but your friends could help you, granted it's harder to play if you don't know how stuff look, but I don't think ANY of the "Muh Represhentashun" advocates are trying to solve any of that.

Being deaf or mute could also present an obstacle, but easier to overcome than blindness, in order to play I mean.

Wheelchairs... well, not being able to walk IRL represents no challenge to be able to play.

The target demographic wasn't "Huwhite, straight, buzzword, buzzword, commie gobledygook, buzzword", it was teens with an imagination that wanted to pretend to be someone/something they weren't.

So, what exactly, was preventing ANYONE from playing pretend "(being able to climb stairs, run fast, see or hear adequately, speak clearly, manipulate objects precisely, read quickly and accurately, respond apropos and coherently, etc.)"?

IF the "advocates" were asking for book in braille, audiobooks, or other stuff that could help them overcome the obstacles they have to be able to play you might have a reason to assume they have good intentions, but they aren't.

If you can't identify with a character unless it's your clone then you're a narcissistic sociopath and I don't want you near me (the royal you). I don't care if you're suffering from some disability, come play pretend, roll some dice and have fun or go away to preach and browbeat somewhere else.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 08, 2024, 12:30:58 PMIf there's a practical way to thread that needle -- to shut down the bullies and narcissists without screwing over players just looking for ways to improve their own gaming experiences -- I still think it's worth trying to find.

There isn't. Any concession made to latter group will always feed the former and encourage them to push for the next step.

The big problem I have with this is that I don't trust the motivations behind it, even of the people you put in the second category. As far as I can tell, this demand to be "seen" didn't exist 15-20 years ago. When diversity first started being pushed hard in media back in the 80s and 90s, the justification was to "combat negative stereotypes" of minorities. Now we live in a world where portraying a negative stereotype of a minority in any major media project will get you tarred and feathered (unless you have certain kinds of social or economic clout) and hey presto, suddenly the justification has changed.

Frankly, I think the bullies taught the other group to think this way, and if they get what they demand, they will then teach them another grievance to have. The only solution is to reject the premise, and try to teach those people that they shouldn't identify solely with their incidental characteristics and don't need to be replicated in fiction in order to be included in it.

Suppose that instead of illustrating the fantasy character in a wheelchair, they did one of those illustrations of a party juxtaposed with the players, and showed a player in a wheelchair playing a fantasy character without that disability. That would still be pandering, but it would be a much more positive message.

Inclusion is a lie. Always has been.

What was fixed by inclusion on TV? Nothing. Racial disparities have gotten worse in this country for the 99% (even if the 1% Hollywood star elites have been rewarded).

It's a distraction from real, actual social issues... like fixing Urban American schools. Fix the dang schools already. You won't need a rigged, racist Quota system if you fixed the dang primary school system!

Nothing is solved with inclusion. Asian Americans are EXCLUDED (especially since they are "White Adjacent")... and yet they succeed. They've never needed inclusion to actually achieve in America. (Like... did I miss all the non-Kung Fu roles for Asian men in Hollywood, or did Asians somehow succeed in this society without racial pandering on TV and the movies?)

Inclusion is just a way for rich 1%er elite Whites to reward their obedient 1%er minority friends while tricking the 99% into thinking that they've solved some injustice in the world... when nothing ever changes for the 99%, ever.

There's ZERO reason for inclusion, and yet we're supposed to treat inclusion for inclusion's sake as a universal good?

It's a lie, like "Transwomen are women" and "Fat is healthy" and "Combat wheelchair man is as capable in melee combat as Able-bodied man".

If you want your fantasy game to be about Fat, Transwoman in a Wheelchair... well, fine. I don't want that product, but I guess there's a market for it somewhere.

/"I didn't leave Dungeons & Dragons... Dungeons & Dragons left me."

Quote from: bromides on July 08, 2024, 02:22:09 PMWhat was fixed by inclusion on TV? Nothing. Racial disparities have gotten worse in this country for the 99% (even if the 1% Hollywood star elites have been rewarded).

It's a distraction from real, actual social issues... like fixing Urban American schools. Fix the dang schools already. You won't need a rigged, racist Quota system if you fixed the dang primary school system!

I agree about quotas and the school system. I don't agree with inclusion in the sense of quotas or equivalent, like a Captain Planet style cast where there is exactly one character each who is Asian, black, Latino, disabled, etc.

On the other hand, some people are pushing the opposite - that there shouldn't be disabled RPG characters at all. The whole discussion over it started me thinking about a Savage Eberron one-shot adventure (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/savage-eberron-and-maimed-veterans/). There's nothing inherently wrong with having disabled characters - and it's been supported in systems like HERO and GURPS for decades.

I would say the balance isn't to kick up a fuss over any disabled RPG character. It's to show good examples of disabled characters to contrast with bad ones.

Quote from: jhkim on July 08, 2024, 03:59:58 PMOn the other hand, some people are pushing the opposite - that there shouldn't be disabled RPG characters at all

Yes. Some of the people on this very forum pushing that just comes across as some sort of New Woke.

Quote from: jhkim on July 08, 2024, 03:59:58 PM

Quote from: bromides on July 08, 2024, 02:22:09 PMWhat was fixed by inclusion on TV? Nothing. Racial disparities have gotten worse in this country for the 99% (even if the 1% Hollywood star elites have been rewarded).

It's a distraction from real, actual social issues... like fixing Urban American schools. Fix the dang schools already. You won't need a rigged, racist Quota system if you fixed the dang primary school system!

I agree about quotas and the school system. I don't agree with inclusion in the sense of quotas or equivalent, like a Captain Planet style cast where there is exactly one character each who is Asian, black, Latino, disabled, etc.

On the other hand, some people are pushing the opposite - that there shouldn't be disabled RPG characters at all. The whole discussion over it started me thinking about a Savage Eberron one-shot adventure (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/savage-eberron-and-maimed-veterans/). There's nothing inherently wrong with having disabled characters - and it's been supported in systems like HERO and GURPS for decades.

I would say the balance isn't to kick up a fuss over any disabled RPG character. It's to show good examples of disabled characters to contrast with bad ones.

Right, and disabled characters in HERO & GURPS have also ZERO repercussions for their disability right?

Jhkim being disingenuous and invocating whataboutism, in other news water is wet.

Quote from: jhkim on July 08, 2024, 03:59:58 PM

Quote from: bromides on July 08, 2024, 02:22:09 PMWhat was fixed by inclusion on TV? Nothing. Racial disparities have gotten worse in this country for the 99% (even if the 1% Hollywood star elites have been rewarded).

It's a distraction from real, actual social issues... like fixing Urban American schools. Fix the dang schools already. You won't need a rigged, racist Quota system if you fixed the dang primary school system!

I agree about quotas and the school system. I don't agree with inclusion in the sense of quotas or equivalent, like a Captain Planet style cast where there is exactly one character each who is Asian, black, Latino, disabled, etc.

On the other hand, some people are pushing the opposite - that there shouldn't be disabled RPG characters at all.

I'd go a step further and there should be no characters at all. And that's due to the current "creatives" being a bunch of creatively bankrupt ideologues who have a political agenda for every thing they do when making a game. I don't want to see their depiction of whites or blacks or asians or mexicans. They're terrible and make me want to hork.
But we can pluck out some egregious examples, like disabled people, and how they're being disingenuous in their means of "inclusion".

QuoteThe whole discussion over it started me thinking about a Savage Eberron one-shot adventure (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/savage-eberron-and-maimed-veterans/). There's nothing inherently wrong with having disabled characters - and it's been supported in systems like HERO and GURPS for decades.

https://analoggamestudies.org/2018/03/blinded-by-the-roll-the-critical-fail-of-disability-in-dd/

They're not talking about including disabled charaters. They're talking about a an ideological narrative surrounding disability.

QuoteI would say the balance isn't to kick up a fuss over any disabled RPG character. It's to show good examples of disabled characters to contrast with bad ones.

Tell that to WOTC.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 08, 2024, 12:30:58 PMWe weren't explicitly acknowledged or included, but we didn't need to be because nothing in the games functionally ex-cluded us, in the sense of making characters like us counterproductive to play in the game -- we (meaning characters who shared our own real limitations) were never consistently and regularly on the short end of situations which required actions most people could execute at least moderately well but we couldn't (being able to climb stairs, run fast, see or hear adequately, speak clearly, manipulate objects precisely, read quickly and accurately, respond apropos and coherently, etc.). Fish don't appreciate that their own water is clean if they've never had to swim in dirty waters.

Bullshit.  No one ever made a character like my teenage self, because a character like my teenage self would have been killed in any dungeon in the first 5 minutes (along with the characters based on all of the friends that I played with).  I was absolutely excluded... if excluded means "play a character just like yourself as a fantasy super-hero in a fantasy medieval world."  Luckily, it doesn't mean that.  The people who do mean that are dangerous narcissists and should be avoided at all costs.

Please give me an example of what "limitations" are not punished by AD&D?  Weak (low strength)?  Uncoordinated (low dexterity)?  Sickly (low con)?  Seems like any of those issues are just as unviable for an adventurer in D&D as they are in real life.  So what are those limitations?  Blindness?  Yeah, uhhhhh, try to make it through a dungeon without being able to see.

Seems to me that all of the "limitations" that get held up now as being "unseen" are things completely irrelevant to the game.  Like race.  Is there any advantage or disadvantage to being black in AD&D?  Nope.  Did a black player have to play a white character to be viable?  Nope (one of my first players was a black guy who played black characters all the time.  Which made no difference in the game... just like being a white character in game).

Or the other group that demands to be "seen" on social media: gays.  What disadvantages were there in AD&D to making a gay character?  How about none.  You could have all the butt-secks you want, and your dungeoneering would be exactly the same as the straight characters.  OK, maybe we might have made you play an elf (and speak with a elf-lisp), but that was probably just a table rule.  Funny how the love that dared not speak its name is now the love that won't shut up...

So why exactly do we need black, queer, trans, demi-sexual furries to be represented in D&D as important characteristics (pro tip: we don't!)?  Why do they need to be "seen"?  Nothing has ever prevented that kind of character from being viable (other than the fact that no sane human would play a game with a person who identified as that, much less the character).

So, bullshit.  No one was excluded from playing.  The rules may have made your self-insert character less than viable, but hey, that's as it should be!  Anyone that plays a self-insert is a broken person, anyway, and needs to be gatekept out of the hobby.

having this be in the market place is a fantastic thing let it be promoted by those who have a disability fetish.  In this way if I ever hear anyone say "buy this suppliment" I can immediately boot them from my group for being an even bigger degenerate then normal.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 08, 2024, 07:19:43 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 08, 2024, 12:30:58 PMWe weren't explicitly acknowledged or included, but we didn't need to be because nothing in the games functionally ex-cluded us, in the sense of making characters like us counterproductive to play in the game -- we (meaning characters who shared our own real limitations) were never consistently and regularly on the short end of situations which required actions most people could execute at least moderately well but we couldn't (being able to climb stairs, run fast, see or hear adequately, speak clearly, manipulate objects precisely, read quickly and accurately, respond apropos and coherently, etc.). Fish don't appreciate that their own water is clean if they've never had to swim in dirty waters.

Bullshit.  No one ever made a character like my teenage self, because a character like my teenage self would have been killed in any dungeon in the first 5 minutes (along with the characters based on all of the friends that I played with).  I was absolutely excluded... if excluded means "play a character just like yourself as a fantasy super-hero in a fantasy medieval world."  Luckily, it doesn't mean that.  The people who do mean that are dangerous narcissists and should be avoided at all costs.

Please give me an example of what "limitations" are not punished by AD&D?  Weak (low strength)?  Uncoordinated (low dexterity)?  Sickly (low con)?  Seems like any of those issues are just as unviable for an adventurer in D&D as they are in real life.  So what are those limitations?  Blindness?  Yeah, uhhhhh, try to make it through a dungeon without being able to see.

Seems to me that all of the "limitations" that get held up now as being "unseen" are things completely irrelevant to the game.  Like race.  Is there any advantage or disadvantage to being black in AD&D?  Nope.  Did a black player have to play a white character to be viable?  Nope (one of my first players was a black guy who played black characters all the time.  Which made no difference in the game... just like being a white character in game).

Or the other group that demands to be "seen" on social media: gays.  What disadvantages were there in AD&D to making a gay character?  How about none.  You could have all the butt-secks you want, and your dungeoneering would be exactly the same as the straight characters.  OK, maybe we might have made you play an elf (and speak with a elf-lisp), but that was probably just a table rule.  Funny how the love that dared not speak its name is now the love that won't shut up...

So why exactly do we need black, queer, trans, demi-sexual furries to be represented in D&D as important characteristics (pro tip: we don't!)?  Why do they need to be "seen"?  Nothing has ever prevented that kind of character from being viable (other than the fact that no sane human would play a game with a person who identified as that, much less the character).

So, bullshit.  No one was excluded from playing.  The rules may have made your self-insert character less than viable, but hey, that's as it should be!  Anyone that plays a self-insert is a broken person, anyway, and needs to be gatekept out of the hobby.

Agreed. The whole argument about RPGs not being inclusive in the past is a bald face lie. IF anything, they're gaslighting everyone to think it wasn't.

The whole concept of being someone else in a fantasy setting was the appeal to me and the vast majority of players before the hand of woke-ness started to creep across the RPG landscape.

I've known all different types of people in my past 40+ years of gaming. I didn't care what race, creed, or sexual preference you were. We did have one thing in common: we were GEEKS. We were nerds. We didn't fit in to the norm. The RPG community was our escape. We could be ourselves: the geeks. That was the unifying factor.

...and now the woke-ness wants to divide us based upon our real world differences IN THE RPG COMMUNITY.

To me this is insane.

Flying combat wheelchair, bionic arm, blindness curing googles, the retard is the black wahmen wizard?

I've got one burning question:

If you can have a prosthetic arm why not prosthetic legs?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 24, 2024, 03:01:59 PMFlying combat wheelchair, bionic arm, blindness curing googles, the retard is the black wahmen wizard?

I've got one burning question:

If you can have a prosthetic arm why not prosthetic legs?

That's some of the worst artwork I've seen in an D&D-related product since some of the utter trash during the original d20 glut. INB4 "not an official product!"

"neurodivergence" has morphed into a term that means whatever personality quirks a person may have are some kind of disability.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 24, 2024, 04:12:33 PM"neurodivergence" has morphed into a term that means whatever personality quirks a person may have are some kind of disability.

Seems so. But its just another woke magic word made up. Every wave has a few of these.