I recall a time when progress and social justice were positive terms.  This woke shit has turned that into a joke. What I see is people not striving for equality but rather trying to turn the tables on oppression.  That won't work in any society.

Quote from: Chris24601;1088561Paizo's figured out its coasting days are coming to an end so is trying to re-invent itself with PF2 and given their original product was basically a legally ripped off version of another company's work (they're the China of RPG publishers) trying to be creative on their own is probably going to be the solution to their woes that they hope.

Please lets not pretend that Paizo was the only one to copy DnD.  WotC has made a fortune copying DnD and the 5th edition of the worlds oldest RPG just polishes up whatever was popular 40 years ago and serves it up again like some kind of regurgitating nostalgia machine.  There is even that one company that reprints the exact modules and DnD geeks are creaming their pants over it.

Man I wish I could coast for ten years and at the end of it have the biggest RPG company as a result.

Yeah, but WotC paid for D&D.  They didn't get it for free.

Quote from: Shasarak;1088602Please lets not pretend that Paizo was the only one to copy DnD.

Very true. I love Palladium Fantasy 1e, but its Kevin's high octane hybrid of AD&D and RuneQuest.

And the OSR's original reason for existence was to copy (old) D&D. The OSR has branched out (somewhat), but the origin was retroclones.

Quote from: kythri;1088608Yeah, but WotC paid for D&D.  They didn't get it for free.

Nope, they paid for the TSR IP.  Turns out that you can not copyright game mechanics.

Quote from: kythri;1088544With Chick-Fil-A provided as an example.  I guess I haven't seen any example of other companies really rethinking their oh-so-woke politics.

Chick-Fil-A is privately held, and that's a world apart from a publicly held company. It's easier to hold your ground when the leadership isn't beholden to a board or shareholders. In 'N Out burger can put Bible verses on soda cups whereas McDonalds would face a media shakedown. Also, Chick-Fil-A showed a media shakedown only makes the brand more popular. I would LOVE to see SJWs come at In N' Out. The roaring backlash would be hysterical.

When a public company drops the woke bullshit and cranks in cash, that will shake up the marketplace.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1088612Chick-Fil-A is privately held, and that's a world apart from a publicly held company. It's easier to hold your ground when the leadership isn't beholden to a board or shareholders. In 'N Out burger can put Bible verses on soda cups whereas McDonalds would face a media shakedown. Also, Chick-Fil-A showed a media shakedown only makes the brand more popular. I would LOVE to see SJWs come at In N' Out. The roaring backlash would be hysterical.

When a public company drops the woke bullshit and cranks in cash, that will shake up the marketplace.

"Are you beach body ready?" They even got bomb threats and held their ground, their sales went up, still no effect on the rest. I guess we need one of the juggernauts to drop the woke BS.

It has resulted in a blanket ban on "sexist and stereotypical ads" across the UK, though, so the Thought Police won in the end.

Quote from: Shasarak;1088611Nope, they paid for the TSR IP.  Turns out that you can not copyright game mechanics.

No shit, Sherlock.  But conflating WotC's publishing of D&D with Paizo's cloning of the same is asinine (not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with Paizo's actions).

Quote from: Melan;1088631It has resulted in a blanket ban on "sexist and stereotypical ads" across the UK, though, so the Thought Police won in the end.

And it was just a coinkydink that the ban follows along the lines of sharia law. I'm sure even London's mayor would tell you so

Quote from: geekybugle;1088664and it was just a coinkydink that the ban follows along the lines of sharia law. I'm sure even london's mayor would tell you so

rotflmao

Quote from: Spinachcat;1088612Chick-Fil-A is privately held, and that's a world apart from a publicly held company. It's easier to hold your ground when the leadership isn't beholden to a board or shareholders. In 'N Out burger can put Bible verses on soda cups whereas McDonalds would face a media shakedown. Also, Chick-Fil-A showed a media shakedown only makes the brand more popular. I would LOVE to see SJWs come at In N' Out. The roaring backlash would be hysterical.

When a public company drops the woke bullshit and cranks in cash, that will shake up the marketplace.

I think the type business matters too. Essential items (food being such a thing) gets more of a pass than luxury items. Papa Johns took a bit of a hit a few years back for making some political statements, but people get over than shit when they are hungry if the food is good, reasonably affordable and relatively unique. There are lots of pizza places, but not so many that do the take and bake thing (and I assume it is better than frozen pizza, I've never had a Papa Johns pizza).

When Exxon had a run of poor environmental adventures, they took a pretty good hit because it was easy for people who cared to just go across the street to Chevron, Shell, 76, Sinclair etc. Despite claims to the contrary gas is pretty much gas, most people don't tend to have really strong feelings about brand except which station is the cheapest. If a brand is in the news for something "bad", it is easy to go elsewhere.    

Chick-Fil-A and In and Out have carved out a niche for themselves, McDonalds and Burger King are not really a substitute for people who regularly frequent them. I gather Hobby Lobby is kind of the same, these days it doesn't have a huge amount of competition, not a lot of brick and mortar craft stores around anymore. Micheals is similar but smaller, and Beverly's is way more focused on sewing.

I'd guess the majority of people care about convenience over political stuff that doesn't directly impact them.

While people love to threaten with boycotts, most fail or are at least of questionable success unless they are related to luxury items. Some of the big success stories, Tuna is not a cheap food and you couldn't ask for a better face for a boycott than cute adorable dolphins. Debeers, well diamonds are a poster child for major luxury items, pretty easy for diamond shoppers to go elsewhere or go without.


There is also the no such thing as bad publicity angle. Many credit the 1980s boycott of Fox for saving Married with Children (and possibly the Fox network itself). Not many people knew of the show before Terry Rakolta had her 15 minutes railing against it.

Quote from: Toadmaster;1088676I think the type business matters too. Essential items (food being such a thing) gets more of a pass than luxury items. Papa Johns took a bit of a hit a few years back for making some political statements, but people get over than shit when they are hungry if the food is good, reasonably affordable and relatively unique. There are lots of pizza places, but not so many that do the take and bake thing (and I assume it is better than frozen pizza, I've never had a Papa Johns pizza).

  FYI, you're confusing Papa Murphy's (take and bake, and really rather good) and Papa John's (also not bad, but standard delivery). It was the latter who got into the political hot water, and it appears to have cost them the NFL endorsement deal.

Quote from: kythri;1088659No shit, Sherlock.  But conflating WotC's publishing of D&D with Paizo's cloning of the same is asinine (not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with Paizo's actions).

So you think that Paizo just copied 3e from WotC?  o_O

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1088682FYI, you're confusing Papa Murphy's (take and bake, and really rather good) and Papa John's (also not bad, but standard delivery). It was the latter who got into the political hot water, and it appears to have cost them the NFL endorsement deal.

I didn't realize there were two with similar names. This actually brings up something else I've noticed. Where boycotts are typically most effective is business to business. Individual people rarely seem to take these things that seriously, but businesses do. Endorsements, sponsors, discounts etc. A bunch of businesses pulled their discounts to NRA members recently in reaction to being targeted by anti-gun activists.

In the Married with Children boycott, initially there was a loss of commercial revenue as the big name companies pulled their ads, but they were soon replaced by smaller companies who were less risk adverse to activism. Of course it paid off for them when the show took off, and eventually most of the lost commercial accounts also came back as it became apparent that nobody cared. That would fit with Spinichcat's point about private vs companies with shareholders.