I'm Asian - I came to this game with Conan the Barbarian and King Arthur (and whatever my childish mind had packed inbetween which is largely nothing).

I honestly didn't even register that there were overtly no Asians in our games. My GM was a Vietnamese girl, and I played with two filipinos and an American white and black kid. At no point did the fact that my black friend was playing a paladin (who by his own description wasn't even black) or the fact that I played a savage fighter who in my mind looked like a Hyrkanian (conan ftw bitches) ever matter to any of us.

Our GM - the Vietnamese girl, from Vietnam, who knew *nothing* about American culture, presented the game exactly as it was. PC's in a fantasy setting where she described the NPC's as white people in a quasi-medieval setting... you know... D&D. No one was torked up about representation.

We played the game for what it was and what we made it. The novelty of Oriental Adventure when it came out had *nothing* to do with Asian representation for me or anyone else I knew. It had to do with Golden Harvest/Shaw Bros. Representation. It had to do with Black Belt Theater/Kurosawa/Bruce Lee Representation and the crazy idea that Ho Li Phuc! Asian cinema can be turned into D&D! Genius.

All the fucking weirdos in Dragon Magazine jacking off about historical authenticity, and shit like that were missing the larger point. Sure that stuff matters to me (sort of) as an adult. But at the time - it allowed me to expand on my "normal" D&D conceits by spreading the ruleset further to include OA mechanics in my established fantasy game.

It wasn't "Asian" mechanics. And for people wanting historical accuracy, it should be pretty clear that there isn't some requirement for historical accuracy when you have motherfuckers leaping 30-ft into the air, flying kick people harder than getting hit with a zweihander, or punching holes in people from ten-feet away (Distance Death baby!). And people complained about OA being so Japanese/Chinese centric - got their cries heard by Mike Pondsmith in the Kara-Tur boxset (glorious!).

Ultimately despite many products for the line - it didn't sell well. Why? Because largely the western and white demographic likes playing in their own cultural comfort-zone. THAT'S OKAY. That should be expected, and the Real TSR(tm) made an honest-to-Galactus stab at it.

All of these is conveniently memory holed because the narrative of representation is really a crusade to destroy whatever came before in the attempts of blurring what D&D was into the freakshow it's become.

Fortunately if you take your gaming seriously you can step back and be Brand Free and realize "D&D" isn't "D&D" anywhere but in your heart and mind. The company that owns "D&D" has no claim over what you as a consumer wants "D&D" to be at your table without your consent. It's not defined by an edition, or by a system, contrary to what others might think. D&D exists as an idea we define everytime we sit down at the table.

I vote with my dollars. And at this stage in my life, my gold is there for the a taking to whomever wants it if they give me good product. Many of these companies apparently think that my gold is not worth what they think "bad thoughts" are in their heads. That's not my problem.

There are companies that recognize this and I hope they're rolling around naked on my money as long as they give me good stuff, and they deserve it. This new TSR company ain't gonna be one of them.

Western-style fantasy is apparently quite popular in East Asian markets because it's exotic.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2021, 11:52:52 AM
Anyway, I'm ambivalent toward bikini armor. If studies show that consistent exposure to it increases objectification attitudes towards women or men alike, then I'd be against it. At the same time, I think that's treating a symptom rather than the disease itself. I support topfreedom because covering women up doesn't decrease objectification. Sorry, Buzzfeed or whatever, your covered up heroines not only don't end objectification but probably make it worse. I don't think the problem is nudity in itself (there are/were cultures where women routinely go/went topless without issue, like the Minoans), but socialization: more specifically, the hyper-sexualization and dehumanization/objectification of women's bodies as compared to men's. That is, it's not the depiction of bikini armor or nudity but the way that viewers (are intended/trained to) react to it.

On a semi-related note: One of my favorite games, Planescape: Torment, has a conversation where Fall-From-Grace explains that strategically placed cloth can be more titillating than simple nudity. It's a lesson that I wish many others would learn.

Who cares?

Unless you're making some claim that Roleplayers are going around raping people because of roleplaying. If you're saying it's bad that roleplayers can enjoy a sexual aesthetic of their own choice without forcing it on others - then why not? Are people not allowed to find something sexually appealing? Otherwise what is the point of LGBTQLMFAOPIP+ representation? Ratifying someone's sexual proclivities on any level requires what precisely?

And they are free to reject those of others. You're not free to require acceptance of it. That is the whole point of understanding your demographics. A company is there to sell a product to its consumers.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2021, 12:00:23 PM
Western-style fantasy is apparently quite popular in East Asian markets because it's exotic.

So do you go to Asian RPG forums and tell them they need more Black Representation?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2021, 11:52:52 AM
Anyway, I'm ambivalent toward bikini armor. If studies show that consistent exposure to it increases objectification attitudes towards women or men alike, then I'd be against it. At the same time, I think that's treating a symptom rather than the disease itself. I support topfreedom because covering women up doesn't decrease objectification. Sorry, Buzzfeed or whatever, your covered up heroines not only don't end objectification but probably make it worse. I don't think the problem is nudity in itself (there are/were cultures where women routinely go/went topless without issue, like the Minoans), but socialization: more specifically, the hyper-sexualization and dehumanization/objectification of women's bodies as compared to men's. That is, it's not the depiction of bikini armor or nudity but the way that viewers (are intended/trained to) react to it.

On a semi-related note: One of my favorite games, Planescape: Torment, has a conversation where Fall-From-Grace explains that strategically placed cloth can be more titillating than simple nudity. It's a lesson that I wish many others would learn.

Yep, this here. I think the most passable argument against the chainmail bikini is the obvious "that armor would suck IRL" scenario, but since this was fantasy, it's primary attraction was to the pubescent boys playing RPGs and girls who were otherwise dealing with constant bodyshaming issues finding a way to live vicariously as amazon warriors or whatever in D&D. A lot of feminism, I have noticed, seems to focus on attacking other women as much as men, especially women who don't seem sufficiently shamed at their own appearances, or art that implies women can own their sexuality.

Quote from: tenbones on June 22, 2021, 12:01:04 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2021, 11:52:52 AM
Anyway, I'm ambivalent toward bikini armor. If studies show that consistent exposure to it increases objectification attitudes towards women or men alike, then I'd be against it. At the same time, I think that's treating a symptom rather than the disease itself. I support topfreedom because covering women up doesn't decrease objectification. Sorry, Buzzfeed or whatever, your covered up heroines not only don't end objectification but probably make it worse. I don't think the problem is nudity in itself (there are/were cultures where women routinely go/went topless without issue, like the Minoans), but socialization: more specifically, the hyper-sexualization and dehumanization/objectification of women's bodies as compared to men's. That is, it's not the depiction of bikini armor or nudity but the way that viewers (are intended/trained to) react to it.

On a semi-related note: One of my favorite games, Planescape: Torment, has a conversation where Fall-From-Grace explains that strategically placed cloth can be more titillating than simple nudity. It's a lesson that I wish many others would learn.

Who cares?

Unless you're making some claim that Roleplayers are going around raping people because of roleplaying. If you're saying it's bad that roleplayers can enjoy a sexual aesthetic of their own choice without forcing it on others - then why not? Are people not allowed to find something sexually appealing? Otherwise what is the point of LGBTQLMFAOPIP+ representation? Ratifying someone's sexual proclivities on any level requires what precisely?

And they are free to reject those of others. You're not free to require acceptance of it. That is the whole point of understanding your demographics. A company is there to sell a product to its consumers.

Well, the movement has never been inclusive to heteronormativity so.....

Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 12:09:13 PM
Yep, this here. I think the most passable argument against the chainmail bikini is the obvious "that armor would suck IRL" scenario, but since this was fantasy, it's primary attraction was to the pubescent boys playing RPGs and girls who were otherwise dealing with constant bodyshaming issues finding a way to live vicariously as amazon warriors or whatever in D&D. A lot of feminism, I have noticed, seems to focus on attacking other women as much as men, especially women who don't seem sufficiently shamed at their own appearances, or art that implies women can own their sexuality.

So the results are: Body Positivity, removing all sexuality (unless it's non-heterosexual), Masculinity in any form where men are actually being Masculine. And "Feminists" actually attacking women for not conforming to the "Feminist" political view of their gender.

Who has the real problem here?

Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 12:11:07 PM
Well, the movement has never been inclusive to heteronormativity so.....

Are you saying "gaming" and being "normal" both culturally and biologically is a "Movement"?

Seriously.

Quote from: tenbones on June 22, 2021, 11:54:39 AM
I'm Asian - I came to this game with Conan the Barbarian and King Arthur (and whatever my childish mind had packed inbetween which is largely nothing).

I honestly didn't even register that there were overtly no Asians in our games. My GM was a Vietnamese girl, and I played with two filipinos and an American white and black kid. At no point did the fact that my black friend was playing a paladin (who by his own description wasn't even black) or the fact that I played a savage fighter who in my mind looked like a Hyrkanian (conan ftw bitches) ever matter to any of us.

Our GM - the Vietnamese girl, from Vietnam, who knew *nothing* about American culture, presented the game exactly as it was. PC's in a fantasy setting where she described the NPC's as white people in a quasi-medieval setting... you know... D&D. No one was torked up about representation.

We played the game for what it was and what we made it. The novelty of Oriental Adventure when it came out had *nothing* to do with Asian representation for me or anyone else I knew. It had to do with Golden Harvest/Shaw Bros. Representation. It had to do with Black Belt Theater/Kurosawa/Bruce Lee Representation and the crazy idea that Ho Li Phuc! Asian cinema can be turned into D&D! Genius.

All the fucking weirdos in Dragon Magazine jacking off about historical authenticity, and shit like that were missing the larger point. Sure that stuff matters to me (sort of) as an adult. But at the time - it allowed me to expand on my "normal" D&D conceits by spreading the ruleset further to include OA mechanics in my established fantasy game.

It wasn't "Asian" mechanics. And for people wanting historical accuracy, it should be pretty clear that there isn't some requirement for historical accuracy when you have motherfuckers leaping 30-ft into the air, flying kick people harder than getting hit with a zweihander, or punching holes in people from ten-feet away (Distance Death baby!). And people complained about OA being so Japanese/Chinese centric - got their cries heard by Mike Pondsmith in the Kara-Tur boxset (glorious!).

Ultimately despite many products for the line - it didn't sell well. Why? Because largely the western and white demographic likes playing in their own cultural comfort-zone. THAT'S OKAY. That should be expected, and the Real TSR(tm) made an honest-to-Galactus stab at it.

All of these is conveniently memory holed because the narrative of representation is really a crusade to destroy whatever came before in the attempts of blurring what D&D was into the freakshow it's become.

Fortunately if you take your gaming seriously you can step back and be Brand Free and realize "D&D" isn't "D&D" anywhere but in your heart and mind. The company that owns "D&D" has no claim over what you as a consumer wants "D&D" to be at your table without your consent. It's not defined by an edition, or by a system, contrary to what others might think. D&D exists as an idea we define everytime we sit down at the table.

I vote with my dollars. And at this stage in my life, my gold is there for the a taking to whomever wants it if they give me good product. Many of these companies apparently think that my gold is not worth what they think "bad thoughts" are in their heads. That's not my problem.

There are companies that recognize this and I hope they're rolling around naked on my money as long as they give me good stuff, and they deserve it. This new TSR company ain't gonna be one of them.

I just want to comment that I really appreciated your post, and it very much helps set things in perspective.

Quote from: tenbones on June 22, 2021, 12:14:06 PM

Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 12:11:07 PM
Well, the movement has never been inclusive to heteronormativity so.....

Are you saying "gaming" and being "normal" both culturally and biologically is a "Movement"?

Seriously.

No, I'm saying LBGTQI etc. doesn't include heteronormativity in its list last I checked.

Quote from: tenbones on June 22, 2021, 12:12:37 PM

Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 12:09:13 PM
Yep, this here. I think the most passable argument against the chainmail bikini is the obvious "that armor would suck IRL" scenario, but since this was fantasy, it's primary attraction was to the pubescent boys playing RPGs and girls who were otherwise dealing with constant bodyshaming issues finding a way to live vicariously as amazon warriors or whatever in D&D. A lot of feminism, I have noticed, seems to focus on attacking other women as much as men, especially women who don't seem sufficiently shamed at their own appearances, or art that implies women can own their sexuality.

So the results are: Body Positivity, removing all sexuality (unless it's non-heterosexual), Masculinity in any form where men are actually being Masculine. And "Feminists" actually attacking women for not conforming to the "Feminist" political view of their gender.

Who has the real problem here?

Yes exactly.

Quote from: tenbones on June 22, 2021, 12:01:04 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 22, 2021, 11:52:52 AM
Anyway, I'm ambivalent toward bikini armor. If studies show that consistent exposure to it increases objectification attitudes towards women or men alike, then I'd be against it. At the same time, I think that's treating a symptom rather than the disease itself. I support topfreedom because covering women up doesn't decrease objectification. Sorry, Buzzfeed or whatever, your covered up heroines not only don't end objectification but probably make it worse. I don't think the problem is nudity in itself (there are/were cultures where women routinely go/went topless without issue, like the Minoans), but socialization: more specifically, the hyper-sexualization and dehumanization/objectification of women's bodies as compared to men's. That is, it's not the depiction of bikini armor or nudity but the way that viewers (are intended/trained to) react to it.

On a semi-related note: One of my favorite games, Planescape: Torment, has a conversation where Fall-From-Grace explains that strategically placed cloth can be more titillating than simple nudity. It's a lesson that I wish many others would learn.

Who cares?

Unless you're making some claim that Roleplayers are going around raping people because of roleplaying. If you're saying it's bad that roleplayers can enjoy a sexual aesthetic of their own choice without forcing it on others - then why not? Are people not allowed to find something sexually appealing? Otherwise what is the point of LGBTQLMFAOPIP+ representation? Ratifying someone's sexual proclivities on any level requires what precisely?

And they are free to reject those of others. You're not free to require acceptance of it. That is the whole point of understanding your demographics. A company is there to sell a product to its consumers.

It's haram comrade, uncovered women are a temptation that certain demographics have been trained not to resist.

Truth be told the more freely available porn the less rape, yes I know correlation doesn't prove causation.

As for the art depictions in RPGs has anyone even made a study trying to prove that Gamers went around raping women in troves and that this stoped as soon as the games went sharia compliant?

Where's a woman more safe? The West or those countries we dare not name for fear of being called islamophobes?

Play as you wish, write what you wish, draw what you wish and do not even dream on imposing YOUR morals on others.

I already said so but I'm totally gonna make a game with the more hypersexualized and "sexist" cover I fucking can, I'm also gonna fill the interior with sexy women and men, many of them scantily clad. And fuck the moral bussybodies.

Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 12:16:51 PM

No, I'm saying LBGTQI etc. doesn't include heteronormativity in its list last I checked.

Yeah. Okay I understood you correctly heh.

The problem is there is this inability to think of themselves as individuals. Sure culture matters. One is influenced by ones culture, but ones culture should not define someone. Thus, these people view themselves as a confederation for one reason: they're not 'heteronormative" and unironically (to them) commit their very own sin of "Othering" those not like their "Movement". The double-irony is none of the constituents of the LGBT Community have anything really in common besides this mutual hatred for their "Others". So they have to put on this charade that everything is politically driven as they are.

They are neither Pro-LGBT in relation to anything else. They are Supremacists that want to crush the very culture (Western European) that allows them to exist in this current malignant configuration, but are too stupid to realize it. This is why BoxCrayonTales quote about East Asian people finding Western Fantasy "exotic" is funny to me. He's not wrong, but the term has a totally different meaning today where "exotic" is seen as racist among SJWs. But to hold that view without context - you'll never see an SJW pull that shit on an Asian gaming forum asking for Black Representation... insinuating that Asians are racists because it causes them to short-circuit. Which is exactly the reality they don't/can't face. They've lowered the bar in trying to paint "white people" as inherently racist, they don't realize those standards as applied mean *everyone* are *more* racist by those criteria. They're just too stupid/ignorant to know or admit it.

Because you know... only "white people" can be racist, is their mantra. I hate to break it to them... they really need to go travel a bit.

Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 12:16:51 PM

Quote from: tenbones on June 22, 2021, 12:14:06 PM

Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 12:11:07 PM
Well, the movement has never been inclusive to heteronormativity so.....

Are you saying "gaming" and being "normal" both culturally and biologically is a "Movement"?

Seriously.

No, I'm saying LBGTQI etc. doesn't include heteronormativity in its list last I checked.

Heteronormativity is a made up term to try and demonize the vas majority of the population, it implies that somehow you're being forced by society (remember they believe in the tabula rasa) to be heterosexual by some magic means, and that if we remove every visual/written/etc representation of it then ppl will magically all become demigender pansexual 2 spirited otherkin.

It's never wise to use the enemy's terms to describe yourself.

Reject them outloud and write, play draw whatever you want, and if they cry this offends them double and triple down.

Quote from: tenbones on June 22, 2021, 12:25:05 PM

Quote from: camazotz on June 22, 2021, 12:16:51 PM

No, I'm saying LBGTQI etc. doesn't include heteronormativity in its list last I checked.

Yeah. Okay I understood you correctly heh.

The problem is there is this inability to think of themselves as individuals. Sure culture matters. One is influenced by ones culture, but ones culture should not define someone. Thus, these people view themselves as a confederation for one reason: they're not 'heteronormative" and unironically (to them) commit their very own sin of "Othering" those not like their "Movement". The double-irony is none of the constituents of the LGBT Community have anything really in common besides this mutual hatred for their "Others". So they have to put on this charade that everything is politically driven as they are.

They are neither Pro-LGBT in relation to anything else. They are Supremacists that want to crush the very culture (Western European) that allows them to exist in this current malignant configuration, but are too stupid to realize it. This is why BoxCrayonTales quote about East Asian people finding Western Fantasy "exotic" (he's not wrong, but the term has a totally different meaning today where "exotic" is seen as racist among SJWs), but to hold that view without context - you'll never see an SJW pull that shit on an Asian gaming forum asking for Black Representation... insinuating that Asians are racists because it causes them to short-circuit.

Because you know... only "white people" can be racist, is their mantra. I hate to break it to them... they really need to go travel a bit.

Very true. Man, I am enjoying your posts because I am in 100% agreement and this is making my day.