TSR is Coming Back? Or it is Back?

jhkim · June 28, 2021, 08:45:00 PM

Quote from: SHARK on June 28, 2021, 08:25:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 28, 2021, 08:11:09 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 28, 2021, 07:29:32 PM
I have to LOL at you calling this a reach towards diversity. This is marketing people knowing what is going to get a 12 year old boy's pulse to quicken. I have no doubt they wanted more women to play (being half the population and all), but that cover has jack shit to do with getting women to play.

Yeah, I don't think Erol Otis is a great example of "diversity" I think he just drew what he wanted and they bought it and slapped it in a game book.
Most of the women in early D&D art were supermodel-ish with perky boobs and sexy figures. Elmore and Parkinson spring to mind there. We've been treated to the reaction to those hussies being sexist and degrading!

Women love playing sexy hot goddesses all the time. And they also make it explicitly clear that their characters are vamped up in style, too, dressed to kill, smelling good, and always looking fantastic. Again, the only exceptions to that being when the girls knew for certain they were going into some filthy, diseased dungeon. Only THEN did they leave the sexy vamp outfits and perfume packed away, and reluctantly put on something boring and practical.

Huh? This is the exact opposite of oggsmash's claim. oggsmash claims that the Basic Set cover couldn't possibly appeal to women wanting to play - that the image was clearly only for sex appeal to sweaty preteen boys.

But SHARK is saying (and I agree) that sexy women characters can be appealing to women players.

oggsmash · June 28, 2021, 09:03:42 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2021, 08:45:00 PM
Quote from: SHARK on June 28, 2021, 08:25:12 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 28, 2021, 08:11:09 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 28, 2021, 07:29:32 PM
I have to LOL at you calling this a reach towards diversity. This is marketing people knowing what is going to get a 12 year old boy's pulse to quicken. I have no doubt they wanted more women to play (being half the population and all), but that cover has jack shit to do with getting women to play.

Yeah, I don't think Erol Otis is a great example of "diversity" I think he just drew what he wanted and they bought it and slapped it in a game book.
Most of the women in early D&D art were supermodel-ish with perky boobs and sexy figures. Elmore and Parkinson spring to mind there. We've been treated to the reaction to those hussies being sexist and degrading!

Women love playing sexy hot goddesses all the time. And they also make it explicitly clear that their characters are vamped up in style, too, dressed to kill, smelling good, and always looking fantastic. Again, the only exceptions to that being when the girls knew for certain they were going into some filthy, diseased dungeon. Only THEN did they leave the sexy vamp outfits and perfume packed away, and reluctantly put on something boring and practical.

Huh? This is the exact opposite of oggsmash's claim. oggsmash claims that the Basic Set cover couldn't possibly appeal to women wanting to play - that the image was clearly only for sex appeal to sweaty preteen boys.

But SHARK is saying (and I agree) that sexy women characters can be appealing to women players.

That is not what I said. I said it was obviously intended to attract the target audience. I never said couldn't possibly. For a guy I know is very smart, you have a whole lot of all or nothing assumptions?

Armchair Gamer · June 28, 2021, 09:05:36 PM

I've learned several things from this whole mess, but one that surprised me is how fervent the crowd at EN World has gotten about being progressive.

shoplifter · June 28, 2021, 09:20:14 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 28, 2021, 09:05:36 PM
I've learned several things from this whole mess, but one that surprised me is how fervent the crowd at EN World has gotten about being progressive.

Crazy, right? I vividly remember reading EGG's posts there with great delight. He'd have been run out on a rail there, now. They're mega-pozzed.

Shasarak · June 28, 2021, 09:26:23 PM

Quote from: shoplifter on June 28, 2021, 09:20:14 PM
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 28, 2021, 09:05:36 PM
I've learned several things from this whole mess, but one that surprised me is how fervent the crowd at EN World has gotten about being progressive.

Crazy, right? I vividly remember reading EGG's posts there with great delight. He'd have been run out on a rail there, now. They're mega-pozzed.

I thought I had gone to the other more purple "RPG" site on accident.

Zelen · June 28, 2021, 09:28:37 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2021, 08:30:27 PM

Saying that a white male must appear *somewhere* in each module doesn't seem like a big deal to me - certainly much less so than a requirement of the cover image. If one would prefer a module with no white males, it's trivial enough to change. (Oh, sorry, that was a gay character.)

Seriously - liberals and gay people played for years when modules weren't allowed to have gay characters, which was enforced by conservative politics. We generally didn't like this requirement, but we dealt with it and kept playing.

Gay characters in settings derived from history would be fairly rare, and presenting 2020 PRIDEology conception of sexuality doesn't align to historical practices. Of course we can argue about the relationship of reality to fantasy settings, etc etc. Big non-sequitur guaranteed to follow.

On a game level I think the discussion is that D&D generally isn't concerned with romance. Romance basically never comes up in D&D games I've played and is at-most restrained to banter talk and then fade-to-black moments. What is this actually adding to the game?

Zelen · June 28, 2021, 09:39:09 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on June 28, 2021, 09:05:36 PM
I've learned several things from this whole mess, but one that surprised me is how fervent the crowd at EN World has gotten about being progressive.

That thread over at ENWorld basically reinforces that there's no point in spending my time & energy contributing to that site in any way. These are people who argue completely in bad faith attempting to present everyone who isn't in their cult as responsible for everything evil in the world. Fucking psychotic and actually legitimately evil.

Ratman_tf · June 28, 2021, 09:44:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2021, 08:30:27 PM
Quote from: 1989 on June 28, 2021, 05:54:17 PM
That's all fine and dandy, but the problem arises when WotC writes it into the game with an agenda:

- every WotC adventure must now have a gay NPC (says Crawford)
- "gender" inserted into the Race & Sex section in the PHB
- Mearls calling everyone a bigot if they don't condone sodomy
- all old TSR products (PDFs) carrying a disclaimer (because of those bad old racist white men)
- etc.

- and the example in this thread:

- being forced to include a black female iconic character in the D&D rulebooks and then always killing her off in the artwork just because she is a black woman

(Oh, sorry, that was a white male fighter)

Saying that a white male must appear *somewhere* in each module doesn't seem like a big deal to me - certainly much less so than a requirement of the cover image. If one would prefer a module with no white males, it's trivial enough to change. (Oh, sorry, that was a gay character.)

Seriously - liberals and gay people played for years when modules weren't allowed to have gay characters, which was enforced by conservative politics. We generally didn't like this requirement, but we dealt with it and kept playing.

Quote from: oggsmash on June 28, 2021, 07:29:32 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2021, 02:18:54 PM
The move towards diversity has been going on for a while. The 1970s and 1980s had a lot of intentional branching out from white men in general -- like 1980s Saturday morning cartoons with deliberate diversity. The D&D cartoon had a black girl and white girl as two of the three leaders (with Bobby, Presto, and Eric as younger and/or comic relief). The 1980 Basic Set had a woman as the most prominent lead.
...
However, the later BECMI sets and 2nd edition went back to only white men on the cover. Cook's comment is that TSR created a corporate requirement that *only* white men appear on the cover. Maybe Cook does hate white men, but I think it is possible to be against a corporate requirement for only white men on the cover, and not hate white men.

I have to LOL at you calling this a reach towards diversity. This is marketing people knowing what is going to get a 12 year old boy's pulse to quicken. I have no doubt they wanted more women to play (being half the population and all), but that cover has jack shit to do with getting women to play.

These aren't mutually exclusive. I think the damsel-in-distress in the metal bikini on the first DMG was about sex appeal and not diversity. However, the Basic Set magic user is in a more prominent position than the fighter and appears as a real adventurer in a position of power. So I would say this is a cross-over of both.

But in the Expert cover, the wizard is prominent over the woman! It's a symptom of heteropatriarchal oppression!

Or maybe you're reading a bit more into it than what's there.

oggsmash · June 28, 2021, 10:17:02 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 28, 2021, 09:44:07 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2021, 08:30:27 PM
Quote from: 1989 on June 28, 2021, 05:54:17 PM
That's all fine and dandy, but the problem arises when WotC writes it into the game with an agenda:

- every WotC adventure must now have a gay NPC (says Crawford)
- "gender" inserted into the Race & Sex section in the PHB
- Mearls calling everyone a bigot if they don't condone sodomy
- all old TSR products (PDFs) carrying a disclaimer (because of those bad old racist white men)
- etc.

- and the example in this thread:

- being forced to include a black female iconic character in the D&D rulebooks and then always killing her off in the artwork just because she is a black woman

(Oh, sorry, that was a white male fighter)

Saying that a white male must appear *somewhere* in each module doesn't seem like a big deal to me - certainly much less so than a requirement of the cover image. If one would prefer a module with no white males, it's trivial enough to change. (Oh, sorry, that was a gay character.)

Seriously - liberals and gay people played for years when modules weren't allowed to have gay characters, which was enforced by conservative politics. We generally didn't like this requirement, but we dealt with it and kept playing.

Quote from: oggsmash on June 28, 2021, 07:29:32 PM
Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2021, 02:18:54 PM
The move towards diversity has been going on for a while. The 1970s and 1980s had a lot of intentional branching out from white men in general -- like 1980s Saturday morning cartoons with deliberate diversity. The D&D cartoon had a black girl and white girl as two of the three leaders (with Bobby, Presto, and Eric as younger and/or comic relief). The 1980 Basic Set had a woman as the most prominent lead.
...
However, the later BECMI sets and 2nd edition went back to only white men on the cover. Cook's comment is that TSR created a corporate requirement that *only* white men appear on the cover. Maybe Cook does hate white men, but I think it is possible to be against a corporate requirement for only white men on the cover, and not hate white men.

I have to LOL at you calling this a reach towards diversity. This is marketing people knowing what is going to get a 12 year old boy's pulse to quicken. I have no doubt they wanted more women to play (being half the population and all), but that cover has jack shit to do with getting women to play.

These aren't mutually exclusive. I think the damsel-in-distress in the metal bikini on the first DMG was about sex appeal and not diversity. However, the Basic Set magic user is in a more prominent position than the fighter and appears as a real adventurer in a position of power. So I would say this is a cross-over of both.

But in the Expert cover, the wizard is prominent over the woman! It's a symptom of heteropatriarchal oppression!

Or maybe you're reading a bit more into it than what's there.

Well...That is obviously a frail, effeminate man as the wizard...meaning of course he is coded gay for anyone who can read such obvious clues. I guess the diversity was full bore all the way back then.

jhkim · June 29, 2021, 02:54:39 AM

Quote from: oggsmash on June 28, 2021, 10:17:02 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 28, 2021, 09:44:07 PM
But in the Expert cover, the wizard is prominent over the woman! It's a symptom of heteropatriarchal oppression!
...
Or maybe you're reading a bit more into it than what's there.
Well...That is obviously a frail, effeminate man as the wizard...meaning of course he is coded gay for anyone who can read such obvious clues. I guess the diversity was full bore all the way back then.

The prior claim is that this...

is a radical feminist marxist takeover to destroy gaming with its hatred for white men,

and you call *me* out for reading more than what's there?

yancy · June 29, 2021, 04:07:23 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2021, 08:30:27 PM
Seriously - liberals and gay people played for years when modules weren't allowed to have gay characters, which was enforced by conservative politics. We generally didn't like this requirement, but we dealt with it and kept playing.

Seriously - because of Gary Gygax, and his drinking buddy Ronald Reagan, you and your liberal friends had to suffer through D&D modules for *years* without a single gay owlbear to make out with?

That's quite a cross to bear, if you'll pardon my use of the word 'bear' in this context :/

oggsmash · June 29, 2021, 09:18:37 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 29, 2021, 02:54:39 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 28, 2021, 10:17:02 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 28, 2021, 09:44:07 PM
But in the Expert cover, the wizard is prominent over the woman! It's a symptom of heteropatriarchal oppression!
...
Or maybe you're reading a bit more into it than what's there.
Well...That is obviously a frail, effeminate man as the wizard...meaning of course he is coded gay for anyone who can read such obvious clues. I guess the diversity was full bore all the way back then.

The prior claim is that this...

is a radical feminist marxist takeover to destroy gaming with its hatred for white men,

and you call *me* out for reading more than what's there?

Since you quoted me to talk at ratman, I will give you the *thooper real* interpretation of that portrait. It is obviously a single, independent, fully liberated, powerful Womxn. She can sleep with whoever she wants, has no need for a man (not even the Barbarian who knocked her up with a son 4 years ago, but no worries Grandma is raising him, and he is getting over cutting up all the household pets, and she plans on letting them pick their gender when ready) and no obligation to the big simp beside who would die for a whiff of her undergarments.

Ratman_tf · June 29, 2021, 10:09:37 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 29, 2021, 02:54:39 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on June 28, 2021, 10:17:02 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 28, 2021, 09:44:07 PM
But in the Expert cover, the wizard is prominent over the woman! It's a symptom of heteropatriarchal oppression!
...
Or maybe you're reading a bit more into it than what's there.
Well...That is obviously a frail, effeminate man as the wizard...meaning of course he is coded gay for anyone who can read such obvious clues. I guess the diversity was full bore all the way back then.

The prior claim is that this...

is a radical feminist marxist takeover to destroy gaming with its hatred for white men,

and you call *me* out for reading more than what's there?

No, the "radical feminist marxist" takeover of gaming is in the blatant "progressive" references that Jaeger dug up, where their intention was not to make the game more inclusive, positive and welcoming for all gamers, but to put spiteful digs against the TSR status quo and be a bunch of mean, spiteful little goblin people in the name of "diversity".

Merrill · June 29, 2021, 10:30:52 AM

Quote from: yancy on June 29, 2021, 04:07:23 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2021, 08:30:27 PM
Seriously - liberals and gay people played for years when modules weren't allowed to have gay characters, which was enforced by conservative politics. We generally didn't like this requirement, but we dealt with it and kept playing.

Seriously - because of Gary Gygax, and his drinking buddy Ronald Reagan, you and your liberal friends had to suffer through D&D modules for *years* without a single gay owlbear to make out with?

That's quite a cross to bear, if you'll pardon my use of the word 'bear' in this context :/

LOL!

jhkim · June 29, 2021, 10:55:02 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 29, 2021, 10:09:37 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 29, 2021, 02:54:39 AM
The prior claim is that this...

is a radical feminist marxist takeover to destroy gaming with its hatred for white men,

and you call *me* out for reading more than what's there?

No, the "radical feminist marxist" takeover of gaming is in the blatant "progressive" references that Jaeger dug up, where their intention was not to make the game more inclusive, positive and welcoming for all gamers, but to put spiteful digs against the TSR status quo and be a bunch of mean, spiteful little goblin people in the name of "diversity".

And this picture is an illustration of exactly what Jaeger was talking about - an example of those spiteful digs. I mean, just look at it. There's no white man there.

Clearly this shows how much hetero white men are winning the oppression olympics. They have to suffer through material like this just to play D&D.

It's an enormous cross to bear.

Quote from: yancy on June 29, 2021, 04:07:23 AM
Quote from: jhkim on June 28, 2021, 08:30:27 PM
Seriously - liberals and gay people played for years when modules weren't allowed to have gay characters, which was enforced by conservative politics. We generally didn't like this requirement, but we dealt with it and kept playing.

Seriously - because of Gary Gygax, and his drinking buddy Ronald Reagan, you and your liberal friends had to suffer through D&D modules for *years* without a single gay owlbear to make out with?

That's quite a cross to bear, if you'll pardon my use of the word 'bear' in this context :/

Except that's exactly my point. I'm saying that the presence or absence of gay characters in modules isn't a big deal. It's 1989 who claimed that it was a problem.

I'm on the side that this makes little difference to people who are just concerned with playing their game. They're mostly an issue for Internet partisans to argue over.