Quote from: jhkim on 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.

I'll leave you to beat up your strawmen, then.

Quote from: jhkim on June 29, 2021, 10:55:02 AM

https://i0.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dungeons_and_dragons_dd_players_handbook_4th_edition.jpg

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.

In this specific example, jhkim is correct. This is a 4th edition book, and as current WOTC is on the record hating white male fighters, the prominence of a furry and POC on the players handbook must be taken as a deliberate choice. But this is just an attempt at conflation to obscure his earlier strawman.

In a more normal world a picture is drawn and selected because everyone involved thought it was cool looking. Without additional context one cannot place intent on the selection of the Erol Otus B/X covers.

Unless one can give a quote from Erol Otus or the designers of B/X on their intent; they are intentionally misrepresenting things in order to try to score rhetorical points.

In his "example" of the Erol Otus B/X covers, jhkim is pulling the dictionary definition of a Strawman argument: "an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

He is taking a piece of cover art from the TSR era for which he has no sources to place reason, motive, or intent, and then applying a dash of critical theory misinterpretation to try and conflate it as being equivalent to what is being done 30 years later by WOTC whose motives and intent are known.

WOTC designers and writers have been very explicit and forthright in their intentions, and the reasons that they select certain types of art over others.

And we have the quotes to prove it.

We have no reason to give WOTC the benefit of the doubt, as they have been very public about what they are doing and the intent behind it.

Quote from: jhkim on June 29, 2021, 10:55:02 AM
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.

Yes, yes it is.

Hetero white men have been very liberal and welcoming to diverse groups.

As a reward for our magnanimity we now have the privilege of being told we are the BAD guys.

That our silence is literally violence. We need to check our privilege, and that we are systematically racist.

At a certain point one simply gets tired of all the BS.

I and others have chosen to end our 'suffering' by not giving WOTC our money.

That doesn't mean that we should stop pointing out what the SJW's in the hobby are trying to do.

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

As this is not the first time you have stated that you do not care about these issues, or do not see them as a big deal; why not avoid these threads then?

I can only conclude that you feel some need to come in and post how you are playing the world's smallest violin for those who do do not share your view. But I am open to correction on this point.

Quote from: Jaeger on June 29, 2021, 03:36:28 PM

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

As this is not the first time you have stated that you do not care about these issues, or do not see them as a big deal; why not avoid these threads then?

I can only conclude that you feel some need to come in and post how you are playing the world's smallest violin for those who do do not share your view. But I am open to correction on this point.

I can have a definite opinion that something is unimportant. That's not the same as my not caring about the debate.

Quote from: Jaeger on June 29, 2021, 03:36:28 PM
In this specific example, jhkim is correct. This is a 4th edition book, and as current WOTC is on the record hating white male fighters, the prominence of a furry and POC on the players handbook must be taken as a deliberate choice. But this is just an attempt at conflation to obscure his earlier strawman.

In a more normal world a picture is drawn and selected because everyone involved thought it was cool looking. Without additional context one cannot place intent on the selection of the Erol Otus B/X covers.

According to your own quoted source (Monte Cook), TSR covers were not chosen just to be cool - they generally had the requirement that "the central figure had to be a white male". And indeed, when I look at the BECMI covers and the 2nd edition AD&D covers, that is exactly what I see - a lone white male in every case. The original AD&D1 books also had white men with the exception of the damsel-in-distress in a metal bikini. The 1980 Basic Set is an exception.

You claim that in a normal world, pictures are chosen based on just being cool looking. I think in a normal world, the cover image of a multi-million-dollar company's flagship product is going to be carefully thought out in terms of branding and marketing and target audience appeal, including demographics and the race and gender of the figure(s). This isn't some new-fangled 21st century notion. I'm sure that Parker Brothers carefully considered the cover images of their board games in the 1930s.

You're trying to project that TSR was liberal and welcoming to diverse groups, but by your own quote and the actual published results, they were selectively only putting white men on their covers. Now, one could make the argument that this was just trying to appeal to their target demographic, and D&D was still welcoming to diverse groups. But if you say that, then it would follow that covers that *don't* have white men can still be liberal and welcoming to white male players.

Quote from: jhkim on June 29, 2021, 05:06:46 PM

According to your own quoted source (Monte Cook), TSR covers were not chosen just to be cool - they generally had the requirement that "the central figure had to be a white male". And indeed, when I look at the BECMI covers and the 2nd edition AD&D covers, that is exactly what I see - a lone white male in every case. The original AD&D1 books also had white men with the exception of the damsel-in-distress in a metal bikini. The 1980 Basic Set is an exception.

So the 1980 Otus cover art has gone from example to prove your point, to an exception.

Ok, no big deal, let's move on...


Now we are to: AD&D1e-2e and BCMI.

Yes, TSR did those covers with a white male fighter.

I personally see no reason for Monte Cook to lie about that.

The logical inference is that it was done to appeal to their biggest target demo.

No one has made claims to the contrary.

Yes, of course there were exceptions. There always are.

Quote from: jhkim on June 29, 2021, 05:06:46 PM
You claim that in a normal world, pictures are chosen based on just being cool looking. I think in a normal world, the cover image of a multi-million-dollar company's flagship product is going to be carefully thought out in terms of branding and marketing and target audience appeal, including demographics and the race and gender of the figure(s). This isn't some new-fangled 21st century notion. I'm sure that Parker Brothers carefully considered the cover images of their board games in the 1930s.

I really have to spell out every little bit of common sense???

Of course any company would carefully choose their cover art.

I seriously doubt the Otus cover art was done with no input.

But unless you have a quote to the contrary, we cannot assign any malice or critical theory nonsense to their thought process when they selected it.

And here I thought the Otus cover art was an exception and we were moving on...

Although being an exception, maybe they did just pick it because it looked cool!?!?!?!?!

Who knows!

Quote from: jhkim on June 29, 2021, 05:06:46 PM
You're trying to project that TSR was liberal and welcoming to diverse groups, but by your own quote and the actual published results, they were selectively only putting white men on their covers.

I never said TSR was liberal, I don't know what their politics were.

(I know what you are getting at, but I'm returning the favor of being as literal and pedantic as possible in reading this sentence so I could selectively reply to score rhetorical 'gotcha' points.)

I do think that it can be safely said that TSR was largely apolitical for most of its tenure with D&D. But that is not my argument.

You'll have to explain to me how selecting your cover art to appeal to your biggest sales demographic is a political act.

Or how appealing to your biggest sales demographic is the equivalent of holding up a big neon sign that says: "If you don't look like the guy on the cover - this game is not for you!"

Come up with something original please, I already know the argument critical theorists make.


We finally get to the real question:

Quote from: jhkim on June 29, 2021, 05:06:46 PM

Now, one could make the argument that this was just trying to appeal to their target demographic, and D&D was still welcoming to diverse groups. But if you say that, then it would follow that covers that *don't* have white men can still be liberal and welcoming to white male players.

I agree, in a sane world it would absolutely follow that covers/art without "white men" can still be liberal and welcoming to "white male" players. Like the Erol Otus B/X cover - nobody gave a shit.

I have not made an argument to the contrary.

My point is that with WOTC D&D its writers have been publicly outspoken in their distain for catering to that sales demo.

Let's read more of that Monte quote that you liked so much:

Quote from: Monte Cook: Originally Posted by Monte Cook on his now defunct livejournal blog. on June 29, 2021, 05:06:46 PM
https://www.thepiazza.org.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?t=16418

"When I worked at TSR, there was always basically a truism in cover art--the central figure had to be a white male. Most of us actually helping to create the cover art, either by conceiving it or actually creating it, hated that kind of outlook, ..."
...
"...when D&D was bought by WotC and we started working on 3E, we really felt that this was a time when we could break this mold. ..."
...
"It was a thumb to the nose of the old TSR requirement."
...
"At least that was our intention."
...
"...to the credit of a number of people--artists, art directors, designers and editors alike--our disdain for Regdar made its way into a lot of art. If you look closely, Regdar is getting thrashed on most of the early pieces he shows up in. (Look for his ignominious fate on the original DM's Screen, for example.) ..."

The desire for covers/art without "white men" was not born out of a desire to do something different yet still be liberal and welcoming to "white male" players.

It was a middle finger to the very idea of appealing to a demographic that just happened to be white males through no fault of their own.

They actually got mad at the very notion!

Quote from: Johnathan Tweet: Diversity-in-D&D-third-edition on June 29, 2021, 05:06:46 PM

https://www.enworld.org/threads/diversity-in-d-d-third-edition.668462/

"...the marketing team added Regdar, a male fighter, to the mix of iconic characters. We designers weren't thrilled, and as the one who had drawn up the iconic characters I was a little chapped."

(This is too good not to repeat...)

And To His Utter Horror:

Quote from: Johnathan Tweet: Diversity-in-D&D-third-edition on June 29, 2021, 05:06:46 PM
"... Regdar proved popular, and if the marketing team was looking for an attractive character to publicize, they got one."

Ohhh snap! Backhand compliment much Mr. tweet?

It seems that such dissenters were purged from the marketing team before 4e rolled around...

But wait. There's more!

Quote from: James Jacobs: ( D&D writer, and current Creative Director for the Pathfinder Adventure Paths.) on June 29, 2021, 05:06:46 PM
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iha2?Monte-Cook-on-Gender-and-Race-in-DD-Art

"Killing off Captain Whitebread is indeed a time-honored tradition in WotC books. I've written my fair share of art orders for those books, and have made sure to have Regdar get blasted or ruined or murdered a few times myself (such as at the end of Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk). It's a fun little semi-secret D&D tradition!"

I don't know about you, but phrases like "Captain Whitebread", do not exactly come across as terms of endearment!

One could get the impression that they were being downright insulting!

What is one to think when they brag about going out of their way to ensure "Captain Whitebread" is "blasted or ruined or murdered".

That doesn't come across as someone who has put much thought into their 'inclusive art' still being "liberal and welcoming to white male players".


When reading such a display of contempt and spite, it can hardly be surprising that many of us do not believe that their reasons for wanting RPG covers and art that *don't* have 'white men' comes from a place of magnanimity and brotherly love.

WOTC's D&D design team was, and currently is taking an openly political stance, and we have proof from their own statements past and present that they have actively sought to inject their own ideological worldview into the game.

The quotes I provided, and the current twitter feeds of their own employees show that they are all in lockstep with a woke critical theory ideology that HATES straight white men who won't bend the knee.

So yeah:

Quote from: Zelen on 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.

I hold no brief for Ernie Gygax, think LaNasa sounds like a slimy operator, and have mixed feelings about Gygax Sr. and old-school D&D ... but the vituperation, hostility, and tendency to judge the father for the sins of the son that I've seen on that thread over the past day or two has been repulsive and unsettling.

Quote from: jhkim on 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.

Its even worse then that jhkim, hetero white men had to suffer through this as well:



I honestly dont know how they managed to survive not having a white man on the cover for so long.

Since Cook wasn't even a freelancer at TSR until the early 90s, I don't really think any opinions he had about 'old TSR' are really useful.  Williams had been in charge for the better part of a decade before he even cashed his first check.  If he wants to lay that at her feet that's fine but it has jack shit to do with anything 1E or B/X related.

As far as the Moldvay Basic set goes...

The LaForce piece on pg B6 shows two players creating characters, 1 male and 1 female.
The character creation example only uses the term 'player' until the last sentence when it mentions that since this player is female, their character will be as well.

Sounds to me like a bunch of 'toxic white males' must have actually thought it was ok for girls to play D&D...

Quote from: Shasarak on June 29, 2021, 09:35:28 PM

Quote from: jhkim on 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.

Its even worse then that jhkim, hetero white men had to suffer through this as well:



I honestly dont know how they managed to survive not having a white man on the cover for so long.

I hope we can all agree that those covers were the very lowest point for cover "art" in the D&D editions.
At the time, I didnt' think much about them, but in hindsight... ugh.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 29, 2021, 10:31:29 PM
I hope we can all agree that those covers were the very lowest point for cover "art" in the D&D editions.
At the time, I didnt' think much about them, but in hindsight... ugh.

It was not meant to be "art" it was supposed to represent an actual physical tome that white men would carry around the world with them as they conquered and oppressed the noble savage.

At this stage in the game, assuming that there is not political motivation up at WOTC thats not motivated largely by hate and spite would be borderline willful ignorance. I don't care who they put on the cover: I care who they say CANNOT be put on the cover. It was the same thing with guns for me. I didn't care for them, until I started hearing about the warped reasoning I couldn't have one.

The principle of wokeness is that only white men have any sort of agency, tolerance, self-control, or ability to improve or empathize with others. Everybody else is a idiotic victim, that crumbles at the smallest issue. Alternatively, they simply want to kill all the white men (and then the women eventually).
It tends to flip-flop between these two states depending on if misplaced empathy or malice dominates the conversation.

Monte Cook is a hack. His opinion isn't worth a cupful of cold spit.

Oddly, I rather liked the 3E cover. Minimalism is sometimes a good thing.

The BECMI covers were kind of interesting. The Basic and Expert covers only showed the hero from the back, not the front -- so you could imagine any kind of face on him. Companion set had the guy in full armor and you couldn't tell who he was.

I always took that as an inference of 'imagine this is YOUR character, make him who YOU want him to be'.

Jaeger, you have won the thread, good sir.

Bravo!

Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 30, 2021, 08:08:37 AM
Monte Cook is a hack. His opinion isn't worth a cupful of cold spit.

Oddly, I rather liked the 3E cover. Minimalism is sometimes a good thing.

The BECMI covers were kind of interesting. The Basic and Expert covers only showed the hero from the back, not the front -- so you could imagine any kind of face on him. Companion set had the guy in full armor and you couldn't tell who he was.

I always took that as an inference of 'imagine this is YOUR character, make him who YOU want him to be'.

This is how I see it as well on those covers.  They do not show the character's face so you can fill it in inside your imagination in an attempt to say this could be your character.

Quote from: Batjon on June 30, 2021, 09:53:31 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 30, 2021, 08:08:37 AM
Monte Cook is a hack. His opinion isn't worth a cupful of cold spit.

Oddly, I rather liked the 3E cover. Minimalism is sometimes a good thing.

The BECMI covers were kind of interesting. The Basic and Expert covers only showed the hero from the back, not the front -- so you could imagine any kind of face on him. Companion set had the guy in full armor and you couldn't tell who he was.

I always took that as an inference of 'imagine this is YOUR character, make him who YOU want him to be'.

This is how I see it as well on those covers.  They do not show the character's face so you can fill it in inside your imagination in an attempt to say this could be your character.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

What annoys me is this 'well there aren't any black people so they're marginalized'. Motherfucker, what makes you think you HAVE to play the guy on the cover?

To quote M.C. Hammer's 'Addams Family Values', you can play what you wanna play. I wanna grab my hair and scream, 'STOP OBSESSING AND ROLL THOSE DICE!'

Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 30, 2021, 10:44:14 AM

Quote from: Batjon on June 30, 2021, 09:53:31 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on June 30, 2021, 08:08:37 AM
Monte Cook is a hack. His opinion isn't worth a cupful of cold spit.

Oddly, I rather liked the 3E cover. Minimalism is sometimes a good thing.

The BECMI covers were kind of interesting. The Basic and Expert covers only showed the hero from the back, not the front -- so you could imagine any kind of face on him. Companion set had the guy in full armor and you couldn't tell who he was.

I always took that as an inference of 'imagine this is YOUR character, make him who YOU want him to be'.

This is how I see it as well on those covers.  They do not show the character's face so you can fill it in inside your imagination in an attempt to say this could be your character.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

What annoys me is this 'well there aren't any black people so they're marginalized'. Motherfucker, what makes you think you HAVE to play the guy on the cover?

To quote M.C. Hammer's 'Addams Family Values', you can play what you wanna play. I wanna grab my hair and scream, 'STOP OBSESSING AND ROLL THOSE DICE!'

Or play any of the characters in the book at all?  How many games are really run BTB?  I run my game my way, everyone else can run their game in their own way.  They don't need my approval or permission, but I sure as hell don't need anyone's permission/approval/acceptance either.