A question...

All topics including role playing games, board games, etc., etc.
alcyone
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2727
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Location: The Court of the Crimson King

Re: A question...

Post by alcyone »

REHowardfanatic wrote:This current trend in media, in general, and D&D/gaming, in specific, has nothing to do with inclusivity. I thought that point had been made and agreed upon.
This is me disagreeing.
REHowardfanatic wrote: Far, far too many diverse groups were left out of the grandiose bull&h!t sidebar for that to be true even by the most liberal of all possible definitions.
That doesn't really make any sense. The sentiment is worthless because it's not encyclopedic?
REHowardfanatic wrote: Oh-- Do not call others prejudiced because you do not agree with them. It is prejudiced to do so.
I see what you did there. Wait, no, what?
REHowardfanatic wrote: This is my last post on this thread, which I started. As a joke. Thank you, intenet for proving once again that you possess all the humor of a bloody knife being wiped on a dead girl's dress.
Um, you are welcome? I am not sure what to say to that.
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by Julian Grimm »

Aergraith wrote:Politically neutral in this case seems to mean GLBT people are okay as long as we don't discuss them or portray them in our games. The tenor of this whole thread seems to have some kind of dog whistle double meaning.



By neutral I mean that all real world political issue are left out. The Orcs are people too trend in FR, anything resembling conservative or liberal political thought and hidden and overt commentary on real world issues. Neutral means the written rules stay focuses on fantasy gaming and nothing more or less. This leaves it open for groups and GMs to decide their campaign directions.
I thought WoTCs attempt was awkward, but I start twitching when I see people getting upset about the general sentiment; the idea that as far as we can say such a thing in a game book, this is a safe place for all types of people. Whatever you've heard about our community, our ideal is that you are welcome at our table. The language is about what your character can do, but make no mistake, we are also talking about the people sitting around the table.


As I said above a gay acquaintance of mine said that the passage was unnecessary and near insulting. My opinion is that is yellow marketing that was intended to cause controversy that borders on exploitation of a group to make a buck. Ride the fad until it quits making money and see what group we can exploit next.

Nothing in any version of the game ever prevented anyone to play the character they wanted to. If you wanted to play a transgendered elf that suffers from PTSD it was allowable under the old rules. Which leads me to believe this was a marketing ploy aimed at one group of people.
I don't expect TLG to respond in kind. I think it's ok to not spell this stuff out. I'll say though, when I recruit for a game, don't be afraid to play at my table because you are GLBT, a woman, a pagan, or even a Christian conservative. Your character's sexuality probably won't come up much, but for what it's worth, you can be whatever you want and we'll neither make light of it or ignore it. That's my standard going forward anyway.


As is mine. I have very loose limits on whom I allow at my table. Know troublemakers, true creepers, and convicted sex offenders are not allowed. And yes I had to make that call based on real world experience.
I asked what was meant by Midwest design, because I wanted to head off any idea of "we're all ok over here, but those guys are nuts", especially where this begins to look like secret code for "go away", because one thing this hobby doesn't need is to exclude people. Because I play C&C I don't want to get lumped in with a particular worldview that I don't share.
I see the terms as a better way of expressing new vs old school design. Those that want traditional fantasy games that stay neutral would be better of with what I call the Midwest Philosophy of design. Those that want other types of games would prefer West-Coast Philosophy designed games. This is not a go away idea, this is categorizing what I see are two new emerging camps of design and marketing.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by Julian Grimm »

REHowardfanatic wrote: ...possess all the humor of a bloody knife being wiped on a dead girl's dress.

Under the correct set of circumstances this can be quite humorous for example; if the girl in question was an orc and killed in an inventive way preferably with splatter. :lol:
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: A question...

Post by mbeacom »

Aergraith wrote:
REHowardfanatic wrote:This current trend in media, in general, and D&D/gaming, in specific, has nothing to do with inclusivity. I thought that point had been made and agreed upon.
This is me disagreeing.
The marketing experts on this thread (me included) have responded in support of this. LGBT issues are huge in marketing right now. And it's not driven by corporate senses of inclusivity. If you believe large corporations are motivated by something other than profit, your position could use some work IMO.
REHowardfanatic wrote: Far, far too many diverse groups were left out of the grandiose bull&h!t sidebar for that to be true even by the most liberal of all possible definitions.
Aergraith wrote:That doesn't really make any sense. The sentiment is worthless because it's not encyclopedic?
This is a blatant strawman. No one is asking that it be encyclopedic. WotC/Paizo has painfully singled out one group (LGBT) for inclusion, but not others. There's quite a big area between one group and encyclopedic.
Aergraith wrote:Politically neutral in this case seems to mean GLBT people are okay as long as we don't discuss them or portray them in our games. The tenor of this whole thread seems to have some kind of dog whistle double meaning.
I think you're missing the obvious corollary here. People would be commenting on the exploitative nature of any group they chose to single out for inclusion. It only seems like this to you because they only singled out LGBT. NObody on this thread is singling out LGBT, but only responding to the fact that WotC chose to. Does that makes sense? If they had pushed some other marketing message that was awkward in the same way, people would call them out on it. Then someone could accuse that person of saying that particular issue is fine as long as it's not mentioned. Also, the words "dog whistle" are a dog whistle as far as I'm concerned. It's a loaded term that accuses someone of saying thing with double speak in a way that only others similarly bigoted would understand. It's accusatory but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because it's a current buzzword and I've seen others use it without realizing its connotations.
REHowardfanatic wrote: Oh-- Do not call others prejudiced because you do not agree with them. It is prejudiced to do so.
Aergraith wrote:I see what you did there. Wait, no, what?
I felt your words were accusing prejudice. But that's just my opinion.
REHowardfanatic wrote: This is my last post on this thread, which I started. As a joke. Thank you, intenet for proving once again that you possess all the humor of a bloody knife being wiped on a dead girl's dress.
Aergraith wrote:Um, you are welcome? I am not sure what to say to that.
Yeah, I"m not sure what ot say either. :)
Aergraith wrote:I thought WoTCs attempt was awkward, but I start twitching when I see people getting upset about the general sentiment; the idea that as far as we can say such a thing in a game book, this is a safe place for all types of people. Whatever you've heard about our community, our ideal is that you are welcome at our table.
First, I don't think anyone on this thread has gotten upset, and certainly not about "the general sentiment" which I think we all strongly support. I'm curious who you're talking about as far as getting upset and "making you twitch". Second, Oh if only that is what they had done. I wish they had done that. Rather than exploit a current hot marketing tactic. I think it would have achieved exactly the goal you and I both agree on (gaming should be inclusive!) without singling out one particularly hot marketing demo to make WotC appear to be engaging in lazy bandwagon marketing at best and blatant exploitation at worst. Fortunately for WotC most people are not yet wise to this and take it as wotc hopes, as an olive branch to disenfranchised gamers without stopping to question why they only offered one olive branch where there are dozens of misunderstood demographics that are easily turned off gaming due to perceived prejudice in the hobby.
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

alcyone
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2727
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Location: The Court of the Crimson King

Re: A question...

Post by alcyone »

I think I am pretty much done with this thread, but just have one question, why do you care if it's a marketing ploy?
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com

alcyone
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2727
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Location: The Court of the Crimson King

Re: A question...

Post by alcyone »

Oh, actually, one more thing, it seems like there is some list between LGBT and "encyclopedic" that would satisfy you, I guess that would convince you they were sincere? What would be on that list?
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: A question...

Post by mbeacom »

Aergraith wrote:I think I am pretty much done with this thread, but just have one question, why do you care if it's a marketing ploy?
Assuming this question is to me, it bothers me that corporations would exploit LGBT issues (or any demographic) as part of a marketing ploy. I think people, all people, are deserving of more respect than that. And there's simply too much evidence that is what is happening. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some anti-wotc crusader. I buy their products. I just don't appreciate this kind of thing making its way into my hobby (exploitative marketing). This time it's LGBT. Perhaps next time it will be people in wheelchairs or the clinically depressed if the marketing winds should blow that direction. If it does, I'll be singing the same tune. Burger King does it. I don't care about Burger King. If they want to try to trade on their LGBT friendliness, they can do whatever. But I like to think my hobby is better than that. WotC is showing that is not the case and it's just a bummer.
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: A question...

Post by mbeacom »

Aergraith wrote:Oh, actually, one more thing, it seems like there is some list between LGBT and "encyclopedic" that would satisfy you, I guess that would convince you they were sincere? What would be on that list?
I think you may be missing the point. Any "list", really wouldn't be much different yet even adding a single other non-hot-marketing demo would have made it less obvious. But it would still just be a list. It would be them checking the box. What would change my opinion would be if, rather than name dropping at one point on one page, they actually wrote the game to be inclusive throughout. If their examples of play and NPCs were all friendly and non-assumptive. Then I'd know it was truly a design decision and not a marketing decision. I would think this should be self evident, but perhaps that's because I'm in marketing and I know what can be and does get changed to enable marketing to happen.
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by Julian Grimm »

Aergraith wrote:I think I am pretty much done with this thread, but just have one question, why do you care if it's a marketing ploy?

Because exploitation is exploitation. Once it is seen that it is OK to exploit one minority group then the suits will think it is OK to exploit another. As well, what you have is the appearance of appealing to one group to cause controversy and make money. Consider it like this: WOTC threw out a bone to get the 'gay dollar'. Not much different than a politician claiming to be sensitive to certain issues to get the 'X' vote (Where X is whatever exploitable minority is in fashion).

To sum it up, what bothers me about the whole thing is that you have a company that is using a minority group to drive sales and make a buck. This is not inclusiveness this is exploitation. That is the whole problem in a nutshell. And before anyone asks; yes, I would be just as bothered if any other group was singled out.

All WOTC needed to do to be 'inclusive' is include a line that says you can play any character concept you want. The limits are your imagination. Instead they chose a calculated and controversial path that ends with me loosing respect for not only WOTC but Hasbro.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
Acacius
Mist Elf
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:39 am

Re: A question...

Post by Acacius »

Julian Grimm wrote:
Aergraith wrote:I think I am pretty much done with this thread, but just have one question, why do you care if it's a marketing ploy?

Because exploitation is exploitation. Once it is seen that it is OK to exploit one minority group then the suits will think it is OK to exploit another. As well, what you have is the appearance of appealing to one group to cause controversy and make money. Consider it like this: WOTC threw out a bone to get the 'gay dollar'. Not much different than a politician claiming to be sensitive to certain issues to get the 'X' vote (Where X is whatever exploitable minority is in fashion).

To sum it up, what bothers me about the whole thing is that you have a company that is using a minority group to drive sales and make a buck. This is not inclusiveness this is exploitation. That is the whole problem in a nutshell. And before anyone asks; yes, I would be just as bothered if any other group was singled out.

All WOTC needed to do to be 'inclusive' is include a line that says you can play any character concept you want. The limits are your imagination. Instead they chose a calculated and controversial path that ends with me loosing respect for not only WOTC but Hasbro.
I agree.

If it has already been said, I apologize, but I wonder what the number of people who will be inspired to buy into 5e will be compared to the number of people who potentially will not buy in because of this statement on gender? I tend to buy many games but play AD&D, c&c, or LL/Basic at my own table more often than not. I tried 3e and it was ok, I tried 4e and it was meh. The thing I wonder is why buy a new system if the old one is fun to play and you already own it? C&C and LL came into my life at a time when I did not want to have my AD&D or B/E books man handled by my game group. having that old school game available in print was a win for me but I do not know if i would have purchased either C&C or LL if AD&D or Basic had been available in print. One thing I really like about TLG is that I can easily use any of their material in my AD&D game with little or no conversion. To me that is awesome. While wotc claim 5e will be backwards compatible i do not think that is the case at all or at least not easily compatible with AD&D materials.

I think one of the major turn offs of 5e is the realization that I am not the target demographic.

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: A question...

Post by Fiffergrund »

So, I read the entire thread.

I don't much go for self-congratulation and obvious exploitation.

Does every product have to have a rainbow sticker on it in order for a certain demographic to feel they can use it? Nonsense.

Apparently, every bar in Toronto believes so, but only during certain times of the year (Pride Week - rainbows everywhere. Then the flags come down. Why?).

This is exploitation, and it's crass and shameless. What's worse is that they've convinced people that it is also necessary.

Get this: if an entity is truly inclusive, they don't need to spell that out. The fact that they are spelling it out, and ONLY for a certain demographic, means that they want attention drawn to the statement. I don't think you can deduce any positive connotations from that.
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 13866
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Re: A question...

Post by serleran »

Fiffergrund wrote:Get this: if an entity is truly inclusive, they don't need to spell that out. The fact that they are spelling it out, and ONLY for a certain demographic, means that they want attention drawn to the statement. I don't think you can deduce any positive connotations from that.
There's one: they acknowledge there is money they want, and have developed a plan to get it.

Oh, wait, you said positive. Hmm, well I guess the pocket determines which side knows.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Fiffergrund wrote:
Does every product have to have a rainbow sticker on it in order for a certain demographic to feel they can use it? Nonsense.
Wait a minute. I remember the AD&D 1st Ed DMG didn't have that sticker back in '79. Our DM (was was gay) disintegrated when he opened the front cover. I'll never forgive Gary for that loss. :cry:
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Litzen Tallister
Red Cap
Posts: 248
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:20 pm

Re: A question...

Post by Litzen Tallister »

Fiffergrund wrote: Get this: if an entity is truly inclusive, they don't need to spell that out. The fact that they are spelling it out, and ONLY for a certain demographic, means that they want attention drawn to the statement. I don't think you can deduce any positive connotations from that.
To point something out about inclusivity, now that I've gotten a better look at the 5th edition PHB: there is diversity represented all throughout from the artwork. Multiple ethnicities, genders, and ages are depicted in the art (please see other thread for commenting on quality of said artwork ;) ). However, orientation is often "invisible" from a visual sense. Unless WotC wanted to use Tom of Finland's art in their books, it would be difficult for them to convey in a visual sense this element of diversity. Hence (potentially) why they spelled this out with words.

No, not every product has to have a "rainbow sticker," but as long as significant prejudice exists, it helps to have products, places, and people who hold up the sign "you are safe here." It can be seen as pandering, but that is an interpretation; so is my point of view, but without a clear statement from someone at the creative heart of WotC, I would much rather believe that this was something they chose because it was the right thing to do.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Litzen Tallister wrote: It can be seen as pandering,
Which it is. Why? Because placing a note in a book does NOTHING at the gaming table. WotC has NO control over what people do. Therefore, since it doesn't ACTUALLY do anything to improve the situation (whatever that is) it is pandering. Just as our gaming group didn't need a note in '79. A note telling us how to treat certain gamers would have been ignored if for no other reason than the pure contempt that would have generated.

The "your are safe here" sign means nothing unless you think it pertains to reading the book in question. Now, you really weren't afraid to read it without a sticker. Right?

Now, if you can show actual evidence that a line in a rule book changes the prejudices of a gaming group, I'll give it to ya. ;)
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Acacius
Mist Elf
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:39 am

Re: A question...

Post by Acacius »

Litzen Tallister wrote:
Fiffergrund wrote: Get this: if an entity is truly inclusive, they don't need to spell that out. The fact that they are spelling it out, and ONLY for a certain demographic, means that they want attention drawn to the statement. I don't think you can deduce any positive connotations from that.
To point something out about inclusivity, now that I've gotten a better look at the 5th edition PHB: there is diversity represented all throughout from the artwork. Multiple ethnicities, genders, and ages are depicted in the art (please see other thread for commenting on quality of said artwork ;) ). However, orientation is often "invisible" from a visual sense. Unless WotC wanted to use Tom of Finland's art in their books, it would be difficult for them to convey in a visual sense this element of diversity. Hence (potentially) why they spelled this out with words.

No, not every product has to have a "rainbow sticker," but as long as significant prejudice exists, it helps to have products, places, and people who hold up the sign "you are safe here." It can be seen as pandering, but that is an interpretation; so is my point of view, but without a clear statement from someone at the creative heart of WotC, I would much rather believe that this was something they chose because it was the right thing to do.
The book is so inclusive that traditional concepts of fantasy (read AD&D) are almost completely absent. I had the opportunity to thumb through a store copy and quickly opted out of the book, the system, and the company. There was a time when a rule set gave you the mechanics for a game but the world was up to you to design. Now the settings are so interwoven into the rules that D&D has become one size fits all. There was a time when the characters were heroes fighting against hordes of evil monsters and defending the civilized lands. Now in a core book the characters are in pacts with demonic forces and the civilized realms seem ok with it. Half-demons walk the streets, paladins are not lawful good, and on and so forth. Seriously, is this even D&D any more?

I do not buy into the whole "you are safe here" BS as that paragraph on genders has not nor will it change anyones personal beliefs on the subject. It seems more likely that D&D was either going for a media stunt or caved to pressure from the incredibly small but vocal alphabet minority.

As a old school gamer who happens to be white, straight, christian, and male it is clear that I am not the target demographic for D&D next and so they get none of my money and that is saying something as I own nearly every book they have released since 1980 less a ton of AD&D2e splat books. No one could keep up with all those, or at least no I.

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: A question...

Post by Fiffergrund »

I received a request to lock this thread, too. I'm not going to do so just yet, but I'm watching it. I'm not calling out any particular comment because I don't think anything crossed the line. I'm just concerned it might go that way.

Having said that, I imagine that WOTC's decision-making, on all fronts, leaves a lot for personal interpretation. I have always detested pandering in all its forms, but I imagine that being pandered to on occasion seems rather nice.

Here's the thing - the goal should be a situation where this sort of stuff isn't necessary. I don't think the end goal should be a situation where everyone needs their own personal Elder Sign just to feel safe or to feel they can buy a product or participate in an activity.

I just don't think the road to true inclusion involves shameless pandering. Once the precedent is set (and it is well and truly set), superficial pandering is all that you're going to get.

People wear their rubber wristbands to project the right image and the right "causes." For most of these people, the cause is less important than the ability to look "concerned" to their social group and to pat themselves on the back for a superficial gesture.

I see WOTC's approach in exactly the same light.
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Fiffergrund wrote:
People wear their rubber wristbands to project the right image and the right "causes." For most of these people, the cause is less important than the ability to look "concerned" to their social group and to pat themselves on the back for a superficial gesture.

I see WOTC's approach in exactly the same light.
I evaluate a company's (or person's) action in this type of arena based on noise vs. EFFECTIVE action.

A bright band on the wrist (Fight against illiteracy for example) is noise. Spending every other Saturday teaching inner city kids to read is ACTION.

WotC has not taken ANY effective action against bigotry but only, noise. Ipso facto pandering.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by Julian Grimm »

[I'm trying to say the following without politics involved. Forgive me if I make a mistake]

A problem I have seen with today's society is that it seems everything has to be politicized and/or commercialized. It feels like you can do or say nothing without a someone attaching a political meaning to it. I live in an area where (in some circles) choices of your favorite soda, vehicle or restaurant is a political move and not one of preference or taste. Then you have suits that see this and market their products to that segment of the population to drive sales.

So you get what we have going on now where even gaming (Table top, video or RPG) is slowly getting political attachments to them. Which then creates a problem that can spill over to forums where there is little choice to discuss something without a political attachment. This leads to a situation where we cannot discuss a game because of political beliefs being present in the rules, artwork and campaign settings.

Earlier in this thread I said that I feel games should remain a neutral medium. Looking at how this and other discussions on the subject have progressed I would have to say that it has only strengthened that belief. In all honesty this thread has been a thousand times more friendly than others like it and has progressed well. I see no need for a lock as long as we keep it that way.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
Acacius
Mist Elf
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:39 am

Re: A question...

Post by Acacius »

Arduin wrote:
Fiffergrund wrote:
People wear their rubber wristbands to project the right image and the right "causes." For most of these people, the cause is less important than the ability to look "concerned" to their social group and to pat themselves on the back for a superficial gesture.

I see WOTC's approach in exactly the same light.
I evaluate a company's (or person's) action in this type of arena based on noise vs. EFFECTIVE action.

A bright band on the wrist (Fight against illiteracy for example) is noise. Spending every other Saturday teaching inner city kids to read is ACTION.

WotC has not taken ANY effective action against bigotry but only, noise. Ipso facto pandering.
The fact is that some people are never going to change their beliefs as it concerns some things nor should they be forced or manipulated into doing so. WotC made a statement in their free rules, doubled down by going on Marysue and saying that anyone who disagrees is a bigot and they are ok with offending bigots and then added it into the PHB.

I will never believe that a person should be referred to as a male or female based solely on the fact that they demand it be so. I do not understand how a person can look at their own genitals, declare themselves to be the opposite gender and not be diagnosed with some form of delusion or mental illness. I find it absolutely ludicrous to believe that gender rolls are, as some would claim, a social construct and not the outcome of millions of years of evolution.

The fact is no one was ever excluded from playing D&D by the rules.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

Acacius wrote:I do not understand how a person can look at their own genitals, declare themselves to be the opposite gender and not be diagnosed with some form of delusion or mental illness. I find it absolutely ludicrous to believe that gender rolls are, as some would claim, a social construct and not the outcome of millions of years of evolution.

The fact is no one was ever excluded from playing D&D by the rules.
Hey, I think I'm a spotted owl. I am as sane as anyone who can't figure out which bathroom is the correct one to use. :lol:

[disclaimer] the preceding was a MEDICAL statement. Not any other kind of statement.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by seskis281 »

Acacius wrote:I will never believe that a person should be referred to as a male or female based solely on the fact that they demand it be so. I do not understand how a person can look at their own genitals, declare themselves to be the opposite gender and not be diagnosed with some form of delusion or mental illness. I find it absolutely ludicrous to believe that gender rolls are, as some would claim, a social construct and not the outcome of millions of years of evolution.
Which leads us back into the slippery slope of differing opinions on science, on the difference between "gender" and "biological sex," socio-cultural constructs, yada yada.... which inevitably leads us into cultural politics..., and best left off the forums as we would indeed run into different members here with strongly held disagreements on those areas. :o

This isn't, however, some new phenomenon in gaming - the internal discussions and decisions around the changes made in B3 way back came out of very strong differences in opinions amongst people at TSR in those days over how art could be "offensive" and did indeed engage a discussion of gender roles in adventures. Gary was still in charge at that time, and he and TSR, too, did in fact get accused of "making token marketing stunts" to appeal to "social activism" by editing and re-issuing B3 without certain art and content.

Quite honestly, I've been deeply reading the 5e PHB, and wherever "the statement" is, it must be very small and not a major thing, because I didn't even catch it yet... and while I have my own likes and dislikes about the new system, I don't see any over-riding "agenda" infusing the rules or the game. 8-)
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

seskis281 wrote:
Which leads us back into the slippery slope of differing opinions on science, on the difference between "gender" and "biological sex,
No, science isn't opinion. Science is based on EMPIRICAL physical (tangible) evidence. If someone has an "opinion" that conflicts with THAT, they aren't engaging in science. But, something else entirely.

I have seen people do that in order to drag a scientificdiscussion INTO a political discussion. THOSE people should be banned for trying to talk politics, if a rule against political discussion exists.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by Julian Grimm »

Acacius, please stop. This thread has went along very well until you have started in. If you notice we have actually, quite civilly, disagreed on things in this discussion. What you are doing is getting close to trolling and disrupting what has been a good discussion.

So, I am asking politely that if you cannot add anything that is not inflammatory or civil to step away so that this thread does not get locked.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by seskis281 »

Arduin wrote:
seskis281 wrote:
Which leads us back into the slippery slope of differing opinions on science, on the difference between "gender" and "biological sex,
No, science isn't opinion. Science is based on EMPIRICAL physical (tangible) evidence. If someone has an "opinion" that conflicts with THAT, they aren't engaging in science. But, something else entirely.

I have seen people do that in order to drag a scientificdiscussion INTO a political discussion. THOSE people should be banned for trying to talk politics, if a rule against political discussion exists.
I would respectfully disagree and posit that that's never been true - the "empirically proven" science of physics from the early 20th century (wave mechanics, etc.) was washed away with quantum theories, scientific understanding of astronomy has changed continuously, and most scientific conferences are rife with competing theories (string vs. loop is really big right now). Not even getting into the biggies of current socio-political scientific arguments (which is what I really want to avoid at all costs and will not do myself), there's always been "opinion," e.g. two esteemed doctors and leaders in their field arguing a diagnosis from their differing interpretations of the "empirical evidence." Stephen Hawking has even come out and argued against and washed away his own earlier positions on black holes and the "knowledge" question.

And all that is just about the "physical" sciences, and doesn't even touch on "behavioral" or "social" sciences, in which "empirical" data is observational studies and trends in comparing cultural actions, societal interactions, communications, and both group and individual behavioral patterns, and in all the major areas (psychology, anthropology, sociology, communication theory) ends up resting heavily on debates between differing approaches to researching data (what variables are used in study, what are excluded, etc.) and how the results should be "read."

And, ultimately, these debates are infused in just about every political or socio-cultural discussion, and have always been a part of them (Galileo anyone?)

I understand your reaction - but right here we see you and I disagree on something, probably quite strongly, and my only point is that when we go down this road (and maybe I am doing that here too though I am trying to keep it as ephemeral and non-specific-issue based as possible) then we might lead to a place where it gets unwelcoming to everyone who is just here to talk about C&C and gaming. 8-) I respect your different take on things and am cool with that, I would just ask understanding for those, like I did here, who might want to politely disagree and argue a different take.

:)
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: A question...

Post by Arduin »

seskis281 wrote:
But that's never been true - the "empirically proven" science of physics from the early 20th century (wave mechanics, etc.) was washed away with quantum theories,
That's an incorrect statement. It was replaced with NEW empirical evidence. NOT opinion. If I state that I am a Spotted Owl, THAT is opinion and NOT based on observable PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Such a HUGE difference that it is ridiculous to carry the conversation on any further along that line.

So, as I correctly stated, people WILL try to derail science with opinion in order to drag into the political sewer and such people SHOULD be banned if rules against political discussion exist.

Example: As of NOW, science has determined that homo sapiens are bipedal. Now, some people may say that THEY are octopedal. Unless they can bring OBJECTIVE physical evidence (testable) to the table, they are stating OPINION and NOT engaging in science.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by Julian Grimm »

You have both hit on something I want to comment on. For those of us that are skeptical of science, (the scientific establishment, mainstream science, whatever you want to call it) it is the very above thing that makes us skeptical. For example, you get studies saying that X is bad for you, then you see years of don't do X or don't eat X. Then all of a sudden X wasn't as bad as we thought so X is ok but now Y is bad. When you see enough of this you begin to wonder is you are getting the solid truth or if there are just some guys in lab coats making things up as they go along. Then you also have commercially or politically motivated junk science that has happened before (results decided before research is done).

So Seskis saying that there is differing opinions reflects a certain point of view of those of us who have become skeptical based on the above. Now, I am not saying that the scientists are wrong or that science is worthless. I am just saying that science may have to change it's approach when dealing with the muggles so that it is easier for us to understand at this time.

Hope you understand what I am trying to say.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: A question...

Post by Fiffergrund »

Acacius wrote:
Arduin wrote:
Fiffergrund wrote:
People wear their rubber wristbands to project the right image and the right "causes." For most of these people, the cause is less important than the ability to look "concerned" to their social group and to pat themselves on the back for a superficial gesture.

I see WOTC's approach in exactly the same light.
I evaluate a company's (or person's) action in this type of arena based on noise vs. EFFECTIVE action.

A bright band on the wrist (Fight against illiteracy for example) is noise. Spending every other Saturday teaching inner city kids to read is ACTION.

WotC has not taken ANY effective action against bigotry but only, noise. Ipso facto pandering.
The fact is that some people are never going to change their beliefs as it concerns some things nor should they be forced or manipulated into doing so. WotC made a statement in their free rules, doubled down by going on Marysue and saying that anyone who disagrees is a bigot and they are ok with offending bigots and then added it into the PHB.

I will never believe that a person should be referred to as a male or female based solely on the fact that they demand it be so. I do not understand how a person can look at their own genitals, declare themselves to be the opposite gender and not be diagnosed with some form of delusion or mental illness. I find it absolutely ludicrous to believe that gender rolls are, as some would claim, a social construct and not the outcome of millions of years of evolution.

The fact is no one was ever excluded from playing D&D by the rules.

Yeah. I'm done with this. Enjoy your vacation.
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Re: A question...

Post by Fiffergrund »

The thread stays open for the time being because people are still being respectful. I happen to think reasonable people can disagree about WOTC's approach (and it IS gaming related) without slinging mud, and other than the one notable exception, this has been the case. I hope it continues to be the case.

For my part, I've said what I think and I don't need to rehash it. This topic may be played out anyway.
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: A question...

Post by seskis281 »

Fiffergrund wrote: I happen to think reasonable people can disagree about WOTC's approach (and it IS gaming related) without slinging mud, and other than the one notable exception, this has been the case. I hope it continues to be the case.
Thanks, I agree. I totally get some people seeing WotC's choice on this matter as being "pandering" or insincere "marketing." I also think there are plenty who might see it as well-intentioned, but badly handled in implementation, and still others who are happy with the choice. In the end, we're talking about our opinions of another company and game, and I fully support those who make a choice not to buy 5e or support WotC because they have a negative reaction - we all have that choice with any company that makes products we might or might not purchase, and that holds true here ;) As I mentioned above, I am not seeing anything over-running the game that is 5e, my own look at is based on the rules and there I find it trying to aim back towards the philosophy that governed C&C and the SIEGE mechanic, but again C&C has already accomplished the attempt quite nicely and elegantly for 10 years 8-)

And I do agree most of us are keeping civil, even when Arduin and I disagree on "science." :ugeek:
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

Post Reply