Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's not really what I'm getting from the quoted msg.

Also, jesus I'm old -_- Just looking at everyone in this thread saying they were born after the 90s is depressing

Sining wrote:
That's not really what I'm getting from the quoted msg.

Then read it again. It very clearly says "did the people who did X play Y?.

Manchu, yes, you're right. I misread that. But to then answer that question: What difference would that actually make to the discussion we're having right now? Seems like another big ol' smoke screen to me.

 pretre wrote:
Don't confuse fundamentalists with christians...

All fundamentalist Christians are Christians. Not all Christians are fundamentalist Christians.

That's what you're getting at, right?

Right. Although I could also have said don't judge all of one group based on a couple crazies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Manchu, yes, you're right. I misread that. But to then answer that question: What difference would that actually make to the discussion we're having right now? Seems like another big ol' smoke screen to me.

You were the one who brought up the 80s and 90s stuff, so if you feel that it's off-topic then you have only yourself to blame.

Also, the point of the argument seems to have been that the "video games cause murder" and "D&D is satanic" claims were made by clueless morons who had never played any of the games they were talking about. For example, religious idiots described D&D as some kind of satanic ritual with real spells being cast, but anyone who had ever played D&D would know that rolling some dice and saying "I cast magic missile" has nothing to do with satanism (or any other real religion). But there's a key difference with modern criticism of sexism/racism/etc in gaming: it's coming from people who do play the games and have a stake in being part of the community. So your "same stuff, different decade" argument fails in a very important way.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seems like another big ol' smoke screen to me.

I agree.

You know, the people who were so afraid of D&D and so opposed to it in the 80s, they are always portrayed as idiots but they weren't totally wrong. Sure, playing D&D doesn't make kids become Satanists or kill themselves or whatever superstitious nonsense. (The Satanist scare was a larger phenomenon in the US at the time, by the way.) But this idea of unfettered creativity and free thought would be really terrifying in the suburbs and rural areas of the US. In the 1980s, this was the last hold out of Nixon's Silent Majority -- and these people had become the vociferous, militant Christian Right under the spell of men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. These people really felt like their way of life, their 1950s conservatism, was besieged and they were exactly right.

You could say that D&D was nothing to be scared of but I think that is kind of selling it short. In any case, people opposed it because it did scare them. They knew it had some kind of power or they would not have cared. The same is true to this day except now the people who oppose D&D, they don't want to just shut that power down but they also want to seize it for their own purposes, which have nothing to do with imagination or creativity. Honestly the joke is on them. The radicalism of D&D, whatever power it ever had, hasn't been a part of a D&D-labeled product since the early 90s (much less Paizo). Fifth Edition, with its corporate marketing values of inclusivity and tolerance, has proved D&D to be firmly mainstream and about as non-magical as Monopoly.

Misogny in D&D is bullcrap.

>> Rape is misogny!

No, it's not. Rape is a story device to make a bad guy look even more bad, to stir up hatred against a certain NPC etc. Just like...murder. Which everyone seems to be fine with. Huh.

>> But...but...rape always involves women!

I wasn't aware of that! It starts with a really mechanical issue - unless a fantasy wizard somehow casts a dongalong spell on a lady who then proceeds to...ehem.

>> ohmygod yes, but the entire narrative is focused on rape!

Feel free to point me to such a story.

>> ermagehrd, women are only in RPGs to satisfy lower desires, victimization! VICTIMIZATIOOOOOON!

Bullcrap. What's the most common gender that gets slaughtered in RPGs? Men. Male goblins, male orcs, male bandits. Everyone is fine with it. Imagine an adventure where the group is to slaughter a tribe of Amazons. Oh, I can already hear the SJW howling from beyond the hills.

>> My GM totally creates sexist adventures!

Why are you still playing?

 Sigvatr wrote:
>> My GM totally creates sexist adventures!

Why are you still playing?

This is a great point. It also applies to D&D more generally in that you can add to and subtract from the rules and background elements however you see fit. If there is something troubling you about the published rules, change it (just as people used to ignore sexist character attributes). If the people you game with are misgynistic creeps, stop gaming with them.

You know, Peterson makes a lot of good points in his article that Trammell just ignores. Trammell concentrates on these sexist articles from the 70s as if they speak for what all RPGers were like in the 70s and even today. This is bull gak. As Peterson makes clear, women and men pushed back when those kind of articles were written. Here is a little poem written by a woman gamer in response to one of those sexists articles and criticizing Tim Kask for publishing it in Dragon magazine:

A verse for Len Lakofka, who’s earned the name of nerd,

For rules changes both chauvinist and patently absurd

And Kask, the man who published it, why earn your way to fame,

By publicly insulting all the players of the game?

Peterson actually studies the history of roleplaying rather than writing political manifestos masquerading as scholarly research.

 Peregrine wrote:
But there's a key difference with modern criticism of sexism/racism/etc in gaming: it's coming from people who do play the games and have a stake in being part of the community. So your "same stuff, different decade" argument fails in a very important way.

That doesn't add any weight to the correctness of their opinions, considering sexism/racism/etc in gaming is also disputed by people who play games and have a stake in being part of the community.

In other words "video games cause sexism/racism/etc" is an unproven statement.

Unless you have proof?

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:


In other words "video games cause sexism/racism/etc" is an unproven statement.

Precisely. Anyone who claims there is outright lies. End of the story.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
That doesn't add any weight to the correctness of their opinions, considering sexism/racism/etc in gaming is also disputed by people who play games and have a stake in being part of the community.

Of course it adds weight. Who has more credibility to criticize D&D: a religious lunatic who has never even opened the rulebook but will tell you all about how it's a satanic ritual to summon demons, or a D&D player who is unhappy about something they perceive as sexist and want it changed so that D&D is a better product for them? The former is an idiot speaking out of complete ignorance of the subject, the latter is a person who just has an opinion that you don't agree with.

In other words "video games cause sexism/racism/etc" is an unproven statement.

Nobody is making that argument. The actual claim is that video games/RPGs/etc have a lot of the same sexism/racism/etc that is present in society in general, and those elements reinforce existing sexist/racist/etc ideas. For example, nobody is going to suddenly learn about racism and join the KKK because they played a D&D game where orcs are evil, but the concept of having an entire race defined as inherently evil does reinforce real-world racist ideas that race determines who you are and some races are just inherently bad.

text removed.

Reds8n

Using a GW example, would you say that a player wanting to make his faction OP is improving the game?

 pretre wrote:
Right. Although I could also have said don't judge all of one group based on a couple crazies.

I wasn't so much judging the people as I was judging the beliefs themselves. Beliefs which the vast majority of Christians share.

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course it adds weight. Who has more credibility to criticize D&D: a religious lunatic who has never even opened the rulebook but will tell you all about how it's a satanic ritual to summon demons, or a D&D player who is unhappy about something they perceive as sexist and want it changed so that D&D is a better product for them? The former is an idiot speaking out of complete ignorance of the subject, the latter is a person who just has an opinion that you don't agree with.

It doesn't add weight to the correctness of their opinion because experience does not gaurantee correctness of opinions. You can have vast knowledge of a subject and still be wrong about aspects of it. In other words, a D&D player of 5 years thinks an aspect is racist, another player of 5 years thinks it is not. Going solely by experience, who is right?

Nobody is making that argument. The actual claim is that video games/RPGs/etc have a lot of the same sexism/racism/etc that is present in society in general, and those elements reinforce existing sexist/racist/etc ideas. For example, nobody is going to suddenly learn about racism and join the KKK because they played a D&D game where orcs are evil, but the concept of having an entire race defined as inherently evil does reinforce real-world racist ideas that race determines who you are and some races are just inherently bad.

Sure, why not. Prove that video games enforce existing sexism/racism
(also, are you saying D&D caused Ferguson? )

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
That is some opinion I have never seen anyone holding. “Video games are influence by sexist premise and therefore contain sexist elements”, yep, seen that. But “video games will turn you into a sexist”? Never. Because it does not make any sense, especially when most of the critics play video games themselves.
Again, replace “video games” by “American culture”. Would you say “There is still some sexism in American culture” is the same as “Living in the U.S. will make you sexist”?

Same dealio for you, prove that video games enforce existing sexism/racism

 stanman wrote:
Sounds like a few too many D&D groups took a direct page from this:

Why not, it's a quote from Genghis Khan.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Using a GW example, would you say that a player wanting to make his faction OP is improving the game?

No. I would think he/she is wrong. I would not compare him or her to people trying to prove that playing Warhammer means you are a psychopathic satanist killer and Warhammer should be banned though, because those are two very, very different things.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
That is some opinion I have never seen anyone holding. “Video games are influence by sexist premise and therefore contain sexist elements”, yep, seen that. But “video games will turn you into a sexist”? Never. Because it does not make any sense, especially when most of the critics play video games themselves.
Again, replace “video games” by “American culture”. Would you say “There is still some sexism in American culture” is the same as “Living in the U.S. will make you sexist”?

Same dealio for you, prove that video games enforce existing sexism/racism

So, you are quoting me saying neither I nor anyone I know think video games “enforce” sexism, or “turn people into sexists”, or “is the only thing standing between turning everyone into Jesus hippies that love everyone equally and smoke tons of weed”, and you are asking me to prove what I just said I did not believe? It is the other way around. Real world problems are what creates problems in games, not the other way around.
Do you believe that there is some kind of magical protection that prevent real world problems from influencing games?

And just to know, if I give you an example of real-world problems getting into games, in that example also applies to other media like, say, movies, will you say “but it is the same in movies, why are you not attacking movies instead”?

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually no.

No what? How does this respond to my post?

Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo

Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").

Subversion works in some instances. However if you look at gun control groups like MDA, the Brady Campaign, Everytown, etc. you will find that they are openly hostile to guns and gun owners - their supporters have even threatened violence towards gun owners, and endorse SWATing them

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually no.

No what? How does this respond to my post?

Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo

Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").

Subversion works in some instances. However if you look at gun control groups like MDA, the Brady Campaign, Everytown, etc. you will find that they are openly hostile to guns and gun owners - their supporters have even threatened violence towards gun owners, and endorse SWATing them

That's...amusingly ironic.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually no.

No what? How does this respond to my post?

Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo

Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").

Subversion works in some instances. However if you look at gun control groups like MDA, the Brady Campaign, Everytown, etc. you will find that they are openly hostile to guns and gun owners - their supporters have even threatened violence towards gun owners, and endorse SWATing them

That's...amusingly ironic.

Yup.
"Gun owners are violent, and if they do not turn in their guns we'll assault them or have them killed"

"if you touch that gun, I'll use this baseball to kill you dead."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually no.

No what? How does this respond to my post?

Also -- you keep posting as if your experience with D&D is universal. Why?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
People in favour of gun control evidently missed that memo

Remember when S&W bowed to gun control nuts on trigger locks? Don't want to go too far off-topic here. The subversion tactic is no secret, either: you find that language throughout the post-modern manifesto genre (in which I include most contemporary writing on "inclusivity").

Subversion works in some instances. However if you look at gun control groups like MDA, the Brady Campaign, Everytown, etc. you will find that they are openly hostile to guns and gun owners - their supporters have even threatened violence towards gun owners, and endorse SWATing them

That's...amusingly ironic.

Yup.
"Gun owners are violent, and if they do not turn in their guns we'll assault them or have them killed"

Should be an interesting case study for the Stand Your Ground laws...

Please stay on-topic. This isn't a gun control thread.

no, it's a much more sensible thread that essentially consists of two - a few people hurling arguments (many of which are either simply ignored by the other party or just are not valid) about how appropriate forced and or violent sexual activities are in the same game that usually consists of bloody murder in the name of SEEEEELAAAAAUGHTER!, uh, i mean JJEEUUUSSSTIIICEE!!
The answer being: whatever floats yer boat mikael, just make sure ya don' get caught.

Do people think these two things are really equally acceptable in a RPG or should be?

(a) my character swings his sword at the orc

(b) my character forces the orc to do sex things with him

Really?

no, that's not what I'm saying.
I''m saying, when it comes down to it, it depends on the situation. is the person trying to joke? (a joke about rape is still a joke, just as a racist joke is still a joke) is the person being completely serious and thinks that is what his character would do? in which case there is something wrong. tel me, diembowement, evisceration, decapitation, ll of these things happen all the time in Dnd, and that's the GOOD GUYS.
tell me, someone cutting a woman's head off, surely that is worse a crime then rpe? i am NOT SAYING RAPE IS OK, i am saying that when it comes dwon to it, who the feth cares if a person wants to be an donkey-cave. hell, if you really don't like what a person does than stop playing. esy as that. say "nope, that's not ok, I'm done" and leave. if an entire group ws suggesting the gang-rape of n elf it means, well it's not real. they aren't saying that they would actually want to rape a womn in real life. notice how it is clled a FANTASY game? fantasy definition: n. the faculty or activity of imagining impossible or improbable things.
imagining. not "going out and raping people because DnD said i only had to roll a twelve to penetrate."

You just made the "killing is worse than rape" argument.

So do you think a game about raping orcs is better than a game about killing them?

 Manchu wrote:
You just made the "killing is worse than rape" argument.

So do you think a game about raping orcs is better than a game about killing them?

It almost looks like you are presenting a false dichotomy
Out of intellectual curiosity why is one considered worse than the other? I was under the impression from reading the comments from a variety of posters that rape in D&D was not an actual part of the game mechanics. but something that players either injected into the story or kept off scene and therefore not an integral part

see, this is a damned SELF-PERPETUATING CYCLE.
here's a way to think about it.
who does rape hurt? the victim. plus who ever has to look after any potential spawnings caused by said rape.
who is hurt by murder? the victim, and EVERY SINGLE PERSON THE VICTIM HAS EVER BEEN FRIENDS OR FAMILY WITH.

 Manchu wrote:
Do people think these two things are really equally acceptable in a RPG or should be?

(a) my character swings his sword at the orc

(b) my character forces the orc to do sex things with him

Really?

Well, if you interpret the sword as a metaphor, then yes, they equally acceptable.

Anyway, now that I got that out of my system, isn't the purpose of a RPG to role-play? How would a player role playing as a Viking raider act when stumbling across a frightened maiden?
So yes, it is theoretically acceptable, provided it has the correct context.
In practice, why would one want to?