I think when a discussion becomes people defining and redefining numerous terms at length it has ceased to be a useful discussion. Coming to an exact consensus over langauge never goes well...
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present, in relation to the Social Milieu.
The Game Milieu: whichis the combination of the Social and Fictional Milieus, in relation to each other.
You keep adding this "in relation to" bit. Something being influenced by something else does not make that second thing inseparable from the first. If that was the case, we would not be individuals and murder would not exist because it would just be self-harm, and hurting one's self to remove something undesirable is not murder. It just doesn't work. "In relation to" is also a context. Things exist, and the relation between those things and other things is entirely separate from the nature of the thing itself. A rock might be heavy in relation to an acorn, but that doesn't make the rock inseparable from the relation. So claiming the Fictional Milieu is X in relation to Y means you have an X and a Y as distinct things which can then have some kind of relation to each other. It's similar to nouns and verbs. Noun verbs noun. Two nouns and a verb, each noun is separate from the other, but have a relation towards each other. Each noun and the relationship is distinct making three distinct things. Adding "in relation to" is like defining a cloud as a thing that is somewhere west of the mountain, as though somehow it wouldn't be a cloud if it was somewhere else.
Frankly, I feel as though you are stretching to add this "in relation to" stuff in some attempt to make some sort of social justice agenda be brought into the conversation, like you just can't see anything without seeing the social justice agenda as part of it. Can you not look at a rock without seeing it as a weapon someone will use to stone someone else? We are supposedly trying to discuss a game, which whatever other elements you want to bring into it's definition, I think we can at least agree that a game, whatever it is, is supposed to be enjoyable. There is no enjoyment when you can't even define something without bringing social justice into it. That is the perversion of justice. It is taking the concept of justice so far that it ends up doing more harm than good despite the motivations of those pushing for it.
"And no, you do not have a right to be free of censorship by anyone else -- only the government."
Not quite correct. The founders, and I agree with them on this, considered the rights to be fundamental rights that exist outside of whatever governmental rules we establish to govern ourselves. They did not see themselves as granting us those rights, but rather were rather saying the governmental is not allowed to infringe on those rights. If you read it, they always mention the rights as if they are already in existence and are dictating the relationship of the government towards those rights. In that interpretation, I do have a right to remain uncensored by anyone, but you also have the right to ask me to not speak about something, and whatever choice I make about respecting or not your request, you will then make a choice as well.
Can't have good guys defeating bad guys when there are no bad guys.
"Factually, this is incorrect."
This is a purely logical statement, that is self evidently true. You can not destroy what does not exist. Indeed, you can not even act upon that which does not exist. If you can act upon it, then it exists. Did you perhaps misread this?
"If the fact that the use of racial modifiers is racist bothers you, that is a you problem, not an I problem."
Actually no, this is a really big problem. Calling someone racist means you can justify harming them, all in them name of "justice." You call someone racist, you are claiming that they are a bad person, someone who deserves negative treatment. Thus if we can not agree on what is racist or not, then we are not able to establish a common agreement of what is just, and that devolves into causing harm. That is why you get people who say "do what is right" as they burn down their own city killing innocent people who have never done any wrong. Or for a more historical example, go look at the Russian revolution. The revolutionaries didn't have a solid isolated idea of what classism was, and so who qualified as being an elite just kept growing and growing until no one was safe, not just no elites were safe, no. It went to the point that no innocent person was safe from being called an elite and killed.
Racist: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group.
A physical description is not prejudice, it is not discrimination, nor is it antagonism. If you can't see a physical description without thinking it is racist, that is a danger to society. That is not the problem of an individual. This is one of those things where "in relation to the social milieu" is actually appropriate. Not only is it a lie to claim it is racist to say orcs are physically stronger, but your bringing negativity where there wasn't any before. Worse, is that even if you were correct, which you are not, orcs do not exist. There are no orcs in the real world who are going to face hate crimes because a book says something racist about them. Fiction is a sort of safe place to focus such things, to write stories about the terrible things that happen because of evil like racism, and to explore the various ways societies and culture might handle or respond to such issues. Both as explorations of what might lead to a better future, and as warnings of what happens when bad things are allowed to progress. 1984 for example.
And guess what, sometimes it is actually fun, when in a safe space like a game, your character, or in a story a character you are rooting for, is subjected to such unfairness, as it becomes something for the character to struggle against and to overcome. Some people can find that fun. Some people find that an amazing thing to bring into a story or as a motivation for a character arc. Consider Drizzt and all his struggles against the surface people's hatred of drow, and the sort of thoughtful considerations that come from realizing that there is absolutely legitimate reason to hate and fear drow, enough to justify not wanting to take a chance. That is something that can be explored in a safe space like a game or story or comedy. Like Jeff Dunham and his puppet say "but you might offend somebody!" "Yea, that's why everyone else is laughing."
Heck, I actually spent several years making kobolds and tieflings because I wanted to have a character go through such an arc, and it was literally a massive disappointment to me when everybody completely ignored what my character was. Certainly I wasn't looking for trouble or problems among the players, but the among the characters, I saw it as the potential for great roleplaying and storytelling and character growth. Heck, I'm in a game now, where my character and another are constantly at odds and have even slapped each other. We the players are enjoying it. The characters however, really don't like each other much. It has made for some of the best narrative moments of the campaign.
So yea, you claiming that orcs having a strength modifier for being an orc is racist, and the implication of your references to that fact suggest you think it is a good thing that those modifiers are removed, and for that reason, is actively harmful on multiple levels.
Game: A game is an activity engaged for educational, social, developmental, work, art, and healthcare or other purposes that has certain traits:
Goals / Objectives - which provide the purpose
Rules / Mechanics -- which provide a limiting context
Challenges / Problems - which provide the basis
Interactions / Exchanges - which engage the players
Feedback / Rewards - which encourages further play
Independent Decision Making by participants - which defines the role(s) of the players.
This is way to broad. It would be easy to fit literal brain surgery into this definition. I suggest this slight adjustment.
Game: A game is an activity performed for the sake of enjoyment, or to make use of the enjoyment of the activity for an additional goal.
The inclusion of the various traits do not seem like definition elements to me, they seem more like a categorization of how one might examine basically any activity someone might perform for any reason. And I'm fine with that.
As for these,
The Social Milieu: which includes the players and the world they live in.
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present, in relation to the Social Milieu.
The Game Milieu: whichis the combination of the Social and Fictional Milieus, in relation to each other.
I suggest these instead
Real World Milieu: The physical and social environment of the real world.
The Physical Milieu: The physical environment. This is context dependent. It could be the real world's physical environment, or a fictional world's physical environment.
The Social Milieu: The social environment. Like the above, this is context dependent. It could be the real world's social envirnment or a fictional world's social environment.
Fictional Milieu:the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present. In other words, the physical and social environment of a fictional world.
The Game Milieu: the real world milieu and the fictional milieu and the relation between them.
I think when a discussion becomes people defining and redefining numerous terms at length it has ceased to be a useful discussion. Coming to an exact consensus over langauge never goes well...
Perhaps, but I'm enjoying myself at least. I don't get to be so technical very often.
And honestly, it is being somewhat helpful as well.
You keep adding this "in relation to" bit. Something being influenced by something else does not make that second thing inseparable from the first. If that was the case, we would not be individuals and murder would not exist because it would just be self-harm, and hurting one's self to remove something undesirable is not murder. It just doesn't work. "In relation to" is also a context. Things exist, and the relation between those things and other things is entirely separate from the nature of the thing itself. A rock might be heavy in relation to an acorn, but that doesn't make the rock inseparable from the relation. Adding "in relation to" is like defining a cloud as a thing that is somewhere west of the mountain, as though somehow it wouldn't be a cloud if it was somewhere else.
Frankly, I feel as though you are stretching to add this "in relation to" stuff in some attempt to make some sort of social justice agenda be brought into the conversation, like you just can't see anything without seeing the social justice agenda as part of it.
Can you not look at a rock without seeing it as a weapon someone will use to stone someone else?
We are supposedly trying to discuss a game, which whatever other elements you want to bring into it's definition, I think we can at least agree that a game, whatever it is, is supposed to be enjoyable.
There is no enjoyment when you can't even define something without bringing social justice into it.
This is way too broad. It would be easy to fit literal brain surgery into this definition. I suggest this slight adjustment.
Game: A game is an activity performed for the sake of enjoyment, or to make use of the enjoyment of the activity for an additional goal.
The inclusion of the various traits do not seem like definition elements to me, they seem more like a categorization of how one might examine basically any activity someone might perform for any reason. And I'm fine with that.
As for these, I suggest these instead
Real World Milieu: The physical and social environment of the real world.
The Physical Milieu: The physical environment. This is context dependent. It could be the real world's physical environment, or a fictional world's physical environment.
The Social Milieu: The social environment. Like the above, this is context dependent. It could be the real world's social environment or a fictional world's social environment.
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present. In other words, the physical and social environment of a fictional world.
The Game Milieu: the real world milieu and the fictional milieu and the relation between them.
1 - I will always add in relation to when there is a relation involved. It is a key part to understanding the whole. Excluding it abstracts the meaning -- and I will not abstract the meaning. consider it non-negotiable if you must -- your own stated reasoning in this point is entirely something you add to it, and not what is present.
2 - I do contract work in human rights for the UN, teach/lecture on the side, and do assorted work in relation to underserved minority populations in regular life, and have been doing so for 30 years. It is not a matter of "cannot", it is a matter of "will not". I cannot ignore my ethical and personal responsibilities.
3 - I look at a rock and pretty much never see it as a weapon. It is a rock -- and that's already an immense amount of information for me to see. But then, I see a lot in nearly anything -- my own neuro-atypicality in action.
4 - We do not agree that a game must be enjoyable. So many examples...
5 - I have a completely opposite stance on this.
6 - As I noted before, the definition I provided was based on science and actual use cases. You could notliterally fit brain surgery into it; you could fit training for brain surgery into it. While the exaggeration for effect is somewhat humorous, it is neither accurate nor useful. That said, I am willing to possibly accept that for the purpose of this discussion as it does narrow it -- however...
6.1 - ... in doing so, that restricts it to those specific features that I noted describe a game. In compromise on the first part, I must insist on the bullets -- and I note that one of the bullets is previously stated to be non-negotiable.
6.2 - We are getting closer. I suggest this instead:
Real World Milieu: The physical and social environment of the real world.
The Social Milieu: The social environment. Like the above, this is context dependent. It could be the real world's social environment and/or a fictional world's social environment.
Fictional Milieu: the place and space comprising the fictional world, characters, and situations that are present. In other words, the imagined environment of a fictional world.
The Game Milieu: the real world milieu and the fictional milieu and the relation between them.
0 - I repeat, I will not re-litigate facts regarding in-game racism, nor will I indulge in such relating to other elements. Those are personal issues on the part of others, not myself. I removed the portions that dealt in that, and will not revisit them: it is not my job to explain facts to others for free.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This may not be the best place to get into this, but there is a difference in calling an idea racist and calling a person racist. The fact that certain people - yourself included, it seems - equate them is cause for a large amount of continued societal problems. The line of thinking of "I am not a bad person, therefore I am not racist, therefore I don't hold any racist ideas," is unhelpful, as it prevents identification of problematic ideas, solutions, and reparations (used in a more broad sense here). EVERYONE has implicit biases and some of those biases can tend towards racist ideas. Calling those ideas out is not calling the person evil or bad, it is asking that person to have a bit of introspection to become aware of them and be critical of them.
There is also the problem that these racial bonuses were not restricted to physical characteristics, nor were they restricted to bonuses, historically. Orcs and dwarves (in the fantasy sense) do not exist, but you can clearly see the influences real cultures had on their design and when those cultures see that "race" as less intelligent or always the enemy, THAT is a problem.
This may not be the best place to get into this, but there is a difference in calling an idea racist and calling a person racist. The fact that certain people - yourself included, it seems - equate them is cause for a large amount of continued societal problems. The line of thinking of "I am not a bad person, therefore I am not racist, therefore I don't hold any racist ideas," is unhelpful, as it prevents identification of problematic ideas, solutions, and reparations (used in a more broad sense here). EVERYONE has implicit biases and some of those biases can tend towards racist ideas. Calling those ideas out is not calling the person evil or bad, it is asking that person to have a bit of introspection to become aware of them and be critical of them.
There is also the problem that these racial bonuses were not restricted to physical characteristics, nor were they restricted to bonuses, historically. Orcs and dwarves (in the fantasy sense) do not exist, but you can clearly see the influences real cultures had on their design and when those cultures see that "race" as less intelligent or always the enemy, THAT is a problem.
We should definitely not go there, but I will say that a lot of the time when people are trying to prove/show how not racist they are or how culturally sensitive they are, or not homophobic they are, it often reveals how deeply racist and homophobic they actually are. For example, the 5e Players Handbook has some racist and homophobic art according to some of my friends. They get away with it because they have proclaimed far and wide how not racist and not homophobic they are, but this art is waaaaaay worse than anything anyone dared to ever put into a book in the 80's. I think the reason is that in the 80's no one was trying to "not be" racist and homophobic, they just made art that they thought was cool, which sometimes came off as racist but back then no one called them on it. In this book, some very insecure people were trying very hard not to be racist or homophobic. I applaud the effort to very specifically try not be racist and homophobic...but man they really screwed the pooch, my friends back in the States have not been kind about this books "artistic" direction.
I personally don't see it, but then again, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I concede that I see art through a very different lens.
The reason I shifted to it was pretty basic: it became very obvious in one moment that we were using the same terms to talk about different things.
I had a choice at that moment: withdraw or attempt to continue the effort to understand the core problem that prompted the thread.
I explained what I thought it was, but was incorrect. I tried a couple other things as well, with limited success. While part of it is definitely hampered by the lack of familiarity with 5e on the part of the OP, that in and of itsel fis not an issue. Another limiting factor is the admitted absence of ability to communicate effectively.
This was the easiest solution I could think of. There's no rancor, even in the elements that I am refusing to deal in -- I genuinely don't give a damn, and I haven't the patience for much of that stuff; so by glossing over it, I can stay on track with the part where I'm trying to be nice and helpful.
Success is a whole different story. I have dealt with challenges of this type previously, and been generally successful (e.g., the failing student begins passing) because it means finding a place where the one-sided perception of the world is moved beyond into an area that is slightly more interactive.
The hard part is the parsing. I have to pay close attention to everything stated, and engage in active listening, which is difficult in a text only environment, requiring more precision than usual.
But it *is* exhausting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
We should definitely not go there, but I will say that a lot of the time when people are trying to prove/show how not racist they are or how culturally sensitive they are, or not homophobic they are, it often reveals how deeply racist and homophobic they actually are. For example, the 5e Players Handbook has some racist and homophobic art according to some of my friends. They get away with it because they have proclaimed far and wide how not racist and not homophobic they are, but this art is waaaaaay worse than anything anyone dared to ever put into a book in the 80's. I think the reason is that in the 80's no one was trying to "not be" racist and homophobic, they just made art that they thought was cool, which sometimes came off as racist but back then no one called them on it. In this book, some very insecure people were trying very hard not to be racist or homophobic. I applaud the effort to very specifically try not be racist and homophobic...but man they really screwed the pooch, my friends back in the States have not been kind about this books "artistic" direction.
I personally don't see it, but then again, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I concede that I see art through a very different lens.
I think also, that the ideas of what is being called racist is changing. No one I know or talked to 20 years ago thought that a +4 to strength for orcs was racist, because no one thought about such things in a way that would ever cross paths with racist beliefs or behaviors. But the way a lot of modern people conceptualize the world has changed, making then see connections between the two ideas, and it is those connections that lead to influence. Thus in older days where there were no connections in people's minds between racial modifiers and racist biases, there was no influence either, but for those today whose perspective creates connections between the ideas, then influence can happen. But I think how many are dealing with it is not the right way to handle it, as it causes more harm than good, despite the fact they are trying to do good.
In light of recent posts, I am withdrawing and discontinuing on the basis of bad faith actions.
See ya all in other threads: I'm out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't think this conversation is going to be very productive, but I did want to point out the reason I said what I said.
If it was not your line of thinking, then you wouldn't have said this:
"Actually no, this is a really big problem. Calling someone racist means you can justify harming them, all in them name of "justice." You call someone racist, you are claiming that they are a bad person, someone who deserves negative treatment."
...in response to this:
"If the fact that the use of racial modifiers is racist bothers you, that is a you problem, not an I problem."
I will address a few other things, and you can respond or not, but I'll probably bow out of the conversation after that (I'll read your response, if you choose to, FWIW).
Your conviction that implicit bias was "created" instead of "discovered" means that there is very little fruitful discussion to be had. I would ask you to re-evaluate this statement, however: "created recently and specifically for the purpose of societal destruction." What, exactly, would be the point of destroying society? What would these purported creators of implicit bias gain from that destruction? In the next few sentences, you - once again - equate drawing attention to implicit bias to calling someone evil. The only people who would see implicit bias as an excuse to punish someone for being "evil" are people who don't actually believe implicit bias is possible. Because being implicit means it is not on purpose. Drawing attention to it allows the person who has the bias the agency to act against it consciously.
"And true, some ability scores are mental, but they are still based on biology, and have never been such that a character is... say stupid or something similar. Any character can come up with good ideas and sound strategies and such. Being the lawnmower man is not something you get from low mental ability scores."
A couple things here... When, in 3e, half-orcs had +2 STR, -2 INT, -2 CHA, if you contend that this means the average half-orc is stronger than the average human, you are also saying the average half-orc is less intelligent than the average human. A low INT score means low critical thinking and problem solving abilities. And I think you mean any player can come up with good ideas. But then, this is one of those points of contention that started the thread in the first place. If a player has the ability to persuade you, solve the puzzle laid out in front of them, or tell from the way you spoke that the NPC is lying, and then have their character act on those, what is the point of ANY mental ability score?
"Inspired by" is different from "is a stand in for."
And it doesn't need to be the same.
"Not entirely true. Firstly, I already gave examples for how biases can be a good thing to include in a story or game where it is being consciously used for some narrative purpose or effect."
I never said that introducing racism (or far worse things, like genocide) into a campaign should be avoided for everyone. For some, this CAN lead to great stories of heroics, but then this wasn't my point at all. The point was that having a baked-in -2 INT on a playable race/species or having that playable race/species ALWAYS seen as the enemy to be slaughtered with no afterthought, and when that race/species bears resemblance to actual cultures here on Earth, that creates problems.
"Dolphins and apes are less intelligent than us..."
The intelligence of other species is something for which our understanding has been in flux for a while now. Birds, as you point out, can be quite intelligent, and yet it was only very recently that we recognized them as such. I think the only take away is that it is actually fairly difficult to assess the intelligence of any being that you cannot communicate with effectively.
I think also, that the ideas of what is being called racist is changing. No one I know or talked to 20 years ago thought that a +4 to strength for orcs was racist, because no one thought about such things in a way that would ever cross paths with racist beliefs or behaviors. But the way a lot of modern people conceptualize the world has changed, making then see connections between the two ideas, and it is those connections that lead to influence. Thus in older days where there were no connections in people's minds between racial modifiers and racist biases, there was no influence either, but for those today whose perspective creates connections between the ideas, then influence can happen. But I think how many are dealing with it is not the right way to handle it, as it causes more harm than good, despite the fact they are trying to do good.
On that note, I think one of the things I really like about 5th edition D&D and probably at least in part why I like games like Old School Essentials and Shadowdark as well is that I think a really good book edit and layout makes a world of difference. Content is of course important and the quality of the game, the art and other things like that don't get ignored because of a good edit, but with a good book edit it's much easier to see what the game is and isn't.
There is a lot to like in how the Players Handbook is laid out and how that influences people's preferences. In fact, I think good editing makes it far more likely that I will actually read a book cover to cover, which is a sort of investment resulting in you getting to know the product which makes it more likely I will like it.
I'm reminded of really great games with really crappy editing that cause me to be "meh" on the game rather than loving it. For example, Dune Imperium RPG is a fantastic RPG with really unique concepts and a really amazing mechanic to "material". The book however is actually really difficult to read, its not easy to get "access" to the game by reading it. It's poorly edited, much of the writing is a bit confusing, and when you actually try to use the book in a gaming environment, aka at the table, its really painful. It took a lot of extra effort to find the game because the book was so poorly edited.
As I work on expanding my 5e game by writing expanded content for it, I find I'm enjoying the game a lot more as well. I wrote a campaign setting and several books for it already and the words flow to the page with ease and that has a lot to do with how smoothly the explanation and context of the game is passed to you by the Players Handbook. With the 2014 book I really struggled with that, it was not a great reference and things really felt out of order, often they sounded more complicated than they were. Its weird that the two games (2014 and 2024) are for all intents and purposes the same game, yet just by having a better book edit for the latter it made all the difference.
I think when a discussion becomes people defining and redefining numerous terms at length it has ceased to be a useful discussion. Coming to an exact consensus over langauge never goes well...
You keep adding this "in relation to" bit. Something being influenced by something else does not make that second thing inseparable from the first. If that was the case, we would not be individuals and murder would not exist because it would just be self-harm, and hurting one's self to remove something undesirable is not murder. It just doesn't work. "In relation to" is also a context. Things exist, and the relation between those things and other things is entirely separate from the nature of the thing itself. A rock might be heavy in relation to an acorn, but that doesn't make the rock inseparable from the relation. So claiming the Fictional Milieu is X in relation to Y means you have an X and a Y as distinct things which can then have some kind of relation to each other. It's similar to nouns and verbs. Noun verbs noun. Two nouns and a verb, each noun is separate from the other, but have a relation towards each other. Each noun and the relationship is distinct making three distinct things. Adding "in relation to" is like defining a cloud as a thing that is somewhere west of the mountain, as though somehow it wouldn't be a cloud if it was somewhere else.
Frankly, I feel as though you are stretching to add this "in relation to" stuff in some attempt to make some sort of social justice agenda be brought into the conversation, like you just can't see anything without seeing the social justice agenda as part of it. Can you not look at a rock without seeing it as a weapon someone will use to stone someone else? We are supposedly trying to discuss a game, which whatever other elements you want to bring into it's definition, I think we can at least agree that a game, whatever it is, is supposed to be enjoyable. There is no enjoyment when you can't even define something without bringing social justice into it. That is the perversion of justice. It is taking the concept of justice so far that it ends up doing more harm than good despite the motivations of those pushing for it.
"And no, you do not have a right to be free of censorship by anyone else -- only the government."
Not quite correct. The founders, and I agree with them on this, considered the rights to be fundamental rights that exist outside of whatever governmental rules we establish to govern ourselves. They did not see themselves as granting us those rights, but rather were rather saying the governmental is not allowed to infringe on those rights. If you read it, they always mention the rights as if they are already in existence and are dictating the relationship of the government towards those rights. In that interpretation, I do have a right to remain uncensored by anyone, but you also have the right to ask me to not speak about something, and whatever choice I make about respecting or not your request, you will then make a choice as well.
"Factually, this is incorrect."
Game: A game is an activity engaged for educational, social, developmental, work, art, and healthcare or other purposes that has certain traits:
This is way to broad. It would be easy to fit literal brain surgery into this definition. I suggest this slight adjustment.
Game: A game is an activity performed for the sake of enjoyment, or to make use of the enjoyment of the activity for an additional goal.
The inclusion of the various traits do not seem like definition elements to me, they seem more like a categorization of how one might examine basically any activity someone might perform for any reason. And I'm fine with that.
As for these,
I suggest these instead
Perhaps, but I'm enjoying myself at least. I don't get to be so technical very often.
And honestly, it is being somewhat helpful as well.
1 - I will always add in relation to when there is a relation involved. It is a key part to understanding the whole. Excluding it abstracts the meaning -- and I will not abstract the meaning. consider it non-negotiable if you must -- your own stated reasoning in this point is entirely something you add to it, and not what is present.
2 - I do contract work in human rights for the UN, teach/lecture on the side, and do assorted work in relation to underserved minority populations in regular life, and have been doing so for 30 years. It is not a matter of "cannot", it is a matter of "will not". I cannot ignore my ethical and personal responsibilities.
3 - I look at a rock and pretty much never see it as a weapon. It is a rock -- and that's already an immense amount of information for me to see. But then, I see a lot in nearly anything -- my own neuro-atypicality in action.
4 - We do not agree that a game must be enjoyable. So many examples...
5 - I have a completely opposite stance on this.
6 - As I noted before, the definition I provided was based on science and actual use cases. You could not literally fit brain surgery into it; you could fit training for brain surgery into it. While the exaggeration for effect is somewhat humorous, it is neither accurate nor useful. That said, I am willing to possibly accept that for the purpose of this discussion as it does narrow it -- however...
6.1 - ... in doing so, that restricts it to those specific features that I noted describe a game. In compromise on the first part, I must insist on the bullets -- and I note that one of the bullets is previously stated to be non-negotiable.
6.2 - We are getting closer. I suggest this instead:
0 - I repeat, I will not re-litigate facts regarding in-game racism, nor will I indulge in such relating to other elements. Those are personal issues on the part of others, not myself. I removed the portions that dealt in that, and will not revisit them: it is not my job to explain facts to others for free.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This may not be the best place to get into this, but there is a difference in calling an idea racist and calling a person racist. The fact that certain people - yourself included, it seems - equate them is cause for a large amount of continued societal problems. The line of thinking of "I am not a bad person, therefore I am not racist, therefore I don't hold any racist ideas," is unhelpful, as it prevents identification of problematic ideas, solutions, and reparations (used in a more broad sense here). EVERYONE has implicit biases and some of those biases can tend towards racist ideas. Calling those ideas out is not calling the person evil or bad, it is asking that person to have a bit of introspection to become aware of them and be critical of them.
There is also the problem that these racial bonuses were not restricted to physical characteristics, nor were they restricted to bonuses, historically. Orcs and dwarves (in the fantasy sense) do not exist, but you can clearly see the influences real cultures had on their design and when those cultures see that "race" as less intelligent or always the enemy, THAT is a problem.
We should definitely not go there, but I will say that a lot of the time when people are trying to prove/show how not racist they are or how culturally sensitive they are, or not homophobic they are, it often reveals how deeply racist and homophobic they actually are. For example, the 5e Players Handbook has some racist and homophobic art according to some of my friends. They get away with it because they have proclaimed far and wide how not racist and not homophobic they are, but this art is waaaaaay worse than anything anyone dared to ever put into a book in the 80's. I think the reason is that in the 80's no one was trying to "not be" racist and homophobic, they just made art that they thought was cool, which sometimes came off as racist but back then no one called them on it. In this book, some very insecure people were trying very hard not to be racist or homophobic. I applaud the effort to very specifically try not be racist and homophobic...but man they really screwed the pooch, my friends back in the States have not been kind about this books "artistic" direction.
I personally don't see it, but then again, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I concede that I see art through a very different lens.
The reason I shifted to it was pretty basic: it became very obvious in one moment that we were using the same terms to talk about different things.
I had a choice at that moment: withdraw or attempt to continue the effort to understand the core problem that prompted the thread.
I explained what I thought it was, but was incorrect. I tried a couple other things as well, with limited success. While part of it is definitely hampered by the lack of familiarity with 5e on the part of the OP, that in and of itsel fis not an issue. Another limiting factor is the admitted absence of ability to communicate effectively.
This was the easiest solution I could think of. There's no rancor, even in the elements that I am refusing to deal in -- I genuinely don't give a damn, and I haven't the patience for much of that stuff; so by glossing over it, I can stay on track with the part where I'm trying to be nice and helpful.
Success is a whole different story. I have dealt with challenges of this type previously, and been generally successful (e.g., the failing student begins passing) because it means finding a place where the one-sided perception of the world is moved beyond into an area that is slightly more interactive.
The hard part is the parsing. I have to pay close attention to everything stated, and engage in active listening, which is difficult in a text only environment, requiring more precision than usual.
But it *is* exhausting.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think also, that the ideas of what is being called racist is changing. No one I know or talked to 20 years ago thought that a +4 to strength for orcs was racist, because no one thought about such things in a way that would ever cross paths with racist beliefs or behaviors. But the way a lot of modern people conceptualize the world has changed, making then see connections between the two ideas, and it is those connections that lead to influence. Thus in older days where there were no connections in people's minds between racial modifiers and racist biases, there was no influence either, but for those today whose perspective creates connections between the ideas, then influence can happen. But I think how many are dealing with it is not the right way to handle it, as it causes more harm than good, despite the fact they are trying to do good.
In light of recent posts, I am withdrawing and discontinuing on the basis of bad faith actions.
See ya all in other threads: I'm out.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Same [Redacted]
I don't think this conversation is going to be very productive, but I did want to point out the reason I said what I said.
If it was not your line of thinking, then you wouldn't have said this:
"Actually no, this is a really big problem. Calling someone racist means you can justify harming them, all in them name of "justice." You call someone racist, you are claiming that they are a bad person, someone who deserves negative treatment."
...in response to this:
"If the fact that the use of racial modifiers is racist bothers you, that is a you problem, not an I problem."
I will address a few other things, and you can respond or not, but I'll probably bow out of the conversation after that (I'll read your response, if you choose to, FWIW).
Your conviction that implicit bias was "created" instead of "discovered" means that there is very little fruitful discussion to be had. I would ask you to re-evaluate this statement, however: "created recently and specifically for the purpose of societal destruction." What, exactly, would be the point of destroying society? What would these purported creators of implicit bias gain from that destruction? In the next few sentences, you - once again - equate drawing attention to implicit bias to calling someone evil. The only people who would see implicit bias as an excuse to punish someone for being "evil" are people who don't actually believe implicit bias is possible. Because being implicit means it is not on purpose. Drawing attention to it allows the person who has the bias the agency to act against it consciously.
On that note, I think one of the things I really like about 5th edition D&D and probably at least in part why I like games like Old School Essentials and Shadowdark as well is that I think a really good book edit and layout makes a world of difference. Content is of course important and the quality of the game, the art and other things like that don't get ignored because of a good edit, but with a good book edit it's much easier to see what the game is and isn't.
There is a lot to like in how the Players Handbook is laid out and how that influences people's preferences. In fact, I think good editing makes it far more likely that I will actually read a book cover to cover, which is a sort of investment resulting in you getting to know the product which makes it more likely I will like it.
I'm reminded of really great games with really crappy editing that cause me to be "meh" on the game rather than loving it. For example, Dune Imperium RPG is a fantastic RPG with really unique concepts and a really amazing mechanic to "material". The book however is actually really difficult to read, its not easy to get "access" to the game by reading it. It's poorly edited, much of the writing is a bit confusing, and when you actually try to use the book in a gaming environment, aka at the table, its really painful. It took a lot of extra effort to find the game because the book was so poorly edited.
As I work on expanding my 5e game by writing expanded content for it, I find I'm enjoying the game a lot more as well. I wrote a campaign setting and several books for it already and the words flow to the page with ease and that has a lot to do with how smoothly the explanation and context of the game is passed to you by the Players Handbook. With the 2014 book I really struggled with that, it was not a great reference and things really felt out of order, often they sounded more complicated than they were. Its weird that the two games (2014 and 2024) are for all intents and purposes the same game, yet just by having a better book edit for the latter it made all the difference.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorLocking this thread now as it as gone far away from discussing what we 'Like about 5e' and has begun to spiral.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support