Inclusion at the cost of Generalization

[Thirteenspades]

So, the people who are offended are not "random". They are people who have felt the sting of real-world racism, or who have learned that the folks who are subject to racism need some support from those who are not.

Racism and its effects are not random. Quite the opposite, kind of by definition.

In addition, when we use the word "random" like this, what it often ends up meaning is, "person I don't know or care about". And that's a problem. We live in a nation of 300+ million people - we need to be able to manage more than proximal empathy to make our lives work.

That wasn't what I was talking about. Racism is not part of this thread (frankly I'm tired of discussing it). I'm not a racist.
When I said some random person I meant it. Somebody out there hates RPGs. You don't have to ban them, because what will the other 300 million people think? If one kid scraped their arm on a playground, you don't have to ban the playground.

 

[Thirteenspades]

For "games" in general, there should be different types - some more complex than others so that people who want different things can have them. Everything being the same is boring.

For a specific game, it's a matter of finding their audience and giving them what they want in such a way that the game is profitable so they can give their audience more of what they want. So no, games shouldn't simplify just in order to reach more people. If designers want to make a more complex game and they find an audience who will buy it in enough quantities to make it worthwhile, more power to them. It depends what the game designers want. Obviously 5e, for example, needs to corner the largest share of the market in order to maintain its status as leading brand, so it's in WotC's interest to make a game that appeals to a larger slice of people. Another company, however, doesn't have the same needs and so has more freedom in what kind of games it releases.

As for offending people, I have no idea what that has to do with mechanics, simple or otherwise. Unless you're talking about the spell design rules in original Torg.

Even mechanics wise, no matter what you do some group of people will be offended, it's a part of life. The trick is finding the balance.

 

[Morrus]

That wasn't what I was talking about. Racism is not part of this thread (frankly I'm tired of discussing it). I'm not a racist.
When I said some random person I meant it. Somebody out there hates RPGs. You don't have to ban them, because what will the other 300 million people think? If one kid scraped their arm on a playground, you don't have to ban the playground.

What are you talking about? Who’s banning RPGs?

 

[Thirteenspades]

What are you talking about? Who’s banning RPGs?

It was theoretical. Perhaps I should have said "certain RPG rules". Nothing in specific.

 

[Mark Hope]

Even mechanics wise, no matter what you do some group of people will be offended, it's a part of life. The trick is finding the balance.

I am struggling to think of an example of mechanics that are offensive because of their complexity, which is what you were talking about in your initial post. Mechanics that are offensive for other reasons, sure, I can think of lots of those. But because they're complex? What are you referring to? Games being less inclusive to people with learning difficulties because they're too complex?

 

[Thirteenspades]

I am struggling to think of an example of mechanics that are offensive because of their complexity, which is what you were talking about in your initial post. Mechanics that are offensive for other reasons, sure, I can think of lots of those. But because they're complex? What are you referring to? Games being less inclusive to people with learning difficulties because they're too complex?

I meant mechanics had the capability to be offensive, not that they were. It was mostly geared towards mechanics that were simplified in an unnecessary way, or when another option for inclusion was possible.
Enlighten me: what is inclusion? A proper, unbiased definition everyone agrees on will help stave off some arguments. Assumptions can destroy a logical debate.

 

[Cadence]

Enlighten me: what is inclusion? A proper, unbiased definition everyone agrees on will help stave off some arguments. Assumptions can destroy a logical debate.

"Inclusion" in other threads on here seems to refer particularly to being inclusive in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, LGBTQ+ status, and/or real world religions. Examples of lack of inclusion have included lack of representation in art and possible characters, use of stereotypes, and using language reflective of real world bigoted writings.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The only games I can think of with objectively offensive, complex mechanics are fringe RPGs like F.A.T.A.L. and RaHoWa. And the designers of those games have no interest in inclusivity.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To answer the rest of the loaded initial question, game designers don’t necessarily simplify games to appeal to certain audiences. Instead, they release different games with mechanics suited to different audiences, and sometimes, that means adjusting the complexity.

 

[pogre]

Games that work for me these days have reduced mental buy-in. If I have to know all of the crunch straight away - I am less likely to get started. However, if the basics are easily grasped and then added complexity is an option - that I can do.

My sons recently got into battletech - I remembered the old days and numerous rules - but they have a great starter box and we were playing as soon as we had the mechs painted. The regular rules add complexity, but it is in a digestible way. If they would have hit me with the full rules right off I would have passed on playing.