D&D General "Red Orc" American Indians and "Yellow Orc" Mongolians in D&D

[Scott Christian]

Yes and no... I mean, my sister (@Gilladian) was the first person I really played with, we had to invent our own rules, because we didn't yet own any. They were pretty silly... I agree, girls were not much present in public game play, like at the club or obviously in Boy Scouts. In college we had women players, though it was clearly 'uncool' to play D&D and that seemed to discourage the ladies more than the men perhaps? I'm not sure, TBH. The people I played with were fairly cool people, it wasn't misogyny, though some of the trappings of the game may have been offputting!

Beyond that though, I've consistently had at least 50% female participation in the vast majority of games I've played in and run. If it wasn't my sister then it was a whole long list of other women who were in my circle of friends. Not that I'm disputing that this is simply one experience that doesn't really reflect the whole rest of the world. I knew of groups that were all male and didn't welcome women as well. I suppose its possible there were also the opposite, but I'd not have heard of them, lol.

Yea, we had the occasional girl at our table when we were in our early teens. In college, we almost always had one girl. But one out of six or seven is low. And I am with you. Our table was anything but misogynist. But it was an interest level. Just like arcade video games used to be.

I would say my last ten years mirrors yours, in the fact that we have almost 50% female, depending on the campaign. Well, more like 30%-50%, but that is still higher than it was when we were young.

 

[Mordhau]

Sorry, but both sides are not equally toxic. “Both sides” talk tends to mask the where most of the toxicity was coming from.

My memory was that 4e fandom was pretty toxic. (Especially on places like rpgnet)

I played 4e for years, but I gave up discussing it online because if I had an issue and wanted to discuss a possible fix then any criticism at all was treated as edition war and with incredible hostility.

 

[Mirtek]

Sorry, but both sides are not equally toxic. “Both sides” talk tends to mask the where most of the toxicity was coming from.

The toxicity was coming from both sides back then. The outright glee not only about the slaughter of a sacred cow but specifically how people who liked that sacred cow were rebuffed by losing something they happend to enjoy was very present on the pro-4e side. Just as much as the "it's videogamy" was on the opposing site.

I played 4e for years, but I gave up discussing it online because if I had an issue and wanted to discuss a possible fix then any criticism at all was treated as edition war and with incredible hostility.

Don't start about how any critizism was meet with hostility until the very moment that WotC fixed it and then it was suddenly seen as "finally they repaired this glaring problem".

Mentioning that the areas of effect of epic powers were to huge? -> How dare you!
WotC nerfing the areas of epic powers and stating "sorry, we didn't really playtest epic levels, we just assumed the mobility and areas fought over would be larger"? -> praise WotC

Mentioning that the math behing skill challenges was off and resulting in a disadvantage at longer challenges? - How dare you!
WotC reviewing and changing skill challenges due to noticing the math not working out?-> Great move long overdue

Mentioning that there was an obvious gap between defense and attack development? - How dare you!
WotC adding expertise to patch it with a "feat tax"? - Thanks for this new must have feat. Finally hit ratio feels right again at higher level

So many of the errata and revisions that were (months) later added by WotC were spotted within the first few weeks of 4e release. But better not dare to mention it anywhere.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

So, you've misidentified what I think is your opinion. It is neither here no there, however.

1.) "If I could control the universe, it wouldn't be so; Alas, I do not have the power to change it - it is not my opinion but a fact of nature."
If it was in my power to make the world more cosmically fair, I would. This can't be considered an opinion, as facts about one's own beliefs/mental states/qualia can't be examined by outside observers. Subjectivity is the hallmark of mental states.

2.) "If I could control the universe, it wouldn't be so; Alas, I do not have the power to change it - it is not my opinion but a fact of nature."
This part actually is, perhaps, debatable, but I'm not sure how could possibly change the nature of power. Anything that causes or prevents change just is power. It seems that it's conceptually impossible for this to be true. Changing the nature of power just would itself be en exercise of power.

3.) "If I could control the universe, it wouldn't be so; Alas, I do not have the power to change it - it is not my opinion but a fact of nature."
This is actually the conclusion of an argument that isn't presented here, but the point above articulates why this is a fact of nature and not my opinion.

This statement was what you were responding to when you said:

Oh, it is your opinion.

So, which segment of my sentence were you asserting to be "[my] opinion", since you have alleged that I misidentified it?

 

[Faolyn]

What if you don't like those new popular things? Are you not allowed to criticize something popular without being accused of "gatekeeping"?

Yes, you can criticize. What you shouldn't do is say that it's not a real whatever and that other people shouldn't like it.

 

[Filthy Lucre]

Sometimes people actually see the light through honest discussion and good faith.

Not everyone is intractable.

That would be an application of a kind of power. So, I don't see how this would contradict me.

Though, there actually is a really interesting issue that is kinda complicated to examine in that concept about whether or not someone can be mechanistically caused to change their mind.

 

[Aldarc]

The toxicity was coming from both sides back then. The outright glee not only about the slaughter of a sacred cow but specifically how people who liked that sacred cow were rebuffed by losing something they happend to enjoy was very present on the pro-4e side. Just as much as the "it's videogamy" was on the opposing site.

Guess what? The existence of toxicity on both sides does NOT mean that both sides were equally toxic.

 

[Mordhau]

Guess what? The existence of toxicity on both sides does NOT mean that both sides were equally toxic.

Probably not. Difficult to measure that though isn't? And bound to be the sort of thing that's caught up in people's own inherent biases and experiences.

Chorus of anti-4e edition warriors: 4e is just a video game. It's lame. All the powers are the same.
4e fans: It's not real. It's meme. It's all in your dreams. It's obscene.
New buyer wandering in: Hey, Im not sure about the new game, especially the way they've used the whole Tank, DPS whatever concept from World of War craft.
4e fans: Kill! Kill! Kill!
New buy: Hey, don't be so shrill, I just...
4e fans: Kill! Kill! Kill!

I swear. D&D needs some kind of truth and reconciliation committee.

 

[Umbran]

So, to which segment of my sentence were you asserting to be "[my] opinion"?

That the situation is "human nature" and that you don't have power to change it is your opinion. I will accept that you cannot remake the world on your own with a snap of your fingers, but that you lack any and all power to change things does not look like fact to me.

Your assertion that you don't have power aligns conveniently with your prior abdication of responsibility. If you accept that you do have power, that brings up the question of having the responsibility to use that power for good.

Indeed, your position becomes a bit transparent we we note that you say that having power is all that matters, and that people should cultivate a resignation so that they don't bother speaking up.

Because speaking up is a use of power. For each individual, it may not be a whole lot of power, but drops add up to full buckets. What you have actually said is, "All that matters is the power to change things, and you should not use yours."

Which, in the end, looks like an attempt to use your power to maintain the status quo, where you have no responsibility, or bothersome moral questions hanging over you.

 

[Aldarc]

Probably not. Difficult to measure that though isn't? And bound to be the sort of thing that's caught up in people's own inherent biases and experiences.

Chorus of anti-4e edition warriors: 4e is just a video game. It's lame. All the powers are the same.
4e fans: It's not real. It's meme. It's all in your dreams. It's obscene.
New buyer wandering in: Hey, Im not sure about the new game, especially the way they've used the whole Tank, DPS whatever concept from World of War craft.
4e fans: Kill! Kill! Kill!
New buy: Hey, don't be so shrill, I just...
4e fans: Kill! Kill! Kill!

I swear. D&D needs some kind of truth and reconciliation committee.

I don't remember walking into hobby stores and 4e fans shouting down newcomers to the hobby. I do have personal experiences of walking into hobby stores around this time and anti-4e people trash-talking me (and others) for picking up or buying a 4e book and nonsense about it not being proper D&D.