log in or register to remove this ad

 

TSR TSR3 Blames Widespread Pushback On WotC

In an unexpected turn of events, the primary individuals behind TSR3 have claimed the pushback they've received on social media and elsewhere was orchestrated by .... D&D publisher Wizards of the Coast (a company which has thus far remained completely silent on recent events).

TSR3 is run by Justin LaNasa, Stephen Dinehart, and Ernie Gygax. The controversy has been raging for over a week, since TSR3 announced itself with a press release.


dineharttweet.png

erniet.jpeg

uROPf5GL_400x400.jpg

Stephen Dinehart and Ernie Gygax have since deactivated their Twitter accounts; Justin LaNasa doesn't appear to have one, but it is believed he is the person operating TSR3's Twitter account. A couple of days ago, Ernie Gygax posted about recent events on Facebook (note that he edited the post, but the original can be seen here).

I wish to state in the strongest terms that I never meant to hurt anyone of any race, creed or color. My video From the Bunker caused some to feel that they would not be welcome or would be looked down upon. That was never the intent, I was reacting to focus of modern role play into a more background and Role Play rather than the wargame that so made so many lives happy over 40 years ago.

As a gamer it meant that most of us were not worthy of any attention from others of our own age. We were Nerds. We were brainy-acks and others would snicker. Older classmen would ask to "borrow" something of ours to then pass back and forth a game of keep away. I used to receive some special attention from about 4 Juniors in my Freshman year. I played the Violin and often I began to wish that I had Super Powers, perhaps become a Giant.. I was far to shy and then embarrassed as attractive ladies would just lower the eyes while the jocks or other socially vibrant fellows had some fun at another geeky nerds expense. Thank goodness I grew 4 inches my junior year.

The only real comfort zone we all could share was a table in the lunch room. At least the fledgling TSR found fertile minds in those who had only those like us - gamers. Rather than have to risk embarrassing myself, since Phy Ed was going to force us to dance with those wonderful and yet scary girls. Well to get my Diploma I had to slave for a month to Mr. Gerber the head of the Phy Ed department. Fortunately I knew all about janitorial work as before D&D and TSR dad only made $5,000 as a Cobbler (five children) and we had food stamps and even free school lunches. Yes you had to go to the councilors office every week to collect your free lunch passes. Obviously you could feel all the eyes on you and the talk about....

Everyone has been welcome at my gaming table and multitudes of new friends have been created by the time spent playing the games we Love. Look at pictures of gaming on my site or anywhere I run games. Everyone is welcome, just like a Boot Hill game leave your guns at the bar until you leave town. If you come to the Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum Jeff R. Leason will show you courtesy and a smile and you will see that gaming with elder gamers is a safe and entertaining environment.


 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

D&D is not genderless. If there is a choice to play a gender, then D&D is perfectly suited to explore those issues. Now the assumptions of gender in OD&D/1e D&D are another kettle of fish. But, D&D is not encased in amber. The game has shifted its assumptions over time.

I will let in on a little secret. When I started playing D&D back in 1979 every table I played at tinkered with the rules and assumptions of the game to make it our own (despite Gary Gygax's bombastic claim in Dragon Magazine that only stuff published by TSR(1) was the only way to play the game properly). Every table was mess of house rules and gaming customs. Believe me when I say Gary would not have recognized his narrow view of D&D/RPGs at the tables I played at.

Everyone brings an identity to the table in D&D and at my table all are welcome. Everyone is welcome to explore that in the characters they want to play be it a rip off of some pop-culture character from TV/Movies, be just themselves, an aspect of themselves, something they want to try out, or even just roll some dice with very little personality at all.

My main mantra is, "More Places To Play, More People To Play With." The idea that someone should not be able to play D&D with me because of their gender or sexual identity is alien to me.
identity is a theme I can't grasp can you explain?
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Zardnaar

Legend
Yep, long before Laura Croft, my first AD&D character in 1982 was called White Maiden, a female Paladin with an 18-79% Strength score no less. (f@$ck the max 50% rule).

Didn't make any sense even from a simulation pov. 18/00 was achievable in 1977 by RL females.

I've never run 1E. I want to run it RAW for 1 session or short campaign but that would be ditched very quickly.
Would probably use 2E and plug in 1E bits.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Didn't make any sense even from a simulation pov. 18/00 was achievable in 1977 by RL females.

In which case I'm guessing there were RL males with even higher back then? In any case, the differences would matter if they were going for a simulationist game about the high level real world athletics (using m/f definitions and restrictions from years past - which seems like a not exciting rpg), but in retrospect seem like an odd thing to need to include in a world of magic and monsters.
 
Last edited:


RFB Dan

Podcast host, 6-edition DM, and guy with a pulse.
Didn't make any sense even from a simulation pov. 18/00 was achievable in 1977 by RL females.

I've never run 1E. I want to run it RAW for 1 session or short campaign but that would be ditched very quickly.
Would probably use 2E and plug in 1E bits.
I still love 2e and will run it RAW for one shots. But for a campaign, I give the racial class/level limits the boot and have oversight on which splatbooks we use. But the players always have a lot of fun.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
In which case I'm guessing there were RL males with even higher back then? In any case, the differences would matter if they were going for a simulationist game about the high level real world athletics (using m/f definitions and restrictions from years past - which seems like a not exciting rpg), but in retrospect seem like an odd thing to need to include in a world of magic and monsters.

Yeah theales might hit 19 or 20 strength if they're an olmpic class weightlifter or whatever.

1E was the only edition to do it and D&D isn't simulationist so stupid idea on multiple levels.

I prefer B/X and 2E mechanically for multiple reasons.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
It's along the same lines as why Straight Pride isn't really an appropriate, positive thing. There's no adversity overcome to be proud of by being straight.
I consider Valentines Day to be Straight Pride celebrations, and Weddings to be Straight Pride Parades.

Plus, when almost every prom is straight, love song is straight, romance movie is straight, and so on. It is pretty much Straight Pride all year round.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Gay people play D&D... any darned way they like. Some of them may be like Thirsty Sword Lesbians, others may be like Killy McHacknslash. There's no real need to lay a single playstyle on an entire group.

No real difference I've experienced except I haven't encountered any with really bad hygiene issues.

Everyone's an individual imho.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I still love 2e and will run it RAW for one shots. But for a campaign, I give the racial class/level limits the boot and have oversight on which splatbooks we use. But the players always have a lot of fun.

I boot level limits but keep racial restrictions mostly because I want something different.

If another DM removed racial restrictions I don't care enough to complain.

Gnome goes from best illusionist to best wizard which gives them a niche I suppose.

Racial restrictions for MCing might need to stay imho though. MC how you like isn't a great idea from modern D&D. I would use more generous late 2E MC options though.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Gay people play D&D... any darned way they like. Some of them may be like Thirsty Sword Lesbians, others may be like Killy McHacknslash. There's no real need to lay a single playstyle on an entire group.
FWIW, the last group I DMed for included one out gay guy and almost all of the players were wiccans*. Nobody was a novice gamer, but some were clearly less experienced with gaming than others.

The campaign itself ran pretty much like every other group I’ve DMed for. All of the unique drama associated with orientation or religion was all external to the game itself.






* Contextual note: I’m a straight male Roman Catholic.
 


Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I consider Valentines Day to be Straight Pride celebrations, and Weddings to be Straight Pride Parades. Plus, when almost every prom is straight, love song is straight, romance movie is straight, and so on.

It feels like that's changed a lot over the past decade. We get valentine's day ads with apparently LG couples. Here in one of the most conservative counties in SC, a teacher friend noted with happiness that at the HS dances the LGBTQ+ couples show up just like like cis-het ones. And my sister-in-law's marriage to her wife seemed to go pretty much like her straight friends weddings. Not too long ago none of those would have been true.

None of which changes that still...

It is pretty much Straight Pride all year round.


Yeah theales might hit 19 or 20 strength if they're an olmpic class weightlifter or whatever.

1E was the only edition to do it and D&D isn't simulationist so stupid idea on multiple levels.

I prefer B/X and 2E mechanically for multiple reasons.

It feels like a lot of the rules in 1e exist.because he was.trying to be simulationist though...weapon speeds etc.
 
Last edited:

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
It feels like a lot of the rules in 1e exist.because he was.trying to be simulationist though...weapon speeds etc.
IIRC, EGG claimed he never used those more "simulationist" rules and that he put them in (with little or no playtesting) because he thought that the majority of the customers would be wargamers.

Regarding the cap on women strength, he later realized that it was a bad idea:
Why I decided on realism in regards to male/female strength is beyond me. After all in a fantasy game that doesn't make a great deal of sense. I suppose I just wasn't thinking the matter through in regards the genre. I do not have such differentiations in the Lejendary Adventure game.
 



MGibster

Legend
I kinda liked it in 2E made the weapons a bit more tactical.
Weapon speed slowed down initiative and it didn't make any sense. A dagger had a weapon speed of 2 and a halberd had a weapon speed of 9. If you're armed with a halberd and I'm armed with a dagger the odds of me winning initiative should be rather low. You've got an overwhelming reach advantage and will most likely have an opportunity to strike me multiple times before I can get close enough to hit you even once with my dagger. Nor is a halberd a ponderously slow weapon that is difficult to bring back under my control once you strike with it. It's a flexible weapon you can slash, stab, and smash someone with.

Ugh! Such bad memories. This is why I don't have any interest in playing past editions!
 

Riley

Adventurer
Weapon speed slowed down initiative and it didn't make any sense. A dagger had a weapon speed of 2 and a halberd had a weapon speed of 9. If you're armed with a halberd and I'm armed with a dagger the odds of me winning initiative should be rather low. You've got an overwhelming reach advantage and will most likely have an opportunity to strike me multiple times before I can get close enough to hit you even once with my dagger. Nor is a halberd a ponderously slow weapon that is difficult to bring back under my control once you strike with it. It's a flexible weapon you can slash, stab, and smash someone with.

Ugh! Such bad memories. This is why I don't have any interest in playing past editions!

Back in our 1e/simulationist days, we adopted an initiative system from Dragon Magazine 71, “Who get's the first swing?” that addressed that problem by having separate “closing” vs. in-range initiative modifiers.

That system, coupled with weapon vs. armor and various delaying and coordinating tactics, made our combats very strategic and detailed, but made a single skirmish last hours.

Ugh, indeed.
 

Gnarlo

Gnome Lover
Supporter
Back in our 1e/simulationist days, we adopted an initiative system from Dragon Magazine 71, “Who get's the first swing?” that addressed that problem by having separate “closing” vs. in-range initiative modifiers.

That system, coupled with weapon vs. armor and various delaying and coordinating tactics, made our combats very strategic and detailed, but made a single skirmish last hours.

Ugh, indeed.
There was a 3rd party weapons book back in the 3E days I have that divided armor and weapons by historical age, ie stone, bronze, iron, etc, and gave them bonuses and penalties against each other for damage, to hit, speed, etc.

I also went through the Battletech tech manuals back in the day and gave each mech bonuses and penalties based on the flavor text (eg “original Locusts are often equipped with Wonkavision targeting systems, far superior to modern replacement if not damaged or stripped out” = 1 in 10 chance of a Locust having a +2 to its to hit roll for an original system, lost permanently if takes a cockpit hit.)

Yeah, I went way down that rabbit hole myself 🤣

Edit to add: Waaaay off topic, sorry!
 
Last edited:

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top