| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Plaguescarred |
Posted - 01 Sep 2013 : 14:42:03
During last night's D&D Live Game at PAX Prime 2013, Acquisiion Incorporated battling to control a giant statue of Halaster Blackcloak destroyed a couple of ins, tavers and shops in Waterdeep after emerging from Undermountains while fighting a tarrasque. After slaying the beast, their CEO Omin Dran was appointed Marked Lord of Waterdeep!
Wonder if this will be cannonized in the next Forgotten Realms campaign setting?
You can view a replay of the D&D Live game here (05:29:58 in) www.twitch.tv/pax/b/454362945 |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gurdianoftherook |
Posted - 01 Sep 2015 : 15:04:24
Sorry to throw oil on this dying fire.
But I watched the latest episode of D&D at Pax prime 2015
and it was confimed that Omin Dran is infact a Masked Lord of waterdeep in the lore and will also be appearing in the next Elminster book.
Not sure if the whole Pacific Rim aspect will be involved but it seems AI is a adventuring company in lore. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 08 Sep 2013 : 03:02:43
Hmm maybe simplicity is what is needed for a response.
1.
Freedom of Speech means protection of most all speeches, to the exception of inciting a riot, saying fire when there is none , and other things that cause for the purpose of public panic, up to including threatening to kill or hurt someone.
I think being unafraid to say something, even if it is against whatever the public or government may perceive as being bad or not welcomed is something that is precious and needs to be protected at almost all cost. I do not agree with the British style, where you can be charged with crimes for saying certain words, even if negative words. (If am wrong about the British law system I apologize.)
2. It does not matter if an age gate or warning only encourages watching, Adults are going to say Adult things, even if immature. Studies can come out with whatever they like, it is still the job of the parent to be a parent.
3.It is WOTC decision if they wish to market inclusiveness or not. My job as the customer is to compare what a company does and if it matches with my morals. What I saw was witless banter, not abusive humor.
4.If your comment on
" You no longer allowed to talk about children " is in response to my
" They gave a clear warning, so anything dealing with children really should not be included in this argument any further. "
Mine is a clarity statement, in my argument I am saying that because they are giving a warning about doing something, that it is the job of whoever is allowing the child to watch the item, should have previewed or be aware of it. I am aware of the fact that children will watch things anyways behind whoever is in charge of them back. It is not the companies job to police such behaviors. I think that bringing up children is bringing up a strawman argument, and sidetracking the issue at hand.
We are talking about culturally insensitive humor and what value or damage it may have, not about potential victims that should not be watching it anyways. Or we can;t ever have adult movies because kids sneak into movie theaters to watch them and lie about the age they are.
5. I value the right to free speech more then the right not to be offended.
Closing Thoughts:
This is a hydra of issues, rather then having one face that is right or wrong. Whoever planned and designed the event, took creative or "artistic " value in what they did and this is what they created. Be it right or wrong, it was a performance as much as an advertisement.
You have as much the issue to contend with dealing with if this was truly that harmful or merely insensitive.
If you as the customer will do anything about it, up to and including never buying D&D again if you feel it was that bad, or petitioning the group for an apology and a promise to do better next time.
The role of a company and responsibility it may or may not have, on labeling something for adults and still being held liable if a child watches it?????
It is not just a simple, they used crude humor and someone was offended by it, it has multiple values going on , that must be considered.
|
| Therise |
Posted - 08 Sep 2013 : 02:13:23
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
You may not agree, but it still does not change that they can do humor however they wish.
No offense, but you seem to misunderstand some of what I write. What I "didn't agree with" wasn't that there's limited federal regulation of online videos. Rather, I was disagreeing with your statement where you said that racial slurs and other invectives fall under the category of "free speech". Racial slurs typically fall under the legal definition of hate speech and "fighting words" and are absolutely not protected as free speech.
Now, again to be clear, you are the one that brought up racial slurs. I am not arguing that any racial slurs or the like were involved in this video. That's your tangent. It's interesting as a tangent, but it's tangential to what we're discussing.
quote:
Internet streaming does not fall under the same rules as public broadcast, unless it has nudity or the like, an even that is iffy. They gave a clear warning, so anything dealing with children really should not be included in this argument any further.
There may not be airtight federal legislation governing online video content, but most content providers (YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, and so on) have developed their own internal policies for gating adult-oriented content because it's important for the company's reputation. You can keep saying that "they can do whatevs they want" but the truth is that when you're dealing with a corporation they're usually going to have their own set of internal procedures. I'm not sure what Hasbro's policies are, or how they might impact WotC. It would be interesting to know - and perhaps, they might not be aware. It happens.
Additionally, you (intentionally?) skipped over pretty much everything I said about how children respond to language "warnings" and the like. Most children, and most adults for that matter, skip over both verbal and written warnings on the internet without hearing a word of it - so that they can immediately access content. Given that WotC apparently wants to have "adult content" in videos for a game marketed to people ages 12+, this is really kind of a big deal. You may not personally think so, or you may think that such warnings are sufficient, but the reality is that they're not preventing any child from getting to any kind of content that they want online.
quote:
Now I view homosexual slurs in the same way I view racial slurs , and various other slur types. They are a slur, which is bad.
So they're "bad" in your opinion, but you still think they should be protected as free speech? What exactly are you trying to say here?
quote:
Actually , their has been a rather broad movement, towards including the female perspective in gaming, and to be acknowledged as customers to be catered to as well, as the usual frat boy. Also seeing a internal view open up towards the gaming scenes tendency to be very male orientated and hostile towards females. I would suggest a google of " Video Gaming Female Acknowledgment "
Some of the most easy things to mention in this, are games like league of legends remaking characters to have smaller bust sizes and more reasonable clothing to reflect the combat going on , as well as the hostility given towards various gaming conventions where you will see a male player taunting a female player that they got raped ( in the sense of the term that they lost overwhelmingly) and made rounds in various video gaming forums and honest conversation at how polluted the environment is towards accepting others that are not white/male/"outcast".
I'm already aware of much of this. I was curious what you found and what you would say about it.
I'm also intrigued here: it seems like you're saying you're in support of being more inclusive, and that altering things like "boob sizes" and "reasonable clothing" in avatars is something you support for female gamers. Why do you support that, which largely is an artistic choice of designers, while also saying that - in this case - that it's totally okay for a WotC gaming demonstration of D&D Next to be filled with jokes about oral sex and drinking "juice from the gnome's spigot"? I'm curious.
quote:
Now before you think I just hung my argument by the neck by describing what I just said is going on , I would like to reaffirm I am arguing from the point that the stage act that we are talking about is humor based by those at the table. They have a right to do that sort of thing, as you have the right to not find it acceptable and put social pressure on them to change.
Well, the entire point of this discussion is to explore these issues, to see where people draw the line and why. You keep mentioning rights, but honestly it's not that much of an open-and-shut case when it comes to "what's legal" to put online and what kinds of regulations already exist and what other types of regulations should be considered.
The fact remains that a lot of people who might have been offended by the humor in this particular video are going to be young and not particularly well schooled in standing up for their rights not to be subjected to something offensive. Many of them will remain silent, rather than engaging in a discussion about it. I'd even go so far as to say that when people say "you no longer allowed to talk about children" and "it's legal, get over it" those are classic methods to trying to get people to shut up and sit down. Particularly when the majority is "fine with it" and older, and perhaps is the same group that has privilege in this case.
|
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 08 Sep 2013 : 01:26:22
You may not agree, but it still does not change that they can do humor however they wish. Internet streaming does not fall under the same rules as public broadcast, unless it has nudity or the like, an even that is iffy. They gave a clear warning, so anything dealing with children really should not be included in this argument any further.
Now I view homosexual slurs in the same way I view racial slurs , and various other slur types. They are a slur, which is bad.
Actually , their has been a rather broad movement, towards including the female perspective in gaming, and to be acknowledged as customers to be catered to as well, as the usual frat boy. Also seeing a internal view open up towards the gaming scenes tendency to be very male orientated and hostile towards females. I would suggest a google of " Video Gaming Female Acknowledgment "
Some of the most easy things to mention in this, are games like league of legends remaking characters to have smaller bust sizes and more reasonable clothing to reflect the combat going on , as well as the hostility given towards various gaming conventions where you will see a male player taunting a female player that they got raped ( in the sense of the term that they lost overwhelmingly) and made rounds in various video gaming forums and honest conversation at how polluted the environment is towards accepting others that are not white/male/"outcast".
Now before you think I just hung my argument by the neck by describing what I just said is going on , I would like to reaffirm I am arguing from the point that the stage act that we are talking about is humor based by those at the table. They have a right to do that sort of thing, as you have the right to not find it acceptable and put social pressure on them to change.
|
| Therise |
Posted - 08 Sep 2013 : 00:40:27
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
No what am responding with is a symptom of my overall argument. You are a customer just like myself, and can spend where you desire the money you allocate, and to tell those you buy from, what behavior you expect from them or you will not buy the product and instead go to pazio for pathfinder.
You have other groups that publish and play the game, that WOTC sponsors, that while not as popular as the show we are debating, those avenues are about for those that feel this is not the cup of tea, now as for an age block , that is not WOTC responsibility, that is a parents job. They put up the warning, that is all they are responsible for. This is not a porno, they don't need to do anything more.
To sort of curtail this into a shorter post, and finish up what am trying to get at. Freedom of Speech lets you say nearly whatever you want, that does not mean they don't get to face the Responsibility of what they say, including backlash and customers they may lose or gain from it. I have listen to cracker jokes and Jewish jokes, both of which I fall under. I may be offended by some of them and laugh at most of them, but it comes down to one thing simply.
I value the freedom of speech more then I value not being offended.
So, just to be clear, are you arguing that racial slurs and other invectives fall under the category of Free Speech?
If so, I strongly disagree.
In the privacy of your own home, sure. Say what you want. But if you have guests over, expect to be judged for it perhaps.
In a public venue or broadcast associated with a game marketed to adolescents? Absolutely not cool.
Now in this case you mentioned racial slurs - not me. And I don't think the video is quite that blatant. But this is still a case that's borderline.
quote:
You have tools at your disposal that is both your wallet and responsive outcry if you wanted to make it such. In Video Gaming, the female customer is starting to become very vocal and is getting tired of being ignored with all the various male focused aspects that may put them out, AND they are doing something about it.
What are you seeing or hearing from women in video gaming? What are they doing?
quote:
I will happily support any effort that is made to make something more inclusive, but I will not denounce something that has already happened, as I think it honestly REALLY was not that bad. An something that can be talked about and tailored to be more inclusive the next time WOTC sponsors a public play session.
I would rather focus on producing something more open , then focus on how something was "offensive" in the past.
In order to fix something, to make things better and increase inclusion, you first have to understand why people are feeling pushed away and not included. Wouldn't you agree? Otherwise, how do you know what problems to address?
|
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 20:21:23
No what am responding with is a symptom of my overall argument. You are a customer just like myself, and can spend where you desire the money you allocate, and to tell those you buy from, what behavior you expect from them or you will not buy the product and instead go to pazio for pathfinder.
You have other groups that publish and play the game, that WOTC sponsors, that while not as popular as the show we are debating, those avenues are about for those that feel this is not the cup of tea, now as for an age block , that is not WOTC responsibility, that is a parents job. They put up the warning, that is all they are responsible for. This is not a porno, they don't need to do anything more.
To sort of curtail this into a shorter post, and finish up what am trying to get at. Freedom of Speech lets you say nearly whatever you want, that does not mean they don't get to face the Responsibility of what they say, including backlash and customers they may lose or gain from it. I have listen to cracker jokes and Jewish jokes, both of which I fall under. I may be offended by some of them and laugh at most of them, but it comes down to one thing simply.
I value the freedom of speech more then I value not being offended.
You have tools at your disposal that is both your wallet and responsive outcry if you wanted to make it such. In Video Gaming, the female customer is starting to become very vocal and is getting tired of being ignored with all the various male focused aspects that may put them out, AND they are doing something about it. I will happily support any effort that is made to make something more inclusive, but I will not denounce something that has already happened, as I think it honestly REALLY was not that bad. An something that can be talked about and tailored to be more inclusive the next time WOTC sponsors a public play session.
I would rather focus on producing something more open , then focus on how something was "offensive" in the past. |
| Therise |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 16:35:19
@Markus:
I see what you're getting at, this does touch on the idea that (a minority?) could be seen as trying to impose conditions on "play the game this way" rather than another way. I also understand why you are seeing this as potentially an "elitist attitude" of sorts. After all, this is a game where it's -mostly- intended to be a private, at home experience with friends and perhaps family. At home, you absolutely should play the game you want, with the style, humor, and any other choices you want (coca cola golems included, if that's your fun).
That said, this is a game with a wider audience and targeted demographic than the "at home" crowd. This is a game that for decades has been marketed to people (not just boys) at ages 12 and above. Additionally, the community and designers often regularly wonder how they can get more young girls and women interested in playing the game. Furthermore, D&D is regularly played in open, public tournaments at gaming conventions, RPGA events, and most recently in the newer "Encounters" sessions at gaming stores. Given the recent publication schedule, where a good portion is solely available to people who play at conventions, tournaments, and gaming stores, the company seems invested in attracting players to that side of the market.
So the question becomes not what is "my right as a home gamer" or even "should some minority tell ME how to play my own game" but rather - if you are a company that wants to attract a larger audience, wouldn't you want to attract female gamers and not project an image of game play -publicly- that has strong sexist and homophobic undertones? I see these YouTube sessions as another form of advertising, a means of getting people interested in gaming.
@silver and @misc:
A good portion of what I'm hearing from you both is similar, so I'm going to group my response here. Please remember that it is not my intention to call you or anyone out specifically for "bad behavior" or trying to put people in some kind of metaphorical "pillory" for their comments. It is my intention to explore these issues genuinely.
That said, what I'm hearing pretty strongly is an attitude of "this has an adult language warning" and "if you don't like it, you can leave". There's also a pretty strong theme of "there's nothing to worry about because the audience seems fine with it." Is that a fair summary of your posts?
The problem with simplistic adult language warnings is two-fold. First, most people (of any age) tend to gloss over those warnings such that they're not effective at all; and second, such "warnings" can be alluring to juveniles (in an "oh boy, what they gonna say?" way). One of you strongly stated that D&D no longer caters to the 14+ demographic and that they're heavily pushing for adult consumers. I'm not exactly sure where you get that, though, given that every single thing published for D&D Next is pretty clearly marked for ages 12+ in the corners.
The problem with "if you don't like it, you can leave" is rather more subtle. Women, I think it's safe to say, tend to get judged on almost everything they do. Over the last few decades, I've been invited to a few gaming sessions where the use of expletives and other unsavory comments made me want to leave. But I didn't. Why? In some cases, it was because I was with my boyfriend and did not want to create a scene, being "that girlfriend". In other cases, I had to weigh the constant stream of offensive comments against whether or not I wanted to remain friends with them. In such cases, as a much younger woman, I was put into the position of "shut up and take it if you want to stay" or "get out, don't plan on coming back". I ended up no longer associating with either that boyfriend or anyone in that group. But I was also put on the spot afterwards, asked to explain why I no longer wanted to play with them or even be around them. Is that the atmosphere you want? Now imagine if you happen to be a young gay male, and strings of offensive, homophobic jokes and comments make you uncomfortable. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment. Now in a private home session, I do agree that people have the right to be as offensive as they want to be. As uncomfortable as it might make other people, that is their home and they can be who they want to be. But in a public setting, a convention setting open to the public? Did that audience get an "adult language" warning prior to the start? I don't know, I wasn't there.
Finally, the whole idea of "there's nothing wrong if the audience likes it" is rather unusual. We don't know if people left the audience. But that sort of misses the entire point. You're essentially arguing that it's absolutely okay to engage in insensitive (or outright offensive) jokes and commentary IN A PUBLIC VENUE simply because one segment of the population seems to be okay with it. When people talk about being blind to problems because of "privilege" this is exactly what they're talking about. Privilege is the condition where it's really not a problem for you because you're not the target of the offensive or insensitive material. And as much as you want to say that people are "fairly warned" or that "it's not a problem"... it really IS a problem because you're crafting arguments in order to maintain your privilege to engage in comments you KNOW are offensive to certain people.
What absolutely kills me (and by that I mean, "ow, my sides, so ironically funny!") is that every once in a while we get gamers, sometimes even designers, lamenting about how they can't get more girl gamers in their games. That it's so hard to find and keep female gamers in their groups, and keep them interested, and they have tried "everything" and it's still a problem. For a while there, WotC had those absolutely atrocious "Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress" articles where the girl gamer (who really was an editor who got sucked into the playtest group) would talk about shopping and roleplaying and other "girly" topics in an effort to reach out to women gamers. It simultaneously reinforced a girly-girl stereotype image while putting her in her place as a part-time gamer not really into gaming... that somehow, she was lucky to see the inside of the boys' club, but she'd never be a real gamer.
How about instead of that, and instead of reinforcing the equally awful, crass teen-boy gamer stereotype (by having adult men mimic that crass behavior publicly), that we instead work on showing fun gaming sessions that don't feature a lot of insensitivity and off-putting "jokes"? What about trying that?
|
| Therise |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 15:36:58
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Let's try to be civil, folks. This has been an interesting discussion... we really don't need to de-rail it with nonsense asides, eh? 
Out of curiosity, Sage, let's say a transcript of this particular D&D session was made, with all of its jokes intact. Assuming you had WotC's permission, would the content be publishable on this site?
I wonder if it would violate section A6?
I'd say it's either close or just a bit over.
But, really, I'd leave this kind of decision up to Alaundo. It's his site, after all, and he's the one that would ultimately have to deal with any breaches of child-friendly content on Candlekeep -- and child-friendly content is largely what this site has always tried to promote. Especially with regard to the Code of Conduct.
So if you're unsure yourself about this, I'd suggest contacting Alaundo. Perhaps he could set up a private section of the forum where such content can be temporarily accessed only by those of a specific age group.
I'm not sure a separate age-restricted section is necessary. I think we (should be) capable of discussing the nature of the content without getting into specific details.
That said, you indicated that this was a case where it's probably borderline and might go either way (again, depending on the depth of details discussed, I'm guessing).
When something is borderline (and I'd agree with your assessment that it is borderline), that's when reactions are in a gray area. When things are much more clear, and obvious, it seems to me that decisions about it can be made more easily - for the self, or what's appropriate for public view.
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 14:15:55
My own point was probably lost in my (usual) snarky commentary...
I haven't watched the video, nor intend to. Its not my 'cup of tea'. Its sounds like a bunch of 16-year-olds playing the game. I used to play like that, but then I grew up (and out). I think I may have inadvertently insulted Eric Mona over on the Paizo boards recently when I mocked aspects of Greyhawk for similar reasons (oh well... there goes my Paizo career lol). I no longer find 'Coca-Cola Golems' and 'Fun House Dungeons' amusing.
But at the end of my above post, I pointed-out that WE were being just as bad as the 4e designers, for no other reason then we were deciding that THEY were playing the game wrong. Sadly, many of us here (and I am including myself) have an 'Elitist Attitude', which means we think that "our way is the right way". Here's the deal - they are having fun, right? Its a game, right? So they are obviously playing it right, for them.
The only 'right way' to play D&D is whatever way your group enjoys the game. Although I don't care to watch that video, it sounds like they all had a blast, which is great. Nothing good comes out of deciding someone else should be enjoying D&D the same exact way you do... thats what gave us 4e (IMO). They wanted to recapture that 'first game, 14-yr-old feel', but never stopped to ask themselves, is this what everyone wants?
So on some levels they succeeded, and on others they failed. They didn't create what (many) fans wanted, they created what they wanted to play. 4e is ideally suited for those types of light-hearted dungeon romps, and more power to them. When we become elitist, thats just bad form. When the guys running things become elitist, then thats just a complete disconnect with reality.
Don't begrudge them that game session - they were having fun. Begrudge them the fact that they think everyone needs to play D&D that way. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 09:45:15
Outside of this particular scroll, have their been any complaints on the wider internet about the content of that staged play session?
Any negative memes generated by an upset person (someone who presumably falls in the demographic of female gamer or homosexual gamer) or blowback in the form of negative viral content gaining traction that could make WotC, and therefore its parent company Hasbro, look bad or cause a PR nightmare?
A quick Google search shows Penny Arcade has had some issues vis-a-vis cosplay and panels on sexism, but I've found nothing to suggest the Realms event shown in the video caused anyone any consternation.
Absent that, there's nothing for Hasbro, or WotC, to worry over.
You might respond that sexism and homophobic anything are worth worrying over or otherwise being concerned about--and you'd be right--but the question of whether or not the content of the staged play session falls into this particular realm is very much up for debate.
And given that it's up for debate, there's no consensus.
If there's no consensus, then how does one convince a WotC or Hasbro executive that the complaints on the wider internet and in private gaming circles are somehow louder than the cheers, laughter and boisterous crowd participation of the event in question?
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 08:38:26
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Let's try to be civil, folks. This has been an interesting discussion... we really don't need to de-rail it with nonsense asides, eh?
Out of curiosity, Sage, let's say a transcript of this particular D&D session was made, with all of its jokes intact. Assuming you had WotC's permission, would the content be publishable on this site?
I wonder if it would violate section A6?
I'd say it's either close or just a bit over.
But, really, I'd leave this kind of decision up to Alaundo. It's his site, after all, and he's the one that would ultimately have to deal with any breaches of child-friendly content on Candlekeep -- and child-friendly content is largely what this site has always tried to promote. Especially with regard to the Code of Conduct.
So if you're unsure yourself about this, I'd suggest contacting Alaundo. Perhaps he could set up a private section of the forum where such content can be temporarily accessed only by those of a specific age group. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 06:39:30
If you remember the starting segment it does warn.
This is adults using adult language, so this clearly already was not meant for the younger audience. So that is already a fallacy on anything that lets a younger group listen to this and decides to get offended.
They have played in past pax events, now while I would guess ignorance is still possible for new attendances, but those that have been to past events or watched last years version that had whil wheaton in it, would know what type of humor to expect, and would have a following. therefore knowing what to expect, as you pointed out.
As for a transcript, you need context , humor of the vocal form can be obliterated in understanding once written down, as you lose the mood of the room, the facial intentions, and what is going on, much less the responses of those around.
Humor is subjected, just because it is culturally insensitive, does not instantly make it wrong. You do have the option to leave the room, close the web browser, and spend your money elsewhere if you do not like what WOTC is doing.
Now as far as hasbro, you are mixing something up here. WOTC hasen't really aimed for the 14 -17 year old crowd this edition, they have been aiming for the longer term fans,and trying to reestablish the connection with loyal customers rather then gain fully new ones.
Hasbro is not afraid to cater to an older audience through is subsidiaries like WOTC,what you see them doing for D&D will more then likely not cost them sales in monopoly board games.
|
| Therise |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 03:53:41
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Let's try to be civil, folks. This has been an interesting discussion... we really don't need to de-rail it with nonsense asides, eh?
Out of curiosity, Sage, let's say a transcript of this particular D&D session was made, with all of its jokes intact. Assuming you had WotC's permission, would the content be publishable on this site?
I wonder if it would violate section A6?
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 03:48:34
Let's try to be civil, folks. This has been an interesting discussion... we really don't need to de-rail it with nonsense asides, eh? |
| Therise |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 03:37:55
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
The premise seems to be that any public exhibition of D&D should be devoid of humor or jokes that can be interpreted as homophobic or sexist, if that exhibition includes at least one WotC employee. I don't agree.
Interesting. I wonder if Hasbro corporate would agree with you.
quote:
To me it played like a celebrity roast, except that everyone was feeling the heat, to the enjoyment of the crowd.
It's hard to imagine the crowd didn't know what they were in for. Given that, if anyone was offended then it's not unreasonable to expect them to leave the venue.
It might be interesting to know if any people did get up and leave, and their reasons why.
quote:
Just because person A says as much doesn't mean it's OK for person B to pillory them for not following B's particular ethical/moral code.
Pillory? 
This is simply a discussion, Misc. But it's still as funny as ever that you're still deeply offended for other people and put on white knight armor when they are not being attacked at all. You have no idea what my moral code is, or my ethical code for that matter. I'm simply doing what you used to do regularly: offer re-frames that suggest different points of view.
Don't you think it's important to look at how things like this are perceived, and examine peoples' reactions? Particularly when they might be offensive - and particularly when such things might be offensive to the very groups and demographics that WotC is trying to lure into becoming regular consumers?
quote:
She felt that the video wouldn't be appropriate for our daughter, but that it wasn't on WotC to not be a part of something like this.
So, what was it that she felt was inappropriate? What creates that dividing line, and why?
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 03:18:00
The premise seems to be that any public exhibition of D&D should be devoid of humor or jokes that can be interpreted as homophobic or sexist, if that exhibition includes at least one WotC employee.
I don't agree.
What's more, in this case the crowd was cheering right from the start, they were laughing at the jokes and humor and they were in full participation mode (see 05:43:56 for an example).
To me it played like a celebrity roast, except that everyone was feeling the heat, to the enjoyment of the crowd.
It's hard to imagine the crowd didn't know what they were in for. Given that, if anyone was offended then it's not unreasonable to expect them to leave the venue.
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
I have several jokes I would not say in the middle of a room of strangers ( which I know is ironic considering the stage and all that) but when am among friends, I will spout off a joke or two that may be a negative play off of some sort of standard held by someone.
So you're more of an insensitive lout in private, with friends
It's as plain as day that people will tell jokes amongst their friends that they wouldn't tell with strangers around.
Just because person A says as much doesn't mean it's OK for person B to pillory them for not following B's particular ethical/moral code.
===========
The discussion here inspired a discussion with my wife about our concerns for our daughter if/when she becomes a gamer and what we expect from companies like WotC in terms of the content of the video and what WotC should/shouldn't be a part of, however indirectly.
She felt that the video wouldn't be appropriate for our daughter, but that it wasn't on WotC to not be a part of something like this. |
| Therise |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 01:44:02
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Eh, they had no female players in the group,
Why should this matter, really? I'm willing to bet it was an open theatre, with women and perhaps children in the audience. Further, it was obviously intended for YouTube, which is a very wide audience.
quote:
and overall the gamers playing on that table started before being picked up by WOTC to represent them.
Started before being picked? What? The only issue here is whether or not they're representing WotC publicly, right now. It doesn't matter if they've played D&D in the past.
quote:
In all honesty though, when you are playing with friends, the typical reactions of whatever your public humor is, tend to fall down versus humor you tell in private.
I can't tell if you're embracing the Paula Deen defense (aka, it's okay to be racist, sexist, etc. in private) or if you're suggesting that this would've featured even worse crass humor if it had been private.
The point is, this was exceptionally crass and off-putting while also being presented as a public demonstration of D&D.
quote:
I have several jokes I would not say in the middle of a room of strangers ( which I know is ironic considering the stage and all that) but when am among friends, I will spout off a joke or two that may be a negative play off of some sort of standard held by someone.
So you're more of an insensitive lout in private, with friends?
Uh, congratulations?
quote:
Humor (historically) often is offensive in one way or another, simply because t is a great delivery mechanic that disguises itself in dialog that you would not normally be able to say with a straight face without being ignored or ridicule. Chris Rock, Carlos Mancia, George Carlin are all good examples of social commentary through humor.
With all of those comedians you mentioned, people know going in what they're going to hear.
Are you suggesting that we should expect, and let pass, gay oral sex jokes as a "typical" feature of D&D? Or are you suggesting that gay oral sex jokes are somehow "social commentary" with a message?
What message would that be, exactly?
|
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 07 Sep 2013 : 00:31:36
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
All the bad schtick in these public games is on purpose. Whether it is good or bad, it just is. It's meant to illicit some laughs and to see people goofing around while playing D&D. I would highly doubt any of it ever makes it into canon. There might be a fleeting reference, such as a funny fiction story some character retells while sitting around a tavern, but I don't believe it would be an actual event that took place in the realms.
It was enjoyable for what it is, and not for anything more: a group of guys, some of whom are celebrities, playing Dungeons & Dragons.
There's a deep level of irony here, though, which I find even funnier. For decades, TSR and WotC have tried to bring women into gaming, and to make it an open and safe gaming environment for people of all persuasions.
And yet, in 2013, "on purpose" we still see company-endorsed examples of game-play that feature near-constant streams of sexist and homophobic jokes. And people still defending the stereotypical crass teen-boy gamer as "entertaining" and "enjoyable".
Eh, they had no female players in the group, and overall the gamers playing on that table started before being picked up by WOTC to represent them. In all honesty though, when you are playing with friends, the typical reactions of whatever your public humor is, tend to fall down versus humor you tell in private.
I have several jokes I would not say in the middle of a room of strangers ( which I know is ironic considering the stage and all that) but when am among friends, I will spout off a joke or two that may be a negative play off of some sort of standard held by someone.
Humor (historically) often is offensive in one way or another, simply because t is a great delivery mechanic that disguises itself in dialog that you would not normally be able to say with a straight face without being ignored or ridicule. Chris Rock, Carlos Mancia, George Carlin are all good examples of social commentary through humor.
Now this does not excuse the humor we saw at the D&D table, but am just giving some context on how humor allows you to get away with more on what you can say versus saying something with a straight face. |
| Barastir |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 18:43:47
A thread on humor in the Realms would be nice... In my campaign I try to limit the PCs to make jokes within the game's universe, and without RW references. Most of our comic relief comes from the gnome, and besides the occasional illusion, the rest of the party "buys" his explanations on various topics he supposedly knows about (like the biology of almost every creature they've never seen before - he included). In most of the situations the players know what he is talking about is suspicious or even absurd, being fooled by him only in roleplay, but they interpret the limited view of their characters. And he sometimes gives true advice or lore, and he mixes it perfectly in good roleplay. Anyway, we have a lot of fun with him. 
Edit: And sometimes one or another character knows his stories on a specific topic are exagerated or twisted, and are not actually fooled, but they like him so much and think he is so nice that they simply don't care.  |
| Drustan Dwnhaedan |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 17:36:28
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
<-< okay lets retool the thread, we hit negative levels real quick.
Er, sorry if i came across as a hater in my last post, that wasn't my intent. Perhaps I should have posted something more along the lines of, "This sort of stuff isn't my cup of tea." Or just said nothing (probably should've done that). |
| Therise |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 15:50:25
quote:
Originally posted by Matt James
All the bad schtick in these public games is on purpose. Whether it is good or bad, it just is. It's meant to illicit some laughs and to see people goofing around while playing D&D. I would highly doubt any of it ever makes it into canon. There might be a fleeting reference, such as a funny fiction story some character retells while sitting around a tavern, but I don't believe it would be an actual event that took place in the realms.
It was enjoyable for what it is, and not for anything more: a group of guys, some of whom are celebrities, playing Dungeons & Dragons.
There's a deep level of irony here, though, which I find even funnier. For decades, TSR and WotC have tried to bring women into gaming, and to make it an open and safe gaming environment for people of all persuasions.
And yet, in 2013, "on purpose" we still see company-endorsed examples of game-play that feature near-constant streams of sexist and homophobic jokes. And people still defending the stereotypical crass teen-boy gamer as "entertaining" and "enjoyable".
|
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 15:10:13
quote:
Originally posted by Drustan Dwnhaedan
I didn't watch this and, after reading some of the other posts, probably never will.
Agreed.
I had to bite my tongue, though, when Therise pointed-out (quite astutely) WHY 4e was what it was (a bunch of gamers wanting to recapture that feeling they had when they were 14). As nostalgia, it worked great. As a serious, modern (2013) game session... JUST NO.
D&D is not about having fun - its about memorizing hundreds of rulebooks verbatim, spending months rolling up charatcers, and then spending years arguing over who goes first in combat, what feats and classes are allowed, and why no-one remembered to bring the Doritoes. You are not so supposed actually play this game, merely discuss it ad-infinitum...
Oh... wait... errrrmmm.. forget I was ever here...  |
| Matt James |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 12:44:43
All the bad schtick in these public games is on purpose. Whether it is good or bad, it just is. It's meant to illicit some laughs and to see people goofing around while playing D&D. I would highly doubt any of it ever makes it into canon. There might be a fleeting reference, such as a funny fiction story some character retells while sitting around a tavern, but I don't believe it would be an actual event that took place in the realms.
It was enjoyable for what it is, and not for anything more: a group of guys, some of whom are celebrities, playing Dungeons & Dragons. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 06:45:44
<-< okay lets retool the thread, we hit negative levels real quick.
AS far as the system goes, that they showed, if it they showed real portions of it, and not just play acting. I did enjoy how smooth the reactions went, on dice rolling. |
| Drustan Dwnhaedan |
Posted - 06 Sep 2013 : 06:37:58
I didn't watch this and, after reading some of the other posts, probably never will. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 13:06:15
Well yes, i was thinking of everyones favorite giant lizard laying waste to the japanese captial, but not with Blue Oyster Cult background music 
|
| BEAST |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 11:53:26
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
It reminded me too much of a movie where a giant robot (in this case statue) fights against a monster.
*cough* Like <this>? cough
Oh, no, there goes Waterdeep
Go, go, Tarrasque!
Yeah! |
| Therise |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 07:19:07
quote:
Originally posted by silverwolfer
Oh chill out.
It only is provocative, if you don't remember that this is all fantasy, and even it if it was cannon, would probably not be anymore then a footnote, right before or right after the time jump we probably will have with the sundering.
I swear some folks argue over ridiculous things, as if they think they are fighting with Learned Scribe.
Uhm... what?
In no way am I irked, upset, or even remotely fighting with anyone. When I expressed my total incredulity over the "is it canon?" question, it wasn't that I was angry.
I swear, sometimes this site is like a litmus test.
It's pretty obvious that:
a) it wasn't a real adventure.
b) everything about it was just silly / crude jokes.
I simply could not believe that anyone would seriously ask if it was going to be canon. It was provocative in that way, not in the "let's talk super serious and argue" kind of way. My subsequent response was meant even more as a "hey buddy, I totally get that you're yanking our chain" with a facepalm attached, but I guess that blue paper turned red after all. For several people.
So, you know... no bigs, it's all good.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 06:23:37
Okay, I think the topic of whether or not this could become canon has been adequately discussed. |
| silverwolfer |
Posted - 05 Sep 2013 : 05:42:11
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Plaguescarred
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
I can't even believe the suggestion of making this canon. You can't possibly be serious. This was just ridiculous low-brow pandering to a juvenile audience. It had -zero- to do with the actual Realms.
I didn't suggest it would, i only said i was wondering if it would be canonized, as it was run by a WoTC employee.
Actually, you did. Asking a hypothetical question -automatically- plants the suggestion of it's possibility. It's one of the oldest tricks in politics: "Senator, is there any truth to the rumor that... XYZ?" There may not even have been a rumor. But once you ask about any hypothetical, it becomes planted as a possibility. Also, just mentioning the word "canon" is inherently provocative.
Oh chill out.
It only is provocative, if you don't remember that this is all fantasy, and even it if it was cannon, would probably not be anymore then a footnote, right before or right after the time jump we probably will have with the sundering.
I swear some folks argue over ridiculous things, as if they think they are fighting with Learned Scribe. |
|
|
