| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about we stop trying to judge people based on inaccurate perceptions of the entire group lest we become the same as those who think the chick tract is an accurate portrayal of gaming?
We are still allowed to make decisions based on our own observations and our personal preferences, and choose not to game with particular folks because we don't want to, right?
Because I think that's the worst offense that's been described in this thread. It's not "fursecution" to choose to not associate with a "furry" last time I checked.
How about we stop trying to judge people based on inaccurate perceptions of the entire group lest we become the same as those who think the chick tract is an accurate portrayal of gaming?We are still allowed to make decisions based on our own observations and our personal preferences, and choose not to game with particular folks because we don't want to, right?
Not if it risks offending someone's delicate sensibilities, old bean. Wot wot.
How about we stop trying to judge people based on inaccurate perceptions of the entire group lest we become the same as those who think the chick tract is an accurate portrayal of gaming?We are still allowed to make decisions based on our own observations and our personal preferences, and choose not to game with particular folks because we don't want to, right?
Because I think that's the worst offense that's been described in this thread. It's not "fursecution" to choose to not associate with a "furry" last time I checked.
It is if the only 'problem' is that they are a furry.
It's not if they are a jerk/harasser/bad role player -- of course then it doesn't matter if they are a furry or not as that has no impact on what's going on.
Now if it's simply a matter of they want a different game type than you do then again not an issue as you are both simply looking for different things -- like two boats passing in the dark.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not "fursecution" to choose to not associate with a "furry" last time I checked.It is if the only 'problem' is that they are a furry.
Negatory.
If I choose to not associate with someone in my personal time, they're not being persecuted, regardless of the reason.
per·se·cute
verb (used with object), per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing.
1.
to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2.
to annoy or trouble persistently.
Avoiding association does not meet that definition.
How about we stop trying to judge people based on inaccurate perceptions of the entire group lest we become the same as those who think the chick tract is an accurate portrayal of gaming?
If I say, "Some people with trait A are like this," and you hear "All people with trait A are like this," then I'd suggest that the problem here is with the inference, not the implication.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@matt morris Not dnd players, but I knew VtM players who got into it too much. Ididnt join in on that aspect nor did I disassociate from them. Live and let live.
How about we stop trying to judge people based on inaccurate perceptions of the entire group lest we become the same as those who think the chick tract is an accurate portrayal of gaming?We are still allowed to make decisions based on our own observations and our personal preferences, and choose not to game with particular folks because we don't want to, right?
Because I think that's the worst offense that's been described in this thread. It's not "fursecution" to choose to not associate with a "furry" last time I checked.
No one is refusing you your right to be a prejudgemental jerk. I see often where people get upset that they want to hate on a group (gays/blacks/furries/whatever) and then get offended that people are hating on them for being jerks.
Go ahead and make your decision to dislike a group of people, when you go to the public and announce it, you open your decision to criticism.
|
|
How about we stop trying to judge people based on inaccurate perceptions of the entire group lest we become the same as those who think the chick tract is an accurate portrayal of gaming?If I say, "Some people with trait A are like this," and you hear "All people with trait A are like this," then I'd suggest that the problem here is with the inference, not the implication.
If someone said " I dont associate with black people because black people commit crimes" they would, rightly, be called racist. These same arguments have been used for a long time now, just replacing one minority with the next. I am not saying you cant feel this way, only that I disagree with that attitude and why.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coridan, I think I've been abundantly clear that a significant proportion (read: "many, but definitely not all") of the people who want furries in a D&D game want them because they think they're cuddly and/or sexy. I've stated that IF these qualities are antithetical to the type of game the rest of the players want, then the said proposed use is inappropriate (and of course the correlary is that IF the rest of the group wants that kind of game, then the proposed use is quite appropriate).
From that, you extrapolate some sort of all-inclusive grouphate conspiracy.
In your case, I'd bar you from my home game, too -- not for the anthro characters, but for the chip on your shoulder that seems to make you a tad paranoiac about the subject.
If someone said " I dont associate with black people because black people commit crimes" they would, rightly, be called racist. These same arguments have been used for a long time now, just replacing one minority with the next. I am not saying you cant feel this way, only that I disagree with that attitude and why.
In general, I agree completely. You're off the mark in this specific case, however, because what I said was closer to, "The black guys who mugged me committed a crime against me, and therefore I'm on guard against muggers." And then you decide I really meant all people of African descent, and start yelling about how I'm a bigot.
|
|
Coridan, I think I've been abundantly clear that a significant proportion (read: "many, but definitely not all") of the people who want furries in a D&D game want them because they think they're cuddly and/or sexy. I've stated that IF these qualities are antithetical to the type of game the rest of the players want, then the said proposed use is inappropriate (and of course the correlary is that IF the rest of the group wants that kind of game, then the proposed use is quite appropriate).
From that, you extrapolate some sort of all-inclusive grouphate conspiracy.
In your case, I'd bar you from my home game, too -- not for the anthro characters, but for the chip on your shoulder that seems to make you a tad paranoiac about the subject.
I have primarily been replying to Brian not you. If we were in a gaming group and you said "no anthro chars" I could care less, I have only had a few anyway, I dont like rehashing character ideas. If you said "I dont want f'n _____ at my table" I wouldnt want to game with you regardless of what label fills in the blank be it furries or trekkies.
Edit: The first post quoted you only for the emo comment.
Okay, maaaaaaaybe it might be time for people to step away from the discussion for a little while, hm?
The implication of your statement is that you assume people wanting to play anthro characters will fit the category...
Since we're being pedantic:
Ce n'est pas la meme chose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have primarily been replying to Brian not you.From that, you extrapolate some sort of all-inclusive grouphate conspiracy.
In your case, I'd bar you from my home game, too -- not for the anthro characters, but for the chip on your shoulder that seems to make you a tad paranoiac about the subject.
Yet, I think I made it very clear that I have a very specific definition of what I personally consider a furry, and that specific definition does NOT include the vast majority of anthro-fans, so, Kirth's comment about extrapolating an all-inclusive grouphate conspiracy is pretty fitting.
And really, furries (by my definition) are far from the only "completely obnoxious" folks that I don't want to game with. I don't want to game with obnoxious people.
It's obvious that, by your own admission, you're emotionally invested in the "furry" label - reinforced by the fact that you've resorted to calling people names. Take a step back and re-read what's been said, because reality doesn't match what you've assumed people have said.
It's not "fursecution" to choose to not associate with a "furry" last time I checked.It is if the only 'problem' is that they are a furry.Negatory.
If I choose to not associate with someone in my personal time, they're not being persecuted, regardless of the reason.
Avoiding association does not meet that definition.per·se·cute
verb (used with object), per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing.
1.
to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2.
to annoy or trouble persistently.
Alright I'll agree with that -- discriminatory would have better fit what I was saying. It might be discrimination on your behalf... however even then I would call this a pretty minor case (nothing to write home about for sure) and well within your rights (non-association due to a trait you see as unpleasant).
Coridan, I think I've been abundantly clear that a significant proportion (read: "many, but definitely not all") of the people who want furries in a D&D game want them because they think they're cuddly and/or sexy. I've stated that IF these qualities are antithetical to the type of game the rest of the players want, then the said proposed use is inappropriate (and of course the correlary is that IF the rest of the group wants that kind of game, then the proposed use is quite appropriate).
From that, you extrapolate some sort of all-inclusive grouphate conspiracy.
In your case, I'd bar you from my home game, too -- not for the anthro characters, but for the chip on your shoulder that seems to make you a tad paranoiac about the subject.
In Kirth's defense I think (I certainly don't know) that he might have allowed my last catfolk. Male catfolk archeologist that enjoyed the thrill of digging up old stuff. He wasn't always cuddling up to people or looking for some pants to get in -- he often teased the paladin...
When the sea witched on the ship passed out from overworking herself and the captain grabbed her and took him to his quarters the catfolk whispered into the paladin's ear, "It's easier to take them when they don't resist."
Just to get a rise out of the paladin and to stir up trouble for him.
I did play him as a bit of a joker though (not practical jokes).
If not no biggie I would have gone with a different character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Kirth's defense I think (I certainly don't know) that he might have allowed my last catfolk. If not no biggie I would have gone with a different character.
It's very, very rare for me to outright ban something; more often, I'll try to steer the player in a direction closer to the one the group as a whole seems to be taking. Silverhair's half-orc in the last Aviona campaign comes to mind -- I said "Just to warn you, if a big guy with tusks walks into the elven capital, they'll probably treat him like a monster, not a person. That doesn't mean you can't play him -- it just means you should think about taking the Veiled Vileness trait, or else be prepared for a rude reception in certain places."
As it is, the characer, and the rest of the party, by joint consensus came up with reasons to avoid the elven capital, and they eneded up with a series of madcap adventures along the frontier and in the neighborng kingdom of Aramni, where no one has a problem with half-orcs anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly -- I'm reminded of the promiscuous elves thread over in the general discussion forum honestly. It's not the race in question that's the problem it's the behavior exhibited by the character that's the problem.
A catfolk that goes around trying to cuddle/screw everything that moves is no worse than an elf that does the same, both are going to be a disruption to the game if it doesn't match the theme and feel the other players and GM wants.
The funny thing is I think I have only once seen one of my actual furry friends play a anthro character, and that was in a Star Wars game that assumed everything ever officially printed was cannon and true, so he wanted to play a rediculous race from one of the comics that changes into a giant cat in hyperspace, goes insane, and has anti-force abilities, mostly because of the rediculousness of the concept. That furry hates cats and most depictions of cat people.
I have seen plenty of other people play anthros. A few of them make fun of furries. I really don't understand the hate. The furries I know are some of the calmest people I've gamed with. I know the people Kirth is describing, but I've never met one of those people who would self-identify as a furry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is I think I have only once seen one of my actual furry friends play a anthro character, and that was in a Star Wars game that assumed everything ever officially printed was cannon and true, so he wanted to play a rediculous race from one of the comics that changes into a giant cat in hyperspace, goes insane, and has anti-force abilities, mostly because of the rediculousness of the concept. That furry hates cats and most depictions of cat people.
I have seen plenty of other people play anthros. A few of them make fun of furries. I really don't understand the hate. The furries I know are some of the calmest people I've gamed with. I know the people Kirth is describing, but I've never met one of those people who would self-identify as a furry.
This is pretty similar to my experience. And the people who would be obnoxious playing anthro characters are usually obnoxious no matter what kind of character they play. And I've seen plenty of anthro characters played well. The issue that's causing the problem doesn't seem to be furries or even anthropomorphic characters but obnoxious players who won't cooperate with the type of game the group wants to play.
Agreed all around, although I still feel that certain races/classes are "go-to" favorites for certain types of disruptive players. Half-orcs and barbarians for the "Hulk Smash!" people; elves for the snooty pretty people; kender for the obnoxious ones; paladins for the people whose idea of "role-playing" is to shove broomsticks up their posteriors; dhampirs for the emo-Anne Rice-Twilight people. And catfolk for the cutesy toon and/or "yiffy" people.
There are endless threads about some of these; most of them end in "well, yeah, luckily I haven't had to deal with it, but apparently a lot of you have, which sucks." I certainly don't advocate banning anything, because any of the above can be played non-disruptively and well -- but certain races/classes do set off alarm bells in my head, prompting me in the past to watch for the types of stuff described above. Now, thankfully, I've learned to screen my players before inviting them to the game, and that one change has cut down the incidences to zero.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally think that some of it is unnecessary why have wererats and ratmen? The only reson is to allow players the rat race without giving them the advantages and drawbacks of lycanthrope.
All those poor immortal wizards with delusions of godhood need hobbies that will enterain them for a few millenia.
Creating the "Perfect" race is just the thing. Of course, eventually the wizard will get bored and move on to a new hobby. This results in far to many abandoned races with no real purpose or ecological niche.
Agreed all around, although I still feel that certain races/classes are "go-to" favorites for certain types of disruptive players. Half-orcs and barbarians for the "Hulk Smash!" people; elves for the snooty pretty people; kender for the obnoxious ones; paladins for the people whose idea of "role-playing" is to shove broomsticks up their posteriors; dhampirs for the emo-Anne Rice-Twilight people. And catfolk for the cutesy toon and/or "yiffy" people.
There are endless threads about some of these; most of them end in "well, yeah, luckily I haven't had to deal with it, but apparently a lot of you have, which sucks." I certainly don't advocate banning anything, because any of the above can be played non-disruptively and well -- but certain races/classes do set off alarm bells in my head, prompting me in the past to watch for the types of stuff described above. Now, thankfully, I've learned to screen my players before inviting them to the game, and that one change has cut down the incidences to zero.
What does it say about me that, given the choices, I'm glad I like elves? :P
That was sort of my point thought Kirth: you screen your players before inviting them, rather than banning character races and letting anyone off the street just have at it. And look, character race aside, any player at the table better not drink my milk...
What does it say about me that, given the choices, I'm glad I like elves?
By iteself, it doesn't say anything. Houstonderek has played an obnoxious, snooty elf wizard in my home game as a break from his charming, exuberant human rogue. But HD could play just about anything well, and could spin the sterotypes so they didn't come across as being stale. That's a huge difference from the guy I once played with whose idea of "gaming" was to spam lightning bolt regardless of the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The princess you rescued smiles to you and starts speaking..."
"lightning bolt!"
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I generally think that some of it is unnecessary why have wererats and ratmen? The only reson is to allow players the rat race without giving them the advantages and drawbacks of lycanthrope.All those poor immortal wizards with delusions of godhood need hobbies that will enterain them for a few millenia.
Creating the "Perfect" race is just the thing. Of course, eventually the wizard will get bored and move on to a new hobby. This results in far to many abandoned races with no real purpose or ecological niche.
It can also be parallel development. In the Scarred Lands, for example, Lycanthropy comes from Belsmith(sp) while the rat men are descended from mutated rats who feasted on bits of the titan Chern's body.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The princess you rescued smiles to you and starts speaking..."
"lightning bolt!"
Playing an old 3/x adventure, I had a battlesorcerer with a warmage cohort.
Rogue: Up ahead, another big round chamber, full of undead.
Cleric: I'll turn again.
Battle Sorcerer: We've got this. Helen, dear?
Warmage cohort: Sudden maximized sudden empowered fireball! That's how a warmage turns undead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Black Mage: "Black magic can be used for good too you know!"
White Mage: "Alright there is an orphanage full of orphans burning down, what do you do?"
Black Mage: "Fire 3 to make sure it goes down and lit 2 set to wide dispersion to pick off the stragglers!"
"The princess you rescued smiles to you and starts speaking..."
"lightning bolt!"
I've been in games where that would have been a good idea.
The princess is a trap.
Trust no one. Keep your laser handy.
I've played that game. I'm pretty sure that calling oneself a princess is treason and grounds for summary execution. Good call.
Successful troll has been successful. 0 posts needed after the OP, bravo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Successful troll has been successful. 0 posts needed after the OP, bravo.
HA! The 'troll' provoked a long drawn out respectful thoughtful discussion about player expectations, gm expectations and society as a whole! He so trolled us! We should be ashamed to have had a great discussion on this topic because a troll started it!
... yeah I'm not feeling it sorry.
|
|
I generally think that some of it is unnecessary why have wererats and ratmen? The only reason is to allow players the rat race without giving them the advantages and drawbacks of lycanthrope.
Because ratfolk are an actual race, whereas wererats are people who caught magical VD or rabies, complete with a laundry-list of stupid abilities powered by handwavium.
That's what happens when you try too hard to model a race after something from folklore. Old wives tales don't have to make any logical sense, they're just for scaring the kids to go to bed, so Village A says they're immune to all but silver weapons, Village B says they heal their wounds magically, Village C says the only thing that works is wolfsbane, etc.
Then a games writer has to try to patch these round and square pegs into something that fits the triangles of the ruleset, and you end up with a crazy hodgepodge mess, that can only be work as a PC if you give it Level Adjustment.
And don't get me started on vampires; there must be a hundred different, conflicting traditions of vampires, and woe betide any GM who doesn't pander to whichever one his player wants to count on for his or her (mostly her) sparkly snowflake PC.
As opposed to "Here are some people who have rodent heads."
Ratfolk are far less grating to a setting, since all you have to assume is that way back, some primal rodent ancestor stood on its hind legs, the same way humans (and probably other demihumans) developed from a primate.
I like the possibility that dwarves descended from moles, and some aristocratic clan would have wriggly star-shaped noses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Successful troll has been successful. 0 posts needed after the OP, bravo.HA! The 'troll' provoked a long drawn out respectful thoughtful discussion about player expectations, gm expectations and society as a whole! He so trolled us! We should be ashamed to have had a great discussion on this topic because a troll started it!
... yeah I'm not feeling it sorry.
Isn't everyone(even the troll) happy so this should not be a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"The princess you rescued smiles to you and starts speaking..."
"lightning bolt!"
See, if the DM's got his world-buidling hat on, this is a perfect into to War of the Roses: the RPG.
Isn't everyone(even the troll) happy so this should not be a problem.Successful troll has been successful. 0 posts needed after the OP, bravo.HA! The 'troll' provoked a long drawn out respectful thoughtful discussion about player expectations, gm expectations and society as a whole! He so trolled us! We should be ashamed to have had a great discussion on this topic because a troll started it!
... yeah I'm not feeling it sorry.
Yay!
Furries never caught on in Australia, so you'd be hard pressed to find one.
Trolls we have stacks of though.
Where's my Troll PC? Why isn't THAT market better catered to?
Furries never caught on in Australia, so you'd be hard pressed to find one.
Trolls we have stacks of though.
Where's my Troll PC? Why isn't THAT market better catered to?
Earthdawn
ShadowrunChangeling The Dreaming
Iron Kingdoms
But I play Pathfinder! Everyone else gets their favourite pet freakshow, wheres my PF Trollies?
Shadowrun used to be good, then it jumped the shark and I never went back.
But I play Pathfinder! Everyone else gets their favourite pet freakshow, wheres my PF Trollies?
Iron Kingdoms then. It's D20 and can be converted to PF with a bit of work. Also, it has some of the best bestiaries for d20 - Monsternomicon I & II... Trollkin are playable race but would benefit from some tweaking to make them fit PF.
Shadowrun used to be good, then it jumped the shark and I never went back.
I never played Shadowrun - Earthdawn yes, Cyberpunk, yes, but never got to play Shadowrun...
Ahhh for a while (early 90's) my gaming group was heavily set on Shadowrun and Cyberpunk. It was a great era for gaming!
|
Furries never caught on in Australia, so you'd be hard pressed to find one.
'Cause half the animals there are too weird to anthropomorphize easily* and the other half are too murderous to empathize with easily!
That's not really true of course. Far more than just half of the fauna are murder-happy.
*Though Ice-T was a kangaroo man in the Tank Girl movie. Take that as one will.**
**No srsly, Google Image "Ice-T Tank Girl" right now. Things were weird for him before he landed on CSINCISNYPD-SVU:Homicide and Order.
I don't know if I should be embarrassed that I have Tank Girl on DVD or not.
Don't be, I love that frickin' movie too!
"I'm Tank Girl's boyfriend. We're in love. Well, I'm in love and she occasionally pours boiling water down my Calvin Kleins."
Mikaze changed avatar... I had to check twice to be sure it is Mikaze - I admit I got used to the previous one.