| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to rant for a quick moment about how sick I am of Politically correct D&D.
First it was Wizards are over powered and they make the butt hurt fighter class feel bad, then it was the clerics that were overpowered cause they could cast spells in armor(OMG!!) then so as not to leave well enough alone lets make sure the druid is nerfed as well cause they can shape change and they make fighters feel bad too.
Maybe it's just my group but we have players that enjoy playing johnny swing-stick and UGH-smash fighters simply because they do not have to have a complicated character such as a wizard or spell caster.
Now that the new Master craftsman feat has been introd. they are chomping at the bit to play a fighter that can do what brunar battlehammer did and make their own ageis-fang type weapon. I would like to say as a player of spellcasting charecters how nice it is to no longer have to take craft arms and armor to keep the fighter types happy.
The language of the game changing to make female pc's feel more welcome was one thing even though the druid in our party says she cant let her daughters read the books because they teach incorrect English, the male pronoun of he is the correct generalization in literary terms.
I can understand some modernization of the game,gone are the days of the bare breasted succubus in the game books or the fully anatomically correct incubus. I am just sick of the fantasy being co opted by political correctness that says everyone MUST be equal no matter what.
I want items that are class only again, with the right feat my mage is wielding a holy avenger and with the right feat the rouge is using the staff of power or the staff of the archmage.
I guess that I can sum up my rant by siting the old adage "if everybody's special, nobody's special" or something like that.
Anybody else wanna rant and rave about PC D&D go for it.
For the most art I am with ya
The language of the game changing to make female pc's feel more welcome was one thing even though the druid in our party says she cant let her daughters read the books because they teach incorrect English, the male pronoun of he is the correct generalization in literary terms.
This is an editorial decision, in most styles.
If you want to write by old standards, then you put yourself at the mercy of modern editorial convention.
If you find yourself longing for a "literary" standard that acknowledges only 50% of the population, I have no sympathy for your plight.
|
I agree 100%. Want to play a spell caster thendont pick a fighter. Want to search for traps, then pick a class that does it, don't beg for your wizard halfdragon to do it. If you want to use necromancy spells, then be evil dammit! I think is goes to the whole "Everyone must get a trophy" thing. When my players say "I suck in combat" I say play a fighter next time and not a bard.
I'm not commenting on pronouns, I am fine with "she" used as generalisation (my inner feminist might discuss this matter even further, should someone really want to listen).
As for game balance...I do agree, and I generally see no major problem with having different power levels in the game, quite often they do make roleplaying aspects more interesting...it is a matter of players and DM to deal with, even if D&D in general is not as supportive of gaming with variety of power levels as some other rule systems out there (Ars Magica and some other games have power differences as a norm built right into the system).
Of course DM needs to address the issue though, and many published adventures and settings assume balanced power levels which might be a problem.
|
I am just sick of the fantasy being co opted by political correctness that says everyone MUST be equal no matter what.
I want items that are class only again, with the right feat my mage is wielding a holy avenger and with the right feat the rouge is using the staff of power or the staff of the archmage.
I guess that I can sum up my rant by siting the old adage "if everybody's special, nobody's special" or something like that.
Anybody else wanna rant and rave about PC D&D go for it.
Agreed. The recent "gamism balance" (or whatever it can be defined) spree makes my inner grognard suffer.
I think the steps taken to "balance" everything as well as trying to overly please those who feel they "have to have such and such a character class balance to survive" is a crock of Who Ha. The idea of catering to so many things that some deemed as unfun is an even bigger crock of Who Ha! For my previous gaming group much of the challenge was removed by trying to "balance" everything. We played quite well without a cleric in the group, or a fighter, or a wizard, or a rogue. We let people play what they wanted to play not try to shoe horn into some little boxed formula that says the game is not fun if you don't follow X,Y, and Z.
So many of these things that were changed because they were unfun were for us the challenge and fun of the game. Take away the challenge of surviving without a cleric or (insert whatever class or race you feel is necessary to have in order to play the game) and what do you have left....me and my group moving on to other games that allow these kinds of challenges.
Every character has their moment to shine, they don't all need to be "special" all the time. As many others have repeated from the Incredibles (and it's true). "If everyone is special, then no one is special." For me, what was special about the game, no longer exists.
We quit playing all together including previous editions because of the bad taste this whole WOTC fiascal created. So yea, I guess to be most accurate we got sick of the changes in D&D and the people that currently own it. My best gaming momemts, weren't actually D&D. They were Top Secret/S.I.
|
The language of the game changing to make female pc's feel more welcome was one thing even though the druid in our party says she cant let her daughters read the books because they teach incorrect English, the male pronoun of he is the correct generalization in literary terms.
While that may be true, the real reason for the interchangeable gender is a natural result of the inclusion of the female iconic PCs.
Whenever a rule refers to an activity by a Rogue, they use 'she' quite correctly, since 'she' in this instance, is Lidda herself.
Same applies to the Druid, Monk, Paladin, and Wizard.
Not so sure about the Sorceror...think that one swings both ways...:)
Based on the thread title, I was expecting a rant on "why can't we call them 'devils' and 'demons' (from the 2nd Ed days)...
I think 3rd Edition's multi-classing system (which I like very much) made 'all classes must be equally powerful at each level' pretty much essential for the game mechanic to work.
Thinking back to 1st/2nd Ed: some classes leveled more quickly to compensate players for running a 'weaker' class. It was something of a bummer to see other PCs shooting up in levels while your Ranger is working for enough XP to get new abilities. And if you played a multi-class PC, those waits for a new level took forever...
Eileen's post made me weep, as her posts on this subject usually do. The politics surrounding D&D drives away more fans than it creates, and I think that the biggest problem isn't the political correctness of it all(i.e. gender and race issues) so much as "game balance". Quotes are mine, as I believe game balance to be a man-made creation meant to cause fights around the game table(read: Who-ha). I have been playing D&D for god...14 years now, and I have never broken down in tears and left the table because my fighter can't cast spells, my wizard has a d4 for hit points, and the evil cleric I'm facing is casting spells while wearing armor.
I love Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights!
Oh, wait, not that PC...
;-)
Yeah, that's what I thought too, at first... :hugging BG and IWD to my chest while throwing out NWN:
Eileen's post made me weep, as her posts on this subject usually do. The politics surrounding D&D drives away more fans than it creates, and I think that the biggest problem isn't the political correctness of it all(i.e. gender and race issues) so much as "game balance". Quotes are mine, as I believe game balance to be a man-made creation meant to cause fights around the game table(read: Who-ha). I have been playing D&D for god...14 years now, and I have never broken down in tears and left the table because my fighter can't cast spells, my wizard has a d4 for hit points, and the evil cleric I'm facing is casting spells while wearing armor.
Fear not, gaming is in the blood. It isn't the game that matters, its the experience! By the way, are you still intrested in the Supers PBP?
|
|
I don't see class balance as very political. It isn't something that interests me overly much but I don't see it as being "politically" correct.
As for 'she' as a gender neutral pronoun, why not? It's no more or less silly than using 'he' as a gender neutral pronoun.
We should really switch to "they" as the pronoun of choice.
We should really switch to "they" as the pronoun of choice.I don't see class balance as very political. It isn't something that interests me overly much but I don't see it as being "politically" correct.
As for 'she' as a gender neutral pronoun, why not? It's no more or less silly than using 'he' as a gender neutral pronoun.
/agree. It's an elegant solution I use all the time. I also think we should legitimise 'y'all' for a second person formal pronoun. I'll never understand why we ditched the 'thee/you' split. English has been cobbling together regional solutions for the missing SPF pronoun ever since.
Beats the Northeast equivocation 'you guys' or its Mid Atlantic cousin 'youse guys'.
So, y'all agree that if a person describes game balance as "politically correct", they should be whacked with the lazy stick?
/agree. Long as we don't start calling Halflings 'vertically challenged demihumans'.
All players are not 'created' equal, so all PCs will not be equal. The PC is just a framework for the player. Yes, you may argue that this enters into the realm of meta-gaming.
We have a smart player that loves to be the fighter. Does he play his character 'smarter' than his Int score indicates? Yes, but he also reins himself in on occasion. We also have some not-so-smart players that HAVE to play spellcasters, 'cause they like blasting stuff. Some players are more engaged than others, and some are simply more aggressive.
Even if you had 'perfect' balance in classes our group would still be led by the players, not the framework.
As for the gender inclusion I'm for it, but I doubt it will impact our table.
I see the goals, but I think they're fuzzy. Not dwarf-fuzzy, but close.
Not dwarf-fuzzy, but close.
Wuz that an insult? Ye got somethin' agains' a dwarf proudly wearin' the 'air Torag gave 'im? I'd be after talkin' tuh ye face-to-nekkid face 'bout that.
2 pet-peeves of mine:
1. They're Lizard-Men, not Lizard -Folk
2. They're Sons of Kyuss, not Spawn of Kyuss.
Not dwarf-fuzzy, but close.Wuz that an insult? Ye got somethin' agains' a dwarf proudly wearin' the 'air Torag gave 'im? I'd be after talkin' tuh ye face-to-nekkid face 'bout that.
Yur 'barkin' up the wrong tree, fleshy. lol.
I agree entirely. Politically-correct anything is a self-induced lobotomy. 'He' is the correct pronoun, but then language is normative so that's bound to change eventually.
Nothing can be perfectly balanced all the time, especially over the course of a game line, so 4E's putative balance simply moves the imbalances to new locations, and new supplements will create the same imbalances as in previous editions. The game should have focused more on source material (as mythology was source material to 1E) than on a pointless quest for balance that makes the classes feel like bland copies of each other.
|
Funny thing about Political Correctness...
My momma always told me if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
"Political Correctness" enables people to talk without being rude. Otherwise, just don't say anything at all.
Now as to how it applies to D&D as per the original topic...
Game balance has always been part of D&D, from the beginning. The idea is to make the experience fun for everyone within reason. No harm in trying to improve the game to make it more fun. If you don't like the changes, just don't use them. If change for the sake of improvement bothers someone, then they are not required to make the change and can freely remain stuck in the 80s :) Course I liked the 80s... had some great music back then :)
As far as s/he goes, it is technically true that there is no neuter pronoun in English and that the masculine He is used instead. That being the case, English is a LIVING language and is subject to change with the population at large and how that population chooses to use the language. For a while They was used as a neuter, as it could refer to both genders equally, however it being plural leads to confusion and it has fallen from favor.
Simple fact is, that since the inclusion of the feminine neuter in D&D there has been an explosive growth in female players. That is a good thing. I can accept bending ancient rules of language in order to grow the hobby.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
As far as s/he goes, it is technically true that there is no neuter pronoun in English and that the masculine He is used instead. That being the case, English is a LIVING language and is subject to change with the population at large and how that population chooses to use the language. For a while They was used as a neuter, as it could refer to both genders equally, however it being plural leads to confusion and it has fallen from favor.
Really? I think 'they' is still more common than 'he' as a gender neutral these days. (Of course, I pretty much live at the university, which may be more concerned with gendered language than most places). As a teacher, I would teach that both are incorrect and that pluralizing the noun to which the pronoun refers is safer.
|
|
As for "they" being confusing due to plurality: Germans can hear the word "sie" and not be confused, it just depends on the way you structure sentences.
sie = she
sie = they
Sie = you
Using "they" to reference a singular noun shouldn't be too confusing.
"A fighter may select any combat feat as a bonus feat. He/she may only select a combat feat for which he/she qualifies."
OR
"A fighter may select any combat feat as a bonus feat. They may only select a combat feat for which they qualify."
I don't see anything particularly PC about game balance. In a competitive game, good balance is an absolute must.
What I take issue with is the game designers (and parts of the gaming public) obsessing about balancing inter-player competition in a game that is ostensibly supposed to be cooperative. I understand that they're reacting to realities at some gaming tables, where optimizers run amok over other players, but I don't think a little mechanical imbalance between characters at various points in the campaign is a major problem.
|
Funny thing about Political Correctness...
My momma always told me if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
"Political Correctness" enables people to talk without being rude. Otherwise, just don't say anything at all.
Now as to how it applies to D&D as per the original topic...
Game balance has always been part of D&D, from the beginning. The idea is to make the experience fun for everyone within reason. No harm in trying to improve the game to make it more fun. If you don't like the changes, just don't use them. If change for the sake of improvement bothers someone, then they are not required to make the change and can freely remain stuck in the 80s :) Course I liked the 80s... had some great music back then :)
As far as s/he goes, it is technically true that there is no neuter pronoun in English and that the masculine He is used instead. That being the case, English is a LIVING language and is subject to change with the population at large and how that population chooses to use the language. For a while They was used as a neuter, as it could refer to both genders equally, however it being plural leads to confusion and it has fallen from favor.
Simple fact is, that since the inclusion of the feminine neuter in D&D there has been an explosive growth in female players. That is a good thing. I can accept bending ancient rules of language in order to grow the hobby.
I'm pretty much with Krome on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simple fact is, that since the inclusion of the feminine neuter in D&D there has been an explosive growth in female players.
This isn't a fact. It's something you made up.
Simple fact is, that since the inclusion of the feminine neuter in D&D there has been an explosive growth in female players.This isn't a fact. It's something you made up.
It might be a fact. But that doesn't necessarily imply a causation relationship, it could a correlation relationship. Or it might be a causation relationship, just in the other direction (number of women players was increasing thus the female pronouns were increased in usage).
"Political Correctness" enables people to talk without being rude. Otherwise, just don't say anything at all.
Well, not being rude to other people should not just stem from PC, which many folks see as being forced upon them. It is a matter of personal politeness - it does not hurt to think before talking and try to avoid unpoliteness. IOW, you don´t need PC if everybody tries to be polite to each other.
Stefan
As far as s/he goes, it is technically true that there is no neuter pronoun in English and that the masculine He is used instead. That being the case, English is a LIVING language and is subject to change with the population at large and how that population chooses to use the language. For a while They was used as a neuter, as it could refer to both genders equally, however it being plural leads to confusion and it has fallen from favor.
Simple fact is, that since the inclusion of the feminine neuter in D&D there has been an explosive growth in female players. That is a good thing. I can accept bending ancient rules of language in order to grow the hobby.
I pretty much agree with Krome here, leaving aside the issue of a causation effect between the use of feminine pronouns and an increase in the number of female gamers.
I started playing under 2nd edition, and recently returned to the game after a 15 year break. And I have to say that it does matter to me that women are represented amongst the iconics for the classes in Pathfinder. And it matters to me that the default pronoun in the rulebooks isn't always 'he'. I'd love to see more examples of women in D&D art who don't look like they'd be more at home in a pillow fight than a sword fight. And I'd like to see more settings where the distribution of powerful NPCs in political, religious, and military leadership roles is fairly equal between the genders.
I'm also just now discovering-- in the midst of planning to DM a campaign when we wrap up our current game-- how exciting it will be for me to create a setting where gender equality is the norm. Not that our current DM does anything deliberately to make the genders UNequal in his world. Far from it, in fact, but the default for NPCs tends to be male, and the powerful political, religious, and military figures of the world tend to be male (with a few exceptions). Sometimes I wonder whether creating a world where there is a roughly equal distribution of women and men in positions of power will make it feel (to male players, at least) as though the world is heavily matriarchal. I guess I'll find out when the time comes. :)
So to address part of the question in the original post, no, I'm not sick of PC D&D. I don't think that making the game welcoming to creative, thoughtful, interesting players who happen to have ladyparts is necessarily a bad thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Unfortunately, English, in contrast to German, does not have a "gender-neutral" pronoun.
The language of the game changing to make female pc's feel more welcome was one thing even though the druid in our party says she cant let her daughters read the books because they teach incorrect English, the male pronoun of he is the correct generalization in literary terms.
English has had gender neutral pronouns and many people do use 'they' as a gender neutral pronoun. I find it ironic that people complain more about "politically correct" people telling them what they should and shouldn't say than they do about "grammatically correct" people telling them what they should and shouldn't say. The rules of English grammar are a bit of a joke as they have often diverged from actual use.
|
|
Just have to point out that Planescape was rocking the female pronoun before 3.x came along. In fact, it was the primary pronoun of choice IIRC.
Of course there was probably an in-game reason for that.
[/PSfanboymode]
|
|
...wrote a heaping dish of awesome...Fantastic comments, Tobrian! You have a new fan :)
I agree. I read posts from Lindisty and Tobrian and am reminded of my place in the intellectual totem pole. LOL. I respect both sides of the argument. I'll just try to keep my posts short. "Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This thread title made so little sense to me - I thought it was going to be about D&D computer games at first. Then, I started to suspect it was about political correctness. Now, I understand, it's about a grab bag of topics loosely affiliated with a very vague and broad definition of political correctness. And, I must admit, I am using the word "understand" in its most vague and broad sense. I honestly have no idea how game balance has anything to do with political correctness.
Not that I really want to find out. The last thing I want is a political correctness debate leading to a politics debate leading to the usual crap-fling fest.
In regards to the topic hinted at by the OP, I am not sick of either game balance or feminine pronouns. The former is very important to me and my play style, the later hasn't ever really stood out. I can't say that I've even noticed the pronouns.
Also, I just got a notice from the Department of Irony. It seems that complaining about pronoun usage in a paragraph written without any regard for the basic rules of grammar is cause for a citation. Go figure.
Let's try and organize our thoughts a little before posting, and maybe sprinkle in some sentences with nouns, verbs, and punctuation, mmmmkay? Intelligible posts are much easier to rally around.
I agree. I read posts from Lindisty and Tobrian and am reminded of my place in the intellectual totem pole. LOL. I respect both sides of the argument. I'll just try to keep my posts short. "Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
I've always liked that one, even if I have trouble following the advice :)
Give a Abe a home.