It’s time for the community to reject Myfarog


Other RPGs

101 to 150 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
I'd be far more worried by a mechanically good system with the same racist/sexist ideology.

I wouldn't, most DMs I've had homebrew, and if they're going to use a setting and make use of its racist/sexist ideology then they're probably already doing with another system.

A REAL bad system would be both good AND tie in sexism/racism into the system so that you COULDN'T untie it (for instance maybe evil is a stat that influences combat ability and grants stuff like horns or a damaging evil aura, and then tied into yet ANOTHER mechanic that makes removing it destructive to the system).

Evil to some extent DOES have influence in DnD/PF due to spells that affect good and evil differently, but it's still pretty limited. What I'm talking about would probably be something like evil is the strongest modifier to strength while good is the strongest modifier to constitution, whilst some skills SPECIFICALLY only benefit from the evil or good modifier to that stat or something. EDIT: Oh, and race would affect the good/evil thing by perhaps some races being naturally gifted with the good stat and bad races with the evil stat, perhaps based on hues of skin color can increase said stat? He apparently already has a table for every point of gale strength.

As to the orcs situation, I can't seem to find where I read that there were peaceful orcs (my memory must be playing tricks on me). As for how orcs are created, I was under the assumption they were elves called back from the dead or created in some other way, not born (I didn't read the book and haven't seen the movies in ages).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cmastah wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'd be far more worried by a mechanically good system with the same racist/sexist ideology.

I wouldn't, most DMs I've had homebrew, and if they're going to use a setting and make use of its racist/sexist ideology then they're probably already doing with another system.

A REAL bad system would be both good AND tie in sexism/racism into the system so that you COULDN'T untie it (for instance maybe evil is a stat that influences combat ability and grants stuff like horns or a damaging evil aura, and then tied into yet ANOTHER mechanic that makes removing it destructive to the system).

Evil to some extent DOES have influence in DnD/PF due to spells that affect good and evil differently, but it's still pretty limited. What I'm talking about would probably be something like evil is the strongest modifier to strength while good is the strongest modifier to constitution, whilst some skills SPECIFICALLY only benefit from the evil or good modifier to that stat or something.

As to the orcs situation, I can't seem to find where I read that there were peaceful orcs (my memory must be playing tricks on me). As for how orcs are created, I was under the assumption they were elves called back from the dead or created in some other way, not born (I didn't read the book and haven't seen the movies in ages).

Obligatory: Read the book.

No idea at this point what they did in the movie, I was speaking of Tolkien's actual writing, since we were talking about his racism.

As for the system, it wouldn't be "evil" granting bonuses, since racism wouldn't be evil in that game. You'd need to have racism be good, but still have that tied mechanically to the system in a way that would be hard to extract.
OTOH, if it was a good enough system, it might still sell, even if most people ripped the ugly bits out. And it would still have the kind of influence Rysky worries about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Myfarog is the definition of irrelevant; briganding against it would only invite the Streisand Effect and bring it unwarranted attention.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
brennan998 wrote:
Myfarog is the definition of irrelevant; briganding against it would only invite the Streisand Effect and bring it unwarranted attention.

This.

Call outs don't change minds, they just SOMETIMES get people to be all quiet about the thing they got called out over and let the people who did the calling out get the endorphin rush associated with outrage.

Meanwhile you're signal boosting this game into the view of people who might spend money on it out of curiousity, perversity, or actual racism.

Call outs from strangers don't do anything. People have to be actually vested in your opinion of them for it to matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:


Moonrunner has it right:
Denunciation is cheap.
Positive action is what's needed.

Calling him out does nothing helpful.

I would argue that calling him out is something helpful - helpful for the world around him. We are under no obligation to help him.

That said, there's also no point in really belaboring it either. A massive denunciation campaign isn't really necessary. As long as people have an easy way to find it out's in RaHoWa's or FATAL's territory, that should be reasonable.

Exactly. If you see a positive review, throw a comment in or link to one of the other ones.

What we really need is a really good, funny review, like the famous viral one of FATAL.
Trying to herd the cats of the gaming community into some kind of formal joint denunciation would likely just backfire.
At some point I am going to have to at least read a review on FATAL. Keep seeing it come up but never knew much about it.

This is the review to read.


Sissyl wrote:
I hadn't heard of Myfarog before this.

Nor had I.

In fact, having no idea what this was, my guess was that this somehow had something to do with the newest evil Iconic (or whatever) for Hell's Vengeance, and was prooooooobably a joke thread about how we need to denounce that guy for reasons, and may have even been made by KoboldCleaver.

Nope! Instead, there's apparently an actually bad person that mad a bad thing.

Oh well. Much less entertaining and happy than I was hoping for...

But there is an interesting discussion, nonetheless.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Tolkien in general wasn't particularly racist. Unlike Lovecraft, who was so even for his time. Still, he was a product of his time and stuff creeps in. The dark-skinned/light skinned tendencies Captain Marsh mentioned. The descriptions of the orcs. The Haradrim, not innately evil, but corrupted by Sauron, opposed by the Gondor and Rohan. It's all fairly subtle and easily missed. Certainly forgivable for his time. And honestly even today.

I'd argue that it is 'subtle' enough that it exists mostly in the minds of others. People think that Tolkien is saying light skinned people are better than dark... but he doesn't actually say that anywhere... and there are plenty of examples to the contrary;

Most people don't read the introduction and/or appendices and thus don't realize that a majority of hobbits have brown skin. Or that Barliman Butterbur and the rest of the men of Bree were of Dunlendish descent. Likewise, some of the troops that came to defend Gondor during the siege were dark skinned. Bor and his sons, after whom Boromir was named, were amongst the great heroes of the First Age... and basically described as africans. Et cetera. Thus, even in a story explicitly intended to represent a heroic mythology for northwestern Europe... Tolkien included numerous positive examples of people of disparate 'races'.

Tolkien, being as human as the rest of us, certainly wasn't completely 'immune' to prejudice, but there is no basis for claims of 'racist' motivations in his work... and in his private life he was an activist against such views.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
(Slight tangent, I do too keep reading it as Myfrog ^w^)

{adds to list of names for future slaad-powered 3PP}

.
Freehold DM wrote:
what was the greatest trick the devil ever played again?

That M. Bay makes entertaining movies.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I've actually had to deal with this on a more personal venue.

Orson Scott Card has written some of my favorite stories, including series such as the Worthing Chronicle.

And I've also learned that the man is an extreme right wing homo and xenophobe nutcase.

Do I condemm the work for the man? Or do I take contentment that since I bought the books second hand, he's not getting a dime anyway?

Depends, I like Orson.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Rysky wrote:
(Slight tangent, I do too keep reading it as Myfrog ^w^)

{adds to list of names for future slaad-powered 3PP}

.
Freehold DM wrote:
what was the greatest trick the devil ever played again?
That M. Bay makes entertaining movies.

HEY! shakes fist


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

I've actually had to deal with this on a more personal venue.

Orson Scott Card has written some of my favorite stories, including series such as the Worthing Chronicle.

And I've also learned that the man is an extreme right wing homo and xenophobe nutcase.

Do I condemm the work for the man? Or do I take contentment that since I bought the books second hand, he's not getting a dime anyway?

Having only read his "retelling" of Hamlet I'll just have to take your word for it that those series are good and hopefully his beliefs didn't bleed too much into them.

But from reading that one story I won't absolutely nothing to do with any of his works.

Bill Dunn wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


What the author may have done outside of creating this work is really a separate issue.
Sometimes - particularly with fiction. But I'm still not buying anything by Orson Scott Card. Maybe when he's dead and can't benefit in any way from my purchase, I will consider it.

For me, this is an easy choice. Orson Scott Card is still alive, and he financially benefits from people consuming his works, whether they are in his original format or filmed adaptations. OSC sat on the board for the National Organization for Marriage, which during his presence, continued its actions lobbying and donating against LGBT equality in both the public mindset and through government legislation, often through the use of misinformation, fear, and outright lies (conflating LGBT people with child molesters, lying that ministers and priests would be forced to perform same-sex marriages, etc.). OSC was also quite happy to write many anti-LGBT articles for his news column, and has directly financially contributed to organizations with the same goals & tactics as NOM.

Vikernes doesn't have anywhere near the same reach or financial resources as OSC. However, I think the arguments claiming that "not ignoring him only brings him publicity" are fairly empty in the Internet age; Vikernes' product is already known in both Internet communities that support his hateful views, and in those that enjoy trolling people concerned about social justice. And it wasn't "SJWs" that got the word to them.

At this point, I think efforts to educate the larger gaming public are a good idea, if only to warn them off wasting their money on a product (and any future products) they likely won't enjoy. Frankly, if someone in Western society today still thinks hateful views like those of Vikernes (or OSC) still hold any merit or should be heard, I don't feel like I can turn them around with any well-reasoned rational arguments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
I hadn't heard of Myfarog before this.

Nor had I.

In fact, having no idea what this was, my guess was that this somehow had something to do with the newest evil Iconic (or whatever) for Hell's Vengeance, and was prooooooobably a joke thread about how we need to denounce that guy for reasons, and may have even been made by KoboldCleaver.

Nope! Instead, there's apparently an actually bad person that mad a bad thing.

Oh well. Much less entertaining and happy than I was hoping for...

But there is an interesting discussion, nonetheless.

The funny thing is, I've been accused of being a Social Justice Warrior here, mindlessly in favor of everything "politically correct"—

*bzzt*

Quiet there. Anyways, the thing is, I don't actually agree with the OP. I don't think Paizo needs to explicitly reject Myfarog. I think Paizo's got way too many people who hate Paizo's political beliefs for that to accomplish what's desired. Paizo would achieve roughly the same result by just denouncing the parts of its own community who associate with MRAs and similar groups, and avoid plugging a very obscure game.

I don't expect them to do that, either, for the record. I just don't think Myfarog is a problem here. It's just a symptom of a general attitude in gaming. If Myfarog was relevant, and making people feel unwelcome, I would totally support a statement. I would support Paizo making statements condemning more prominent racism in tabletop gaming (I'm sure they can find examples). But the problem is endemic, and it's not going to be much affected by Paizo condemning a game people've only just heard of.

It wouldn't do any harm, contrary to what people think. It just wouldn't do much at all.

CBDunkerson wrote:
Most people don't read the introduction and/or appendices and thus don't realize that a majority of hobbits have brown skin. Or that Barliman Butterbur and the rest of the men of Bree were of Dunlendish descent. Likewise, some of the troops that came to defend Gondor during the siege were dark skinned. Bor and his sons, after whom Boromir was named, were amongst the great heroes of the First Age... and basically described as africans. Et cetera. Thus, even in a story explicitly intended to represent a heroic mythology for northwestern Europe... Tolkien included numerous positive examples of people of disparate 'races'.

I actually didn't remember hobbits being "brown-skinned"—I thought that was always kind of ambiguous, like whether Legolas had dark hair.

That said, I agree that Tolkien was probably pretty ahead for his time. I mean, there's obviously still race in there—ultimately, the dark-skinned people are barely involved in the main trilogy aside from being villains, the orcs' language is based on Turkish because Tolkien thought it sounded "savage", and Frodo and the majority of elves were all pale-haired (the idea being that Frodo was an almost "elf-like" hobbit). And he obviously had some issues on gender, though everyone did back then. But I don't think Tolkien was terrible (he's way better than Lovecraft, that's for damn sure). To quote Floyd Norman on Walt Disney, "He was a man of his times, but not a prisoner of them."

As for Orson Scott Card, the only thing that puts him over wingnuts like Scott Adams and Vikernes is that he actually made some good stuff. Sort of like the scumbag director of Chinatown. I can understand someone wanting to boycott Polanski (he's a rapist who got away with it and who people in Hollywood still defend) just like I can understand someone wanting to boycott Sony for its treatment of Kesha, or Chick-fil-a for its homophobia and donations to homophobic organizations.

Actually, Chick-fil-a and Card is a pretty good comparison to make. Almost as if someone's already made it...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, Card also hasn't actually murdered anyone. So that's a point over Vikernes.

As for hobbits, does anyone actually have a source for that?
The closest I can find on a quick look is the three breeds in the prologue:

Quote:
The Harfoots were browner of skin, smaller, and shorter, and they were beardless and bootless; their hands and feet were neat and nimble; and they preferred highlands and hillsides. The Stoors were broader, heavier in build; their feet and hands were larger, and they preferred flat lands and riversides. The Fallohides were fairer of skin and also of hair, and they were taller and slimmer than the others; they were lovers of trees and of woodlands.

The Fallohides were of course the great families of the Shire - the Tooks and the Brandybucks, though the Brandybucks were likely mixed with the Stoors of Buckland. Frodo and Bilbo both showed strong Fallohidish strains. Sam was likely the only Harfoot type.

He also says generally that they were "red-cheeked" and had thick curling brown hair.

Though "browner" and "fairer" could of course apply to any base skin hue, they both seem more likely to apply to a relatively pale starting point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sam being the only Harfoot type is interesting. On the one hand, that's a pretty transparent stereotype—the one darker-skinned hobbit being the one who's loyal and subservient and "simple". On the other, the trilogy serves as something of a deconstruction of that, since Sam is arguably both the main character and Tolkien's favorite hero by the end of it (he epitomizes, even better than Frodo, that ultimately it's the small, working-class hobbit who gets the job done).

Of course, like thejeff said, I'd hesitate to say that "browner of skin" indicates actually being "brown-skinned" (people used to call a lady's skin "browned" just because she spent an unladylike amount of time in the sun). I remembered that from the books and never really took it to indicate any racial diversity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On a completely unrelated note, I think it's interesting that it's ultimately a Harfoot's, a Stoor's and a Fallohide's combined efforts that see the ring destroyed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I actually didn't remember hobbits being "brown-skinned"—I thought that was always kind of ambiguous

Nope, it's right in the 'Concerning Hobbits' introduction. "The Harfoots were browner of skin ... and far the most numerous".

Quote:
I mean, there's obviously still race in there—ultimately, the dark-skinned people are barely involved in the main trilogy aside from being villains

As previously noted, this is an incorrect assumption. Many of the non-villains in the stories (e.g. hobbits, Bree-landers, Gondorians) had brownish skin.

Quote:
the orcs' language is based on Turkish because Tolkien thought it sounded "savage"

Wherever you heard that, it isn't true. First, there isn't a single orcish language, but rather numerous versions derived from other local languages in different times and places. The most common underlying element would be Sauron's 'Black Speech', but very little of that language exists (just the ring verse and a handful of other words) and it bears no notable resemblance to Turkish. Some linguists have speculated that Tolkien may have used ancient Hurrian as a foundation, but there is no way to know for certain.

Quote:
and Frodo and the elves were all pale-haired.

Nope. Very few elves had 'pale' hair... brown and black were the most common colors by far. Blond hair was mostly a Vanyar (smallest branch of the Elves and least represented in LotR... basically just Galadriel) trait and silver hair was usually a mark of Teleri royalty (Thranduil and possibly Legolas... though, as you noted, there is no clear statement on Legolas). As to Frodo, while there is no direct statement about his hair color, the fact that hobbit hair was "commonly brown" and Nob made "a nice imitation of your [Frodo's] head with a brown woollen mat" when they were leaving decoys for the Nazgul in Bree, certainly makes brown hair seem the most likely.

Quote:
And he obviously had some issues on gender, though everyone did back then.

Granted. Though even there... you wouldn't see a strong female warrior character like Eowyn in just about ANY other story written at that time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dunno about that—the "amazon" who rejects the female role, battles, then meets a man and realizes she needs to settle down has always been a staple of mythology and stories. That said, she was better-fleshed out than most.

My memory of the hair thing conflicts with yours, but I don't want to get out my books and check (they're in bad enough shape as it is).

I may have been misinformed on the orc thing (though, for the record, I meant names, not language). I'll leave that.

Hobbits have been addressed above by thejeff, and Gondorians I simply find questionable. Can you cite the source on that? Bor and his sons are interesting, but they don't seem to be representative of Gondor as a whole.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I know that getting mad about this kind of stuff is kind of My Thing here on paizo.com, but I actually think that this call for condemnation is a little overzealous, even if I do respect the intent behind it.

I think it'd be one thing to call for this book's condemnation if there were more people with a more visible influence endorsing or defending it. But since the only thing impressive about this book is its bigotry and corruption of pagan religion and European history, a full force slam outside of what your garden variety neo Nazi deserves seems excessive.

It's useful to get the word out about Varg and his game in the same way that it's useful to be able to identify racist neo Nazi "coding" in other stuff: words like "traditional" in regards to Viking stuff, numbers like 88. Also, when discussing racism and racists, it's also good to see who defends racists and in what ways. (Hint: you don't have to be a literal Nazi to say some racist stuff).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
I think it'd be one thing to call for this book's condemnation if there were more people with a more visible influence endorsing or defending it. But since the only thing impressive about this book is its bigotry and corruption of pagan religion and European history

Not true! It's also an impressively bad system. ;D

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
I think it'd be one thing to call for this book's condemnation if there were more people with a more visible influence endorsing or defending it. But since the only thing impressive about this book is its bigotry and corruption of pagan religion and European history
Not true! It's also an impressively bad system. ;D

Alas, I cannot allow it even that. It seems pretty run of the mill bad on that account.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tolkien in general wasn't particularly racist. Unlike Lovecraft, who was so even for his time. Still, he was a product of his time and stuff creeps in. The dark-skinned/light skinned tendencies Captain Marsh mentioned. The descriptions of the orcs. The Haradrim, not innately evil, but corrupted by Sauron, opposed by the Gondor and Rohan. It's all fairly subtle and easily missed. Certainly forgivable for his time. And honestly even today.

I'd argue that it is 'subtle' enough that it exists mostly in the minds of others. People think that Tolkien is saying light skinned people are better than dark... but he doesn't actually say that anywhere... and there are plenty of examples to the contrary;

Most people don't read the introduction and/or appendices and thus don't realize that a majority of hobbits have brown skin. Or that Barliman Butterbur and the rest of the men of Bree were of Dunlendish descent. Likewise, some of the troops that came to defend Gondor during the siege were dark skinned. Bor and his sons, after whom Boromir was named, were amongst the great heroes of the First Age... and basically described as africans. Et cetera. Thus, even in a story explicitly intended to represent a heroic mythology for northwestern Europe... Tolkien included numerous positive examples of people of disparate 'races'.

Tolkien, being as human as the rest of us, certainly wasn't completely 'immune' to prejudice, but there is no basis for claims of 'racist' motivations in his work... and in his private life he was an activist against such views.

I certainly don't think he had racist motivations. I suspect he held, like the vast majority of Europeans of his day, largely unexamined stereotypes and prejudices.

As for your specific examples: I've already commented on the hobbits, but would happy to see a reference I've missed.
The Dunlendings may have been darker than the Rohirrim, but would still be considered white. They were related to the House of Haleth.
The only reference that could be "dark skinned" among the troops coming to defend Minas Tirith was describing the men of Lassarnach as "shorter and somewhat swarthier than any men that Pippin had yet seen in Gondor". To me, that sounds more like southern European than Black.
Bor's people were the Easterlings and, unlike the Edain, most of them turned to Morgoth, only Bor's house staying faithful. So we're already at "more treacherous". The description was
Quote:
They were short and broad, long and strong in the arm, and grew much hair on face and breast; their locks were dark as were their eyes, and their skins were sallow or swart. <...> Some were not uncomely and were fair to deal with; some were grim and ill-favoured and of little trust.

I'm not at all sure what that matches, but it's not at all complimentary. (Interesting association of looks and trust, as well.)

"Sallow" certainly isn't black. "Swarthy" is dark skinned, but more of a weather-beaten or Mediterranean cast than African. The Haradrim are also described as swarthy. Maybe North African.
There's also a description of the people of Far Harad as "black men like half-trolls with white eyes and red tongues", which is the only actual description I'm aware of referring to anyone as black.

OTOH, it's worth pointing out that the white guys are no saints. They're the protagonists of the Story, so they get more nuance than the enemies, but the Story is over all the Story of the Fall. The Elves fall with the Kinslaying and are only partly redeemed with long struggle and death. The Edain become Numenor and Fall themselves and are destroyed, leaving only the faithful remnant who still fall further, even into madness as Denethor does.
It's nowhere near so simple as "white=good, dark=bad", but there is that tendency and he's definitely drawing on racial stereotypes. None of which should be surprising, even for a relatively enlightened man of his generation.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I actually didn't remember hobbits being "brown-skinned"—I thought that was always kind of ambiguous
Nope, it's right in the 'Concerning Hobbits' introduction. "The Harfoots were browner of skin ... and far the most numerous".

As I said "browner of skin" isn't "brown-skinned". It could simply be not milk white.

Given what hobbits were stand ins for, I'd expect: relatively dark for a native of England. The "red cheeks" and brown hair also point in that direction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
I think it'd be one thing to call for this book's condemnation if there were more people with a more visible influence endorsing or defending it. But since the only thing impressive about this book is its bigotry and corruption of pagan religion and European history
Not true! It's also an impressively bad system. ;D
Alas, I cannot allow it even that. It seems pretty run of the mill bad on that account.

Well, sure, it's a common sort of bad, but it's also a funny sort of bad—way too much effort put into the wrong areas.

If it weren't so racist, I might buy it just to see if it could be improved, just out of respect for that effort. If it weren't so poorly-designed, I might acquire it just to deconstruct it, like Scythia said. But together, it's just not worth it. :P

thejeff wrote:
I'm not at all sure what that matches, but it's not at all complimentary. (Interesting association of looks and trust, as well.)

I'm sure they would feel fairer and look fouler if...wait, what do you mean by "fairer"?!

Completely kidding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
brennan998 wrote:
Myfarog is the definition of irrelevant; briganding against it would only invite the Streisand Effect and bring it unwarranted attention.

This.

Call outs don't change minds, they just SOMETIMES get people to be all quiet about the thing they got called out over and let the people who did the calling out get the endorphin rush associated with outrage.

Meanwhile you're signal boosting this game into the view of people who might spend money on it out of curiousity, perversity, or actual racism.

Call outs from strangers don't do anything. People have to be actually vested in your opinion of them for it to matter.

This is a strategy of avoidance, ignoring something and hoping it'll go away. I'm not familiar with any instance in human history where this strategy has helped society improve.

Signal boosting does help people who agree with this person find and support him. It also helps others who don't agree with it know of it's existence and origin. Now, if someone shows up to your table with this book, you know what that book means and can have whatever conversation you find appropriate with them.

So yes, it is spreading knowledge of the existence of the book. For me, I'm glad to know what it is and what it means. If this game shows up at a table of mine, I'll be better prepared to handle that situation quickly and efficiently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
brennan998 wrote:
Myfarog is the definition of irrelevant; briganding against it would only invite the Streisand Effect and bring it unwarranted attention.

This.

Call outs don't change minds, they just SOMETIMES get people to be all quiet about the thing they got called out over and let the people who did the calling out get the endorphin rush associated with outrage.

Meanwhile you're signal boosting this game into the view of people who might spend money on it out of curiousity, perversity, or actual racism.

Call outs from strangers don't do anything. People have to be actually vested in your opinion of them for it to matter.

This is a strategy of avoidance, ignoring something and hoping it'll go away. I'm not familiar with any instance in human history where this strategy has helped society improve.

Signal boosting does help people who agree with this person find and support him. It also helps others who don't agree with it know of it's existence and origin. Now, if someone shows up to your table with this book, you know what that book means and can have whatever conversation you find appropriate with them.

So yes, it is spreading knowledge of the existence of the book. For me, I'm glad to know what it is and what it means. If this game shows up at a table of mine, I'll be better prepared to handle that situation quickly and efficiently.

I think it depends on how common the thing is in the first place. If the chances of it showing up at your table are practically nil to start with, then making more people aware of it will probably do more harm than good. It'll just make more racists and proto-racists aware of it, while warning people who never would have run into it in the first place.

Mind you, I've got no problem with a thread like this or dropping a comment or two in reviews of it, should it get any positive ones. A big campaign trying to get major players in the industry to denounce it, otoh, just gives it more stature than it deserves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
brennan998 wrote:
Myfarog is the definition of irrelevant; briganding against it would only invite the Streisand Effect and bring it unwarranted attention.

This.

Call outs don't change minds, they just SOMETIMES get people to be all quiet about the thing they got called out over and let the people who did the calling out get the endorphin rush associated with outrage.

Meanwhile you're signal boosting this game into the view of people who might spend money on it out of curiousity, perversity, or actual racism.

Call outs from strangers don't do anything. People have to be actually vested in your opinion of them for it to matter.

This is a strategy of avoidance, ignoring something and hoping it'll go away. I'm not familiar with any instance in human history where this strategy has helped society improve.

Signal boosting does help people who agree with this person find and support him. It also helps others who don't agree with it know of it's existence and origin. Now, if someone shows up to your table with this book, you know what that book means and can have whatever conversation you find appropriate with them.

So yes, it is spreading knowledge of the existence of the book. For me, I'm glad to know what it is and what it means. If this game shows up at a table of mine, I'll be better prepared to handle that situation quickly and efficiently.

I think it depends on how common the thing is in the first place. If the chances of it showing up at your table are practically nil to start with, then making more people aware of it will probably do more harm than good. It'll just make more racists and proto-racists aware of it, while warning people who never would have run into it in the first place.

Mind you, I've got no problem with a thread like this or dropping a comment or two in reviews of it, should it get any positive ones. A big campaign trying to get major players in the industry to denounce it, otoh, just gives...

There are two separate concepts

1) Whether it's okay to point out the thing exists or not
2) The scale of efforts to say how bad they are

I don't think refusing to acknowledge it's existence (1) has any benefit. In fact I think it's detrimental. I will agree, that proportionality is important (2), but this just a forum thread, so in the proportionality scale, it's pretty small. I would agree that spending $1 million in an effort to warn the general public about this game would be uncalled for, but as far as I can tell, no one's asking for donations to an organized campaign on the issue.

Scarab Sages

Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:
Scythia wrote:

Is it bad that I almost want to learn the system just to run games where the players play as the alleged "bad guys" and witness the corruption and evil hidden under the veneer of the glorious and civilized race?

Then post extensive campaign journals.

I won't say it's bad, but I will show you just a hint of what you are contemplating...

I read the review on Metalsucks and cannot stop laughing. This game looks awful, but awful enough to be grotesquely amusing in small doses. Highly original and imaginative title as well (not).


Irontruth wrote:
This is a strategy of avoidance, ignoring something and hoping it'll go away. I'm not familiar with any instance in human history where this strategy has helped society improve.

Ignoring things that are irrelevant is always the best tactic. This is irrelevant. It changes nothing in the world. It has little to no impact on anything even in the short term.

Unless, of course, you decide to try and MAKE it relevant. In which case it STILL has no impact on the world beyond the short term, and just serves to get people agitated over something utterly, banally unimportant. And what, really, is the purpose of that? We already have far too many frivolous "controversies" floating around the web.

"Ohhh Iron Fist is white" "Ohhh my Starbucks cup is too red" "Ohhh a woman made an angry face as a joke" "Ohhh a white supremacist made a shitty obscure RPG" let's all rabblerabblerabble.

It's frankly tiresome. Save your outrage for real issues, please.


Please quote and link where I said I was outraged.

If you can't, I'd appreciate you recognizing that this is something you invented. The conversation is difficult enough without people making things up about other people in this thread.

More broadly, I haven't seen evidence of bigotry ever going away when it was just ignored. If you want to present evidence that this tactic is the best tactic employed, I'd be interested to see it.


If you're not, then why do you think it's a good idea to call attention to this game?

What practical purpose does it serve? I'm genuinely curious.

The "So I'll be ready if it shows up at my table thing" is such a non-issue to me that I don't see why it's worth causing a fuss over this. Say you raise awareness. That changes the scenario to this:

"Oh Myfarog? That racist RPG? Yeah, we're not playing that."

Sure. But all it changes it from is:

"Oh, what's this? Oh...so redheads are resistant to electricity and black people are evil...and egads! Look at all these tables!"

It saved you, what, five minutes of time? by giving this guy the time of day when he doesn't really deserve it?

I could understand if this was an "instant classic" and the books are flying off the shelves, but nothing I've seen posted indicates this is the case.

So really all you're doing is signal boosting NOTHING. This is a blip in the history of RPGs. A minuscule black mark that will be buried in the bargain bin pile under all the other poorly made RPGs.

Why would you want to make it infamous? That's what the guy wants. It feeds his delusions. "My perfect game failed because of the insidious machinations of <Insert trendy minority of the week to hate here>! Look at how the white man is persecuted my brothers!"

So for that to be the desired outcome, the benefit has to outweigh the effort of denouncing it. I....really don't see the benefit here. Why should I care? Why should anyone care? Because it's bad and it exists? Plenty of bad things exist. Not all of them need to be pointed at and have a big neon sign erected saying "THIS IS BAD" unless for whatever reason they're starting to make a cultural impact.

It's like (and silly example, I know, but for some reason this is what popped in my head) Lady Gaga's meat dress. Yes, it's hideous. And stupid. And exists only for the shock factor. That is self evident for anyone that saw it to see. The most it got (and deservedly) was some minor publicity "Oh that silly Gaga again". It wasn't a big deal. Because meat dresses weren't exactly going to become a fashion trend. This was not going to be significant in the grand scheme at all. It did not, and could not change the paradigm of fashion in any way.

Myfarog is the meat dress of RPGs. Terrible, incredibly silly, and it probably smells. But not significant. It will decompose quickly, whether or not you take up arms to point out how stupid it is.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Why do you care so much what someone else does with their time?

Anyway, stop defending Nazis' right to free speech 2k16, we can do it

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Anyway, stop defending Nazis' right to free speech 2k16, we can do it

If you don't defend everyone's right to free speech, free speech stops having much meaning.

Again, I hate racism, and absolutely endorse boycotting any product that endorses racism in any sense...but governmental censorship is not a good answer to basically anything.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mechaPoet wrote:
Why do you care so much what someone else does with their time?

Why do you?

mechaPoet wrote:
Anyway, stop defending Nazis' right to free speech 2k16, we can do it

Technically this falls under freedom of expression, since this is an art project rather than a statement. Different clause of common interpretation the same Amendment. /pedantry

And selectively enforcing stuff like that is a slippery slope. There's something to be said for laws being consistent.

"Everyone can say anything they want...except those things we don't like (those are punishable by law)" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as easily, besides.

1 to 50 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / Other RPGs / It’s time for the community to reject Myfarog All Messageboards