Warhammer, D&D - leftist takeover?

[castus]

So I am one of those who enjoy wargaming and pen and paper RPG's but over the past year or so, I've come to realize how much of the community flies on the left side. It's now a real irritation, that my appeal for these things has taken a turn and diminished in some ways.

 

Even the design of these games/lore carry some concepts that are so leftist inspired, that it befuddles itself, taking things that wouldn't normally work long in real life, and somehow magically working in these supposedly immersive fictional realms (regardless of magic actually existing within). To say the least, it breaks a sense of consistency and immersion. There's only so much of a 'magic solution' before it's convoluted.

 

I see this trend eventually swallowing its own tail, hopefully. Anyone else notice or experience this trend?

[Anuojat]

I am not quite sure. I think i saw it in some of the Core rulebooks even during 3.5 ESPECIALLY the book of exalted deed.

 

So whats your source/example youve come across?

[castus]

Let me think here:

 

In regards to D&D:

 

I've felt the overall theme of gender equality, and unrealistic interpretations related, to be kind of annoying. There is quite an absence of any sort of racism, sexism or other naturally occurring stances one sees in the real world.  Even the archetypal male hero is pathetic when measured up. What made Dude'ecles and his steel girder a scary proposition, is now marginalized by a system that balances archtypes beyond expected physics. Granted its done to maintain game mechanics, but the streamlining is nonetheless concerning for these (IMO) impressionable psyches that partake. Really, it seems to me that it's almost a sort of conditioning/programming perhaps?

 

Though 5th edition is quite good, its maintained the 3.0 incremental view in the stats and thus inherent differences among races and classes are less definitive and more focused about working as a team. Even PC games such as Dragon age (which was ok) takes this same concept and runs with it. MMO's are notorious for this sense of 'balance', that no one asks the opposite: could the game be fun if represented with a more realistic weight? Would the realism therein actually compensate for the perceived loss of the demographic no longer catered too?

 

Then the D&D community..... I don't think there's any real surprise that its commonly composed of the left for various reasons brought on by an escapist mentality. I did a poll once on dakkadakka and to no surprise a majority happened to affiliate themselves with the left (I want to say only by 60%/40%). I didn't specify left right too much, so some may have been confused if I remember right. To say the least, there seems a bridge when playing with lefties generally, that unhinges the organic flow, or even a fun unexpected evolution, of a particular scene.

 

Then there are the new modules  - we did the whole black tiamat dragon cult (forget the name), dragon queen - end of the world campaign. Oh my that was boring. High fantasy modules in 5th edition, at least that campaign, was bland and railroaded, that I could have cared less about the global impact even if I were a lawful paladin (would have been boring to roleplay without some caveat of sarcasm, or some over the top, suicidal bravado).

 

I recall even modules in general, for a few other systems, to be a bit convoluted and/or hard to follow - as a DM. Really, I was refreshed to read older stories written in the 90s last year for WFRP, as it seemed to contain some very gritty, authentic, very unique plot and story mechanics that are no longer a thing in todays RPG. It also helps that the setting of the culture portrayed was lifted from a late period holy roman empire vibe, so the cultural feeling conveyed was vivid.

 

And that, brings us to Warhammer Fantasy Battle: My once favorite fantasy setting (still is when ignoring the last fluff put out). If you don't know, the game got rebranded to something called Warhammer - Age of Sigmar. The mechanics of the rank and file, point based system got simplified due partly I guess to desperation to get sales driven again, but also I think delusion also.

 

The game is set in a.... Heman universe now. I mean that's the easy way of putting it - with floating parts of a world that blew up. Outside of the ridiculous artistic license now rampant in the game, we have mechanics that are so simple, that competitive play is a laughable gesture. It's no longer about playing 'to win' but playing 'to have fun'. Not only is this notion dumb its a false bifurcation. For example, what if I have fun playing to win (like the premise of any GAME). It's a revision at a fundamental level. A socialist/communist notion for a game. /shrug

 

The company could have tried a few other things - in my armchair general perspective - outside of such drastic measures. It's sad that now, a once great medieval setting has been reduced to a high fantasy, D&D ism - where everything looks tonka tough (fake) - like most fantasy anymore.

 

I'll stop there.

[Donnadogsoth]

I've noticed online TRPG forums are flamingly liberal.  Some even ban the use of the word "God".  They're more concerned with injecting their identity politics into their games than they are with putting together scenarios that feel psychologically real, much less historically real.

 

As to modern TRPGs, I don't pay them any mind.  I've got the right system I need to play, I don't need or want any new system, and for background or "fluff" well there is the Library and the Internet.  Though GURPS has lots of good sourcebooks.

[AncapFTW]

I've noticed online TRPG forums are flamingly liberal.  Some even ban the use of the word "God".  They're more concerned with injecting their identity politics into their games than they are with putting together scenarios that feel psychologically real, much less historically real.

 

As to modern TRPGs, I don't pay them any mind.  I've got the right system I need to play, I don't need or want any new system, and for background or "fluff" well there is the Library and the Internet.  Though GURPS has lots of good sourcebooks.

I haven't really dealt with this in text RPGs, though I have seen several people who create a very specific character for some reason.  For example, one time I had a neo-nazi join two of my RPs.  The first was a super hero thing where he basically played a skinhead, and the second was a fantasy where he was a dragon that didn't like the dragons assimilating into a combined culture with other sentient races and tried to rebuild Dragon culture in a xenophobic way.

 

I've never seen someone ban "God", but I treat all deities identically in my games, with a bit of game balancing.

[shirgall]

An essential element of tabletop roleplaying games is that it needs to be interesting to a group of people to play, thus many elements of "game balance" are present to make sure everyone who came to the table has something useful to do in an evening's diversion. That these elements carried over into videogames is not surprising.

 

I remember the old "satanist" BS that was thrown around when I got into RPGs in the 80s. Of course gamemakers tread lightly enough to get talked about in the press, but not too negatively.

[AncapFTW]

An essential element of tabletop roleplaying games is that it needs to be interesting to a group of people to play, thus many elements of "game balance" are present to make sure everyone who came to the table has something useful to do in an evening's diversion. That these elements carried over into videogames is not surprising.

 

I remember the old "satanist" BS that was thrown around when I got into RPGs in the 80s. Of course gamemakers tread lightly enough to get talked about in the press, but not too negatively.

That still exists, plus everything from Harry Potter to Pokemon got added to it.  I actually wasn't allowed to play until I was 18 pokemon because my parents thought it was demonic.  Strange thing, though, is that I bought Morrowind when I was 17 and they didn't have a problem with it.  Possible demon-like creatures?  Banned.  Literal magic, summoning, a pantheon of deities and demonic beings you can work for?  That's fine.

[AncapFTW]

I'm currently watching people play tabletop RPs on youtube that don't seem like that, but they don't use D&D, they use Rifts and 13th age, and one used Pathfinder.  Maybe it's the system, but the D&D group I saw didn't seem too "leftist" either, just a bit unstable.  Maybe that's the kind of characters they prefer.

[castus]

An essential element of tabletop roleplaying games is that it needs to be interesting to a group of people to play, thus many elements of "game balance" are present to make sure everyone who came to the table has something useful to do in an evening's diversion. That these elements carried over into videogames is not surprising.

 

I remember the old "satanist" BS that was thrown around when I got into RPGs in the 80s. Of course gamemakers tread lightly enough to get talked about in the press, but not too negatively.

 

I imagine there are some groups where it's good fun - even with an inherently bad setting/game. I just don't think these groups are as common anymore due to the modern way of 'game balance' and the reasoning to even play. Really, it feels more about maintaining an over abundance of fairness within the setting, or the rules, and it makes the setting artificial (even for a game) thus boring. I'm all for a balanced game, but usually most game theories lack in the simulation department, and focus more on the 'gamey' side, if not partly because of political correctness or just mere selfish passive/aggressive behavior.

 

Heh, when was the last time you played an RPG that gave genders a separate attribute consideration? I've only played a computer game that dared walk into that, and it turned out to be one of the better RPG games IMO (Arcanum).

 

********

 

Granted RPGs are not so much about 'winning', but they are about staying consistent within the setting & rules - staying within these confines while being creative. That's winning the enjoyment of others I suppose (like good acting). I guess you could say then, it's probably rewarding to be selfless (even if you're character is selfish) in RPGs - IMO. There's just a serious lack of good reasoning or sense, when it comes to the mode of play/storytelling. Many emulate something (often I think PC style game flow) and it's usually from a person educated from a university level and we all know the propensity coming out of these universities. There may be exceptions along the way.

 

Overall, there's more of a tone that I gauge seems fake and convoluted for something meant to be really enjoyable. But to be a fair, to a person who really likes fake or convoluted, I'm sure it's great fun for them.

[Donnadogsoth]

I imagine there are some groups where it's good fun - even with an inherently bad setting/game. I just don't think these groups are as common anymore due to the modern way of 'game balance' and the reasoning to even play. Really, it feels more about maintaining an over abundance of fairness within the setting, or the rules, and it makes the setting artificial (even for a game) thus boring. I'm all for a balanced game, but usually most game theories lack in the simulation department, and focus more on the 'gamey' side, if not partly because of political correctness or just mere selfish passive/aggressive behavior.

 

Heh, when was the last time you played an RPG that gave genders a separate attribute consideration? I've only played a computer game that dared walk into that, and it turned out to be one of the better RPG games IMO (Arcanum).

 

********

 

Granted RPGs are not so much about 'winning', but they are about staying consistent within the setting & rules - staying within these confines while being creative. That's winning the enjoyment of others I suppose (like good acting). I guess you could say then, it's probably rewarding to be selfless (even if you're character is selfish) in RPGs - IMO. There's just a serious lack of good reasoning or sense, when it comes to the mode of play/storytelling. Many emulate something (often I think PC style game flow) and it's usually from a person educated from a university level and we all know the propensity coming out of these universities. There may be exceptions along the way.

 

Overall, there's more of a tone that I gauge seems fake and convoluted for something meant to be really enjoyable. But to be a fair, to a person who really likes fake or convoluted, I'm sure it's great fun for them.

 

Sex-based differences don't really fly in a TRPG because the PCs are outliers and thus can be anywhere in the range of possible attribute scores.  We might rule realistically that most women NPCs cluster to average INT and more men NPCs have very high and very low INT, but this means nothing to PCs, who are by nature the exceptional individuals for one reason or the other.  The only way to really add sex-based differences is in social norms, which admittedly is viewed by the progressive gamers as just another wall to knock down to achieve total fantasy equality (and round fantasy meaninglessness).

[shirgall]

I imagine there are some groups where it's good fun - even with an inherently bad setting/game. I just don't think these groups are as common anymore due to the modern way of 'game balance' and the reasoning to even play. Really, it feels more about maintaining an over abundance of fairness within the setting, or the rules, and it makes the setting artificial (even for a game) thus boring. I'm all for a balanced game, but usually most game theories lack in the simulation department, and focus more on the 'gamey' side, if not partly because of political correctness or just mere selfish passive/aggressive behavior.

 

Heh, when was the last time you played an RPG that gave genders a separate attribute consideration? I've only played a computer game that dared walk into that, and it turned out to be one of the better RPG games IMO (Arcanum).

 

********

 

Granted RPGs are not so much about 'winning', but they are about staying consistent within the setting & rules - staying within these confines while being creative. That's winning the enjoyment of others I suppose (like good acting). I guess you could say then, it's probably rewarding to be selfless (even if you're character is selfish) in RPGs - IMO. There's just a serious lack of good reasoning or sense, when it comes to the mode of play/storytelling. Many emulate something (often I think PC style game flow) and it's usually from a person educated from a university level and we all know the propensity coming out of these universities. There may be exceptions along the way.

 

Overall, there's more of a tone that I gauge seems fake and convoluted for something meant to be really enjoyable. But to be a fair, to a person who really likes fake or convoluted, I'm sure it's great fun for them.

 

Fairness aside, fighters started out stronger but progressed more slowly, and wizards started weak but ended up the most badass at higher levels. I think Stef even looked at that phenomenon in a show once...

[csekavec]

OP I know just what you mean.  

 

But still with only a little rules rework and a proper campaign setting things get more natural quickly.  My peeve is the insane alignment system.  I always want to side with the 'evil' instead of the paladin.  The bugbear usually just wants to be left alone in his mountains. The paladin lawful nature means he must violently force others to accept his view - or die. 

[AncapFTW]

OP I know just what you mean.  

 

But still with only a little rules rework and a proper campaign setting things get more natural quickly.  My peeve is the insane alignment system.  I always want to side with the 'evil' instead of the paladin.  The bugbear usually just wants to be left alone in his mountains. The paladin lawful nature means he must violently force others to accept his view - or die. 

Depends on what the GM considers "lawful" in a way.  I heard one person that make RP videos on youtube say that in some RPs you could use a personal code of conduct as the "law" you follow, but it would be hard to do as it wouldn't be know to the others, and could feel more like an excuse to do whatever you want.

 

He also said that he considers the scale to be "altruistic/selfish" and "legalistic/non-legalistic" instead of "good/evil" and "lawful/chaotic".  I guess that makes it easier to figure out your alignment.

[Donnadogsoth]

I never understood the point of alignments, given that, at least in my experience, alignment was descriptive rather than prescriptive.  Alignment was just assigned by the DM based on how the character acted.  So, if I want to completely reverse my character's opinions and morals today, that's totally okay, and my alignment just flips 180.  And if I decide to reverse it again tomorrow, it flips 180 again.  So, useless.