Women of Veeky Forums

>The players decided that if they killed every named NPC in the module they "won". It rapidly went from charming Nancy Drew-style exploration to a massacre.
That sounds like stupid fun. But good fun.

I felt like the thing about broken windows had a fair point. The short version is the culture of permissiveness itself needs to be addressed, but doing so might come off as entirely subverting the hobby.

>Again, broken windows. Most people there are - if not good, then at least, decent normal neckbeards. But when everyone else does it, you do it too. It's like throwing rocks to break windows on a street where a lot of windows are already broken. Who cares about one more?
>This needs some kind of comprehensive review from the bottom-up. Introducing actual grooming standards and actually turning away people who smell horrid and are not presentable in public would go a huge way towards fixing the behavior, believe it or not, as does actually enforcing rules against harassment.
>Problem is, if they did that, they'd chase away 90% of their paying audience from the grooming enforcement alone and the hobby would be declared dead at the altar of SJWs.

We were young and stupid.
Now we're all old and stupid.

Still, if anyone tells you GMing is hard, they're right, but you can do it with literally next to no materials, experience, and guidance if you've got the right group and good motivation.

Attached: Jessica Jones.png (493x609, 341K)

You can't give sjws an inch, they'll take a mile and scream at you that you're a racist patriarch who needs to be killed as they diversify (ruin) your hobby by stacking it with people like themselves. Your only option is to fight them until they give up or run out of money.

So women are not only supposed to explain why not, but also magically know which people are too autistic to take a hint and explain it thoroughly to them, but not others. That way, autists like you don't have to navigate social situations like everyone else.

>might
It already has. Look at people like Jeremy Hambly. Wizards asked him to stop being so shitty to women, he didn't, they banned him to send a message, and the dude fucking flipped out and started a massive autistic campaign to demolish the company by "exposing" employees as "terrorist pedophile SJWs". It's insane, but if that's how guys are going to react to being told to act like a decent fucking human being, maybe we should just let them be awful.

I would much rather have more honest discussion about the problems men and women have interacting in Veeky Forums settings than have its space in the catalog filled with a "how does X fair in 40k" or "why don't you like guns in your medieval fantasy" thread, but that might just be me.

You do know that wizards is notorious for catering heavily to sjws right? It isn't a huge stretch to say that they are sjws. Terrorist pedophiles, that I don't know about.

You couldnt leave that in the other thread?

this
Shitposting threads on amazons, kirby, guns, guilds, and harems have gotten to the point where there are meta threads alluding to them.

But this thread is somehow in the way? Why? Don't give me that tired "a thread died for this" bullshit, no thread that was both good and active got bumped off the board for this and this is far more on topic to tabletop gaming than any of the examples given above.

>if that's how guys are going to react to being told to act like a decent fucking human being, maybe we should just let them be awful
That's a bit pessimistic. Youtube attention whores looking to cause trouble are hardly representative of most men out there.
An approach to the issue that addresses stuff flatly as "treat everyone with respect or else" might be best so that sensationalist media doesn't pick it up as some kind of feminist crusade (which media likes to do, which attracts reactions from angry retards like youtube man).

Attached: 1519857076198.jpg (600x813, 124K)

At the risk of sounding meta, the concept that girls also play tabletop being something that spawns a 500-post thread is kind of a good example of the problem.

It's because of a silly notion that women are somehow special and unusual and disruptive.

OP from old thread, thanks for carrying on the torch.

Question I wanted to ask, how much do women shitpost? Do you ever pretend to be bitter men and call people roasties etc

Theory: Those few women who do show up to MtG cons and other such events are usually the jaded ones who are used to shrugging off full on misogyny and other such bullshit.

They also know they're an extreme minority, 5% of attendees or less. And there is quite a well-deserved stigma against third-wave feminists, social justice crusaders, andt he like.

I imagine many of them don't want to rock the boat or be seen as a triggered snowflake, so they end up not reporting not just petty bullshit, but even genuine sexual harassment and other such behaviors that actually make them and other women not want to show up or participate.

I deal with the worst sjws in the world on a regular basis, user. "people" who think 'fighting the patriarchy' means beating YOUR ass and killing you because you're white and male. Feminists who literally think all yes all white men need to be forcibly castrated, and that saying one word that doesn't go along with the feminist agenda means you're a racist sexist cis hetero patriarchal pig bastard who needs to be hung by his intestines with a dildo stuck in his ass to 'send a message to whitey'.

You cannot let these people win. Your hobby will be utterly devastated, and will never recover, if you let them win.

Fight them dude.

Sure, yes, Wizards is publishing a lot of media lately that could be regarded a SJW-y. Does that stop literally anyone from playing the game? No.

And he very much is accusing them of being terrorists and pedophiles. Not always at the same time, but definitely both for different random employees. Dude is a nutcase.

That's fair. I'm mostly just frustrated at seeing this shit on twitter so much because I hate-follow Jeremy and all of his little clones. I'm sure that I just see a vocal minority as being bigger than they actually are, exactly the same way they view the "SJWs" in the community.

Then again, I made some joke in the Modern thread up right now that mentioned the fact that I was female and three separate people told me to kill myself. So, there is that.

Nu-OP here.

Women shitpost too. I don't really get fetish threads, though, don't we have whole boards for that kind of thing?

I would point out that sometimes a nutcase is correct. People thought Copernicus was kooksville because of his theory. He turned out to be (mostly) right.

>Your hobby will be utterly devastated, and will never recover
My hobby is playing glorified games of pretend with friends in a small group.

Bring it, SJWs.

I shitpost, but not like that. I like to roleplay as a black Nazi convert on /pol/ sometimes, though, just to get a reaction out of people

No, they don't and that's not what I said.

What I said is that knowing that this problem does happen, if a man, or woman wants to avoid the same person asking them out repeatedly the first time they reject them they need to make an effort to make it abundantly clear that they are not open to future requests for dates and that they can do this very easily by giving a simple caveat like "Sorry, I'm not attracted to you".

Nobody has to be telepathic, it doesn't require a long conversation or harsh words with anyone.

People sure as hell aren't going to stop asking others out over and over again as a general practice, it works enough of the time that I know couples whose relationship started that way. The best you can do is actually take steps to try and avoid it, or you can just sit there and complain.

>some manchild sperging out over getting banned from a children's card game is equivalent to someone formulating scientific theories about the universe

ok

Are you so triggered by the remote -possibility- of it being true that you have to SHUT IT DOWN?

depends on the individual. i personally don't call people "roasties", i don't necessarily pretend to be a man but it's sort of assumed on Veeky Forums unless you say something to imply otherwise which most of us avoid doing unless it's relevant. won't hesitate to call someone autistic or a faggot but i don't really think that's shitposting, it's just the "culture" of the site

Attached: 1496966190531.jpg (625x357, 55K)

>actually take steps to-
The catch-22 inherent in these "steps" has been very patiently and repeatedly explained to you.

>a simple caveat like "Sorry, I'm not attracted to you"
This gets you nothing more than reaffirming that women are shallow and, despite what they say, only interested in the physical. Which we saw in the last thread, so don't even pretend you don't know that is exactly what happens.

The problem is that the middle 90% of men realize what you mean by "No" when they ask you if you'll go out with them. Honestly, it's more like 99%. Because they understand "No," saying no plus reasons sounds excessive, and therefore sounds aggressive.

Furthermore, as you have ignored on several occasions, listing reasons turns a rejection into a negotiation. "No" is straightforward and brokers no argument.

Several, apparently.

of what being true exactly? That female Magic players are all attention whores that don't actually play the game? That Wizards is secretly an underground network of terrorists and/or pedophiles (depending on what day it is)? That every large gaming company is "killing their games" by devoting even a tiny amount of space to diversity of any kind? Which conspiracy theory are you referring to

>"No" is straightforward and brokers no argument.
Except it doesn't, hence the entire conversation. If this was true someone told no would not repeatedly ask you out. Please think about that for a second.

I think the point was that it's more straightforward than giving reasons, because that turns it into a negotiation.

I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't agree that it's true.

Do you have anything to say with regards to anything else that has been explained to you?

You know that feminists and sjws have claimed loudly and repeatedly that yes social justice is about removing and disenfranchising whitey in every possible way, right?

You do understand that white males who play these games don't want to see it turn into a diversity shitfest?

You do know that nearly all of the TT games are very diverse already, right? (and by that I mean the actual meaning of diverse, many different cultures, not your meaning of diverse as absolutely-no-whiteys-allowed)

I'm don't get it, user. I'm really don't get it.
TTRPG is one of the most inclusive hobbies I ever found. Here we have all the outcasts, the wierdos, the nerds, etc. It's okay to show up on games dressed in spiked black trenchcoat or having close to none positive social expirience.
But having women as players or game masters? THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

>This gets you nothing more than reaffirming that women are shallow and, despite what they say, only interested in the physical.
what the shit, men don't characterize women that way at all

>that they can do this very easily by giving a simple caveat like "Sorry, I'm not attracted to you".
What the desperate neckbeard hears is "Oh, so she needs to be attracted to me, huh?"
>tries a treadmill and some light weightlifting for two weeks
>aw yeah i'm Veeky Forums now guess I'll try again
>No.
>fucking women don't say what they really want, she's a shallow vapid whore

If not listing a reason can be taken as an invitation to try again, listing a reason can even more easily be taken as an invitation to try again. By your logic, no never just means no. Which it does, and should.

Women should not have to become mean and defensive and firmly tell you to go fuck yourself and never speak to her again in order to get the point across.

I understand your concern but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage respect.

Hate-following anything is bad for your health user, don't do it.

You guys are both stating extremes that aren't in line with reality.

It's because they destroy campaigns.
>friend gets gf, gets her pregnant, ends up having to leave all our campaigns then guilt-trips me into going out of my way to run a shitty campaign for him on roll20 because it's the only joy in his life
>another friend gets gf and as a result is constantly missing sessions to deal with her "anxiety"

but
>Which we saw in the last thread
Go look for yourself, thread's still there.

>So its only creepy when icky icky ew ew men do it? And its perfectly fine for women, especially uggos?

>Romance starts with physical attraction. To have any hope of a connection, both parties have to find the other attractive to some extent.

>Step 1: Be attractive
>Step 2: Don't be unattractive

>Women want to be sdeuced.

Need I go on?

I've been alive since before sjw-ism even existed yet, I've seen it go from moderately reasonable if somewhat stupid to WHITE = EVIL INCARNATE!!!!!!1!!1

What I am saying about the feminists and sjws is truth, and the constant "crusade" against everything white and male IS their reality.

So wouldn't you want them to participate instead of drawing your players away?

I don't like it any more than you do, user, but people tend to have different priorities when they're in a relationship, regardless if they're a man or a woman. This is why I haven't had a girlfriend since my early twenties: I might be a selfish prick, but I literally don't want to spend my time or money worrying about someone else.

Yes but not everyone who opposes sexist jerks is a mad SJW. There is an argument to be made against people who are rude to women that exists outside of cultural marxist bullshit. It's called being a decent human.

Attached: 1516300339102.jpg (900x900, 171K)

>I've been alive since before sjw-ism even existed yet
I should fucking hope so, it's pretty new. How old are you that you consider this a qualification?

You are assuming a LOT here my dude

I don't get why these morons like Jeremy can't understand that there is a WORLD of difference between the insane internet SJWs that legitimately call for the death of men/whites/etc. and want to jail people for using the wrong pronouns, and game companies deciding that trying to market to more diverse groups of people is a good thing, and writing (really extremely harmless) articles about "being a woman in gaming" or whatever

The latter has NOTHING to do with the former. It's just that these reactionary idiots see the word "diversity" and immediately assume that their coalition of white male gamers is being ATTACKED somehow by the mere concept that their game company wants to get some different people into the game. It's retarded, dude. Absolutely no one has suggested that we ban white men from these games. Just that some of these communities could benefit from having demographics that are a little less homogeneous. Why is that such a horrifying and offensive thing?

How do you define selfish?

Thinking about yourself, by itself, doesn't strike me as selfish.

Thinking about yourself to the detriment of others, esp. to the detriment of ones you have some kind of responsibility or relationship with, that's selfish.

You're not being selfish to be single.

I think the concern here, though, is that attempts to swing the pendulum from the extreme of "women are routinely harassed and chased out of public participation in the hobby" to "decent people having fun" might cause the pendulum to swing to the opposite extreme of social justice.

It's not so much that it's a binary choice so much as the momentum in this regard has a tendency to go too far and over-correct, to the detriment of the hobby. I'm one of these excluded women and even I don't want that to happen.

everything here applies to men as much as women

As a general question do the men here think women are generally more concerned with physical attractiveness than men?

Not that I agree with it, but it is horrifying and offensive because of those insane internet SJWs. That is why they equate the two that way. The thought process is that by allowing and facilitating the one, they will let in the other and that can be a scary, if a little over-reactive, thought.

Explain the propensity of social justice writers to change peoples gender or race for absolutely no logical reason except to 'get back' at white people they hate.

How would you like it if (thing you like)'s main characters were suddenly ALL repeat ALL, transgender freak black midgets with diabetus?

Please, this is really turning into a /pol/ discussion. I understand the connection, but it's getting kind of tenuous.

I don't think we really needed this thread guys.

Attached: 1436755079273.png (297x344, 9K)

Attached: e26.jpg (500x628, 86K)

Thats fair, but I'm going to put your answer down as "no I would not like it if (thing I like)'s main cast was gender race and height changed for sjw reasons."

I think it's only fair to note I wasn't the one you were replying to. I don't liek it either and generally agree that SJWs are just good old fashioned racists, but I think it's a less interesting topic than what came before and think it'll give this thread a fast track to deletion as a /pol/ thread, which genuinely was not the intention.

In my experience it is about the same all around. Men and women both think physical attractiveness is rather important to the initial attraction and so both try to adhere to what they view as attractive in their own sex as well as look out for and pursue what they think is attractive in the opposite sex. Some of these biases can be overcome with self-deprecation and time spent with unattractive individuals to see other attractive qualities.

It didn't "devolve," it was a genuine flow of well-intentioned and sincere discussion talking about why the social dynamic is different when women are present, and why some people have a hard time or are unwilling to go along with that.

Not saying that's a good thing or excuses it, just that it is true.

I mean, I guess, but the problems arise when you make a perfectly reasonable statement like "I think MtG players should be less mean to women" and these people jump down your throat for being a "faggot SJW" and tell you that "you're the reason this game is dying"

Maybe random internet artists do that, like drawing Captain America as a black woman or whatever, specifically to piss off white people. I imagine it has similar motivations as every single troll on /pol/ does: it's satisfying to make people you dislike angry.

But actual professionals don't do that. I can think of very, very few examples where a company that created a character has gone back and changed that character's race or gender. And on the very rare occasion they do do that (like J.K. Rowling saying that Hermione was/could have been black for example), I don't get all butthurt about it, because I have plenty of other white characters to relate to as a white person, and furthermore my enjoyment of media isn't dependent upon said media only containing characters that look exactly like me.

I agree about the pendulum, but that's why acting reactionary and giving them an excuse to shut down opposition is a bad idea. Resistance to social justice nonsense needs to be reasoned, respectful and dignified. If they call you a Nazi and you start acting like a Nazi, then they've won.

You can't reason with psychopaths who literally want to cut your penis off with scissors and then fuck a black guy in front of you, user.

>I think the concern here, though, is that attempts to swing the pendulum from the extreme of "women are routinely harassed and chased out of public participation in the hobby" to "decent people having fun" might cause the pendulum to swing to the opposite extreme of social justice. It's not so much that it's a binary choice so much as the momentum in this regard has a tendency to go too far and over-correct, to the detriment of the hobby.
Which is a completely valid concern, but also not at all a reason not to attempt to fix things in the first place.

I disagree, this is better discussion than you'd ever see on /pol/. It's nice to have someone on Veeky Forums to discuss these issues (particulary with their relevancy to Veeky Forums topics) without /pol/ nonsense for once.

>jump down your throat
I think you're correct and I wish it was different but i think that is the probable reason for at least some of the backlash.

Pretty sure they're talking about engaging with actual functioning adults with different opinions, not whatever straw man exemplifies the "other side" in your mind.

Is anyone else having a shitload of problems with fucking captcha not accepting any solutions? I had to solve over a dozen fucking "select the street sign" things to post this.

In my experience physical attractiveness is overrated. Being "not repulsive" is usually sufficient to at least get to talk with someone, if you have some other kind of attractive quality, like being funny or clever or insightful or something.

Problem is, as pointed out above, attempts to solve it would probably have to be really comprehensive and thus invite this momentum.

That's because Veeky Forums is a nice board.

But those are the extreme minority, it's those who follow them (and those who are undecided) that you want to reach out to.

Extreme feminists and social justice warriors who think the only solution to EVERY problem is kill whitey are not strawmen.

Go to tumblr. Go to reddit. You will see a significant portion of sjws who think that the solution is to emasculate harm and kill white men in every way possible.

The only environments I've ever seen where men don't really change their behavior around women was in the Navy between enlisted people of similar rank. A heavily structured environment where everyone is expected to do the same thing to the same standard and where you feelings can get bent seems to help.

I always thought the military, where etiquette has very thorough and clear rules for interaction between fellow soldiers, foreign soldiers, officers, etc etc, seems to be a surprisingly decent place for autists. Everything is regulated, nothing is ambiguous.

>Extreme feminists and social justice warriors who think the only solution to EVERY problem is kill whitey are not strawmen.
Do they exist? Sure. But the idea that some screencaps you saw of some stupid people saying stupid shit somehow represent the entirety of an entire spectrum of people that disagree with you is the strawman.

I find hobbies tend not to be hurt by SJW nonsense/sexism/whathaveyou, but rather by individuals participating who aren't actually interested in the activity as much as they are interested in the social capital the activity can provide for them. These can be men or women. Women tend to be overrepresented in this contingent though, since they are raised to value social capital more than men. I'm not saying excluding women is valid, but just attempting to explain where some of the resistance to their participation might originate.

Those people themselves are minorities though.

Please just direct them to /pol/, they'll be happy to provide hundreds of examples of racist anti-white headlines from SJW outlets like huffPost and Slate and Salon.

But this is really losing its connection to the topic at hand in a way that mods are probably going to delete rather than deal with.

it's not that extreme, my guy

Attached: 1521181902834.png (221x277, 9K)

I think attractiveness also loses some importance the older you get too and those other attractive qualities end up become much more important. I guess my post was pretty set in looking at people from like 15-25 rather than all dating age groups.

Please stop.

It's not a strawman when you can go to youtube and find actual examples of these types of people without difficulty.

They may not be representative of the majority but they exist and are extremely loud and visible, as you generally would generally expect from extremists.

Where do you work? Customer service?

Please stop taking the bait.

>Please just direct them to /pol/, they'll be happy to provide hundreds of examples of racist anti-white headlines from SJW outlets
Sticking to echo chambers that serve to jerk people off by reinforcing their opinion of "the other side" instead of actually engaging with people that have differing viewpoints is what caused these problems in the first place, for both camps.

yeah, actually, I do.

Pointing out a reality that is central to the issue at hand is not bait.

While that is true, examples of relatively mainstream outlets engaging in this behavior is reasonably evidence.

And that is the board for it, not Veeky Forums.

>They may not be representative of the majority but they exist
So? Good for them. It doesn't mean that you should avoid doing reasonable things out of spite just because some tiny extremist groups somewhere might happen to find it favorable.

Are we going in circles here?

Yes, like everything else we discuss.

Yes. I'm gonna do everyone a favor and just leave because I'm getting too frustrated to argue in a rational and level-headed manner. Enjoy your thread.

"no means maybe" guy stopped posting and /pol/posting drove off some other conversation, so maybe.

Well, they are for this hobby.

Same as a man would be in a make-up truck.

...A straight man.

In TTRPGs? Not really. Three out of five in my current group are women. Probably something like a third of Veeky Forums are women, believe it or not.

Fair point

Does that mean no?