Quote from: Shipyard Locked;900211Isn't that trivializing the legacy, the ongoing effects of slavery in the U.S.?

Also, even if the chance is smaller, it is still possible that someone at the table grew up being forced to work in a sweatshop or knows someone who was murdered. Why should mere math affects our considerations?

I would think the key here are personal and trauma and not general being upset.

I think the difference is the chance to trigger a personal breakdown at the table and not just making someone angry over some injustice and trying to avoid the first.

Quote from: Maarzan;900237I would think the key here are personal and trauma and not general being upset.

I think the difference is the chance to trigger a personal breakdown at the table and not just making someone angry over some injustice and trying to avoid the first.

If somebody gets actually angry over slavery existing in a game world, I probably don't want to hang out with that person. It is a game. Save the getting upset for injustice in the real world.
YMMV

Quote from: Gormenghast;900214I'm also pretty fond of a couple of games in which the ingame laws and customs seem to come up pretty often: Call of Cthulhu and  Pendragon.

Me too.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;900211Why should mere math affects our considerations?

I Kant stand these sorts of silly, categorical questions. Math affects our considerations because empiricism is useful, because God is on the side of the big battalions, and because 20 million Frenchmen can’t be wrong…no wait, not the third thing.

Quote from: Bren;900201Greek plays weren't written by people with actual experience with Bronze Age nobles.

Oops! I meant Iron Age. Sorry Bren. I often mistakenly short-hand "Bronze = Greek", "Iron = Roman"

But Sophocles and Aeschylus were born in wealth, and they certainly interacted with Greece's glitterati throughout their fame.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;900211Also, even if the chance is smaller, it is still possible that someone at the table grew up being forced to work in a sweatshop or knows someone who was murdered. Why should mere math affects our considerations?

OH FUCK - MUST NOT RANT - OH FUCK HERE WE GO

SPINACH HULK SMASH!!!

If an adult has a food allergy, it's upon THEM to not eat food they are allergic to.

Same goes for adults who are so emotionally unstable they get "triggered" by game elements. It's upon THEM to inform the GM and players that they can't handle certain shit inside games, and then THEY must decide whether they continue with that GM and group.

Hot damn, there has got be some personal responsibility left on this bullshit planet.

BTW, for the record, my Dad was an indentured servant as a child. That's how his apprenticeship worked. My grandparents in Croatia were so poor, they agreed to indenture Dad to a local carpenter in exchange for money. My Dad never saw 6th grade. He worked all day, went home, did hours of chores on the family farm. Then upon 18, he was drafted very involuntarily into the Yugoslav military. Until age 22, he was effectively a 20th century slave. And when he finally got a chance to make a life decision by himself for himself, he fled to Paris.

What would my Dad say to all these "triggering" bitches? Nothing. He'd bounce their heads off the fucking table.

For Dad, life is about fighting hard to escape whatever shit's in your past, not wallowing in it.  My Dad doesn't watch violent media because he's seen too much real violence. But he doesn't bitch about it. He doesn't judge me for loving horror flicks and violent gaming. He just turns the channel and watches something he enjoys.

Quote from: Gormenghast;900248If somebody gets actually angry over slavery existing in a game world, I probably don't want to hang out with that person. It is a game. Save the getting upset for injustice in the real world.
YMMV

Well sure, but wouldn't this attitude apply to people who get angry over imaginary rape as well? :confused:

I still think the African American experience is getting downplayed here.

I am going to assume you are making a joke, and just let it pass.
Also, I don't like being called African-American.


I prefer Carthaginian Exile.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;900211Isn't that trivializing the legacy, the ongoing effects of slavery in the U.S.?

Also, even if the chance is smaller, it is still possible that someone at the table grew up being forced to work in a sweatshop or knows someone who was murdered. Why should mere math affects our considerations?

We interrupt this regularly scheduled thread to deal with Ravenswing foaming at the mouth, God help us all.

****************

Here's my eternal answer whenever I hear talk of gamers "trivializing" anything by a theme's use (or alleged misuse) in a tabletop session:

SO FUCKING WHAT?

What really "trivializes" slavery, or rape, or bigotry, or sexism, or any of the other hot button topics people drag out in such discussions is the premise that they could possibly be impacted -- in the slightest frigging degree -- by what some fictional characters or institutions practice in a gaming session experienced by fewer than a half-dozen people in my living room this Saturday.

Yes, I softpedal certain themes.  I very rarely touch rape as a trope, but not remotely out of concern with "trivializing" the issue.  It's because to my certain knowledge, at least a third of my female players over the years have been sexually assaulted or molested, and I've never not had at least one woman player in my groups.  (Never mind my own difficulty with the subject, having had a dear friend who'd just been gangraped kill herself a half hour after I left her apartment in a demonstrably less-than-successful consoling attempt.)  By contrast, I really rather doubt that any of the 172 players in my campaign's history were (or ever knew) anyone who'd been a slave in a sweatshop, and odds are pretty good that none of them have ever been murdered.  I'm one of the only three people at my gaming table who'd ever been in combat, and of the other two guys, one served in the Army after my campaign, and the other's combat service involved being a chief petty officer on the USS New Jersey when it was shelling targets in Lebanon in the early 80s.  Why shouldn't math color our considerations?

Beyond all of that, I notice that very, very few people broach the "trivializing" we do damn near every game session in every campaign in every milieu: that of violence.  The overwhelming majority of our characters aren't merely killers, but casual serial killers who think little of snuffing anyone who gets in their way.  I would be willing to bet you that the sweet little old lady, Mrs. McCluskey next door, would be a whole lot more bothered by you telling her that you get a bunch of people together in your living room each Friday night to fantasize about "killing them and taking their stuff" than over whether you're mean to dark-skinned NPCs while you're doing it.

To paraphrase Aaron Sorkin, there are serious problems out there in the world, and we need serious people to solve them.  Worrying about what tropes we include in our damn tabletop games, or that not enough of us use RPGs as civics lessons, is as far from "serious" as can be.

Quote from: jhkimIt's important to note that this is a game, played for fun. In the modern day, it sticks in a lot of people's craw to be in a system where people are unequal. Similarly, a lot of people don't like to have disease, infection, rape, or slavery in their games - even though historically those were common.

Quote from: AsenRG;900138Sure, nothing wrong with that. It just gets funny when those same people start claiming that they actually like realism, too;).

Agreed - though a player might like realism in some things (like melee combat), but not like realism in other things (like their PC dying of dysentery).

Quote from: Spinachcat;900263For Dad, life is about fighting hard to escape whatever shit's in your past, not wallowing in it.  My Dad doesn't watch violent media because he's seen too much real violence. But he doesn't bitch about it. He doesn't judge me for loving horror flicks and violent gaming. He just turns the channel and watches something he enjoys.

Just to be clear, when I mentioned "sticking in people's craw" - I meant like this. They don't have fun by having aristocracy lord it over them, so they prefer not to have it in their games. Not that there's something wrong with having realistic aristocrats.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;899062Most of us are not medieval/space aristocrats, so we muddle along when roleplaying them as either players or GMs. What's your advice for playing them better, more 'realistically' if you don't mind that dangerous term?

What do you feel are some mistakes people make?

I suggest reading actual history books about aristocracy as a basis of any interpretation you are going to have. For instance Barbara Tuchmann's Distant Mirror is a easy to read basis. I often use social history as basis to my campaigns. For example in my current Traveller setting I use late 19th Century to early 20th Century European nobility as basis. There are also novels that give you good ideas (for instance War and Peace as well as Anna Karenina for late 19th Century nobility in Russia). I have lately tried to read some then contemporary gossip books written in 19th Century about nobility in Europe. Some adventures practically write themselves by reading those books...

Getting players to play in a class society is no problem as long as you make sure that everyone else in society behaves as they should. For instance the current Traveller campaign has a system where life looks fairly similar to Imperial Germany at around 1900 as far as society is concerned.

Thus I again urge you to read social history.

Quote from: Gormenghast;900267I am going to assume you are making a joke...

Which part?

I suppose you're right to some extent in that this is all theoretical to me, never having dealt with a person who had a meltdown over what was happening in our imaginations. If anyone wants me to drop this side topic altogether I will.

The thing that puzzles me is, again, what Ravenswing highlighted:

Quote from: Ravenswing
Beyond all of that, I notice that very, very few people broach the "trivializing" we do damn near every game session in every campaign in every milieu: that of violence. The overwhelming majority of our characters aren't merely killers, but casual serial killers who think little of snuffing anyone who gets in their way. I would be willing to bet you that the sweet little old lady, Mrs. McCluskey next door, would be a whole lot more bothered by you telling her that you get a bunch of people together in your living room each Friday night to fantasize about "killing them and taking their stuff" than over whether you're mean to dark-skinned NPCs while you're doing it.

When people are already agreeing in their groups to engage in such awful imaginary behavior and themes, it seems really peculiar that some people in the group get to draw a line on equally awful imaginary stuff and that we must all be extra-cautiously mindful of it, else be called an insensitive monster. Again, we're murdering and pillaging on a routine basis, ending life and spreading irrecoverable woe, but cross that other line and only then you're an asshole.

Oh, and I'm talking about this right now for those jumping to conclusions:

Quote from: jhkimIt's important to note that this is a game, played for fun. In the modern day, it sticks in a lot of people's craw to be in a system where people are unequal.

I worry that indulging this across the board in escapism eventually enables historical illiteracy, revisionism and sanitation.

But again, if people want me to drop this I will.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;900175Why? What makes it so much worse than the horror of slavery and murder that you can mention one but not the other in your games?

I guess I would have agreed with you until recently. Now I have a friend (a player) who actually has been raped it feels different, I tend to side more with the Feminists on this one. I guess if a friend had been murdered that might be triggering too. My cousins drowned on the Herald of Free Enterprise and I know I have trouble watching some scenes in Titanic.

Edit: I have limited sympathy for people triggered by slavery references because some of their ancestors were enslaved 150 years ago, though. Guess I'm just a scummy person. But 250 or 350 years ago pretty much everyone will have had relatives enslaved - though usually they didn't get to leave descendants.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;900282When people are already agreeing in their groups to engage in such awful imaginary behavior and themes, it seems really peculiar that some people in the group get to draw a line on equally awful imaginary stuff and that we must all be extra-cautiously mindful of it, else be called an insensitive monster. Again, we're murdering and pillaging on a routine basis, ending life and spreading irrecoverable woe, but cross that other line and only then you're an asshole.

I would draw a huge distinction between the following behaviors:

1) "I don't like playing war games. They're not fun for me."

2) "If you run war games, you're an asshole."

--

Likewise, there's a huge difference between:

1) "I don't like playing with some real medieval behaviors, such as aristocrats oppressing peasants and burning witches. It's not fun for me."

2) "If you play with oppressive aristocrats, then you're an asshole."


In my experience, realistic medieval life is uncommon in gaming. Most people mainly like to have swords and kill monsters - and GMs prefer to run games where PCs are magic heroes who die fighting dragons. Just be clear in what you're doing, and let players buy in or not.

Sometimes, more realistic stuff is fun - but just being realistic isn't a reason to put things in.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;900282I worry that indulging this across the board in escapism eventually enables historical illiteracy, revisionism and sanitation.

But again, if people want me to drop this I will.

In general, playing Star Trek doesn't lead to science illiteracy, because people are able to distinguish between real science and fantasy. Likewise, playing with magic and dragons doesn't mean that players believe those things are real.

I think in general, people are able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. So no, I don't think it inherently leads to historical illiteracy, revisionism, and sanitation.

I'm less worried about players who play explicit fantasy, and I'm more worried by players who think that their "gritty" RPG really represents medieval life.

Quote from: Spinachcat;900263Oops! I meant Iron Age. Sorry Bren. I often mistakenly short-hand "Bronze = Greek", "Iron = Roman"

But Sophocles and Aeschylus were born in wealth, and they certainly interacted with Greece's glitterati throughout their fame.

I don't know what wealth level those guys were born into, but IIR Greek plays were privately financed so a poet needed someone with moneybags to agree to produce his play or it wasn't going on stage. So they certainly would have some social familiarity with the wealthy elite of Athens.

Quote from: Gormenghast;900267I prefer Carthaginian Exile.

You baby sacrificing, Moloch worshipping bastard. Carthago delenda est! Now I must burn your city and sow your fields with salt.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;900282When people are already agreeing in their groups to engage in such awful imaginary behavior and themes, it seems really peculiar that some people in the group get to draw a line on equally awful imaginary stuff and that we must all be extra-cautiously mindful of it, else be called an insensitive monster.

I'm of the opinion that anyone gets to draw the line wherever they want for a group they are in. The rest of the group can then choose to accommodate them or tell them to hit the bricks.

I myself, am an equal opportunity offender at my tables, but everyone who wants to play with me knows that.

As for the topic itself - let's remember this also depends on period - by - period basis. Eighth century nobility will be vastly different from twelfth, fifteenth or nineteenth century. The earlier you go, the more they resemble gangsters rather than haughty aristocrats.

Quote from: jhkim;900290In general, playing Star Trek doesn't lead to science illiteracy, because people are able to distinguish between real science and fantasy.

You've never been stuck in a room with diehard Gene Roddenberry-was-the-second-coming-of-Christ Trekkies, have you?