TheRPGSite

There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

People are tribal, news at 11:00.  Some people react to the dominant culture by refusing to participate in certain aspects of it.  What's startling about games is not that it happens but that it took as long as it did for it to become even a thing to discuss.

That's all broad, general trends.  When looking at individuals, you are seeing things. 

For example, I'm far more conservative (in multiple senses) than most people here, with the exception of a strong classical liberal streak on a few key things such as free speech (but also not out of place here in that respect).  I tend towards old school play, but not nearly as strongly as the dominant view here.  I've played story games and even run a little.  I had fun with that, more or less, but decided it wasn't a good fit for me.  (Note, not that it was a bad way to play.  Just something that was different and not what I wanted to do.)  I'm hard line with the GM wears the Viking hat in principle, and it affects who I will game with, but in practice once someone meets the minimum threshold to game with me, I'm pretty flexible and loose.  I play with friends or people who are likely to shortly become friends. 

I've been "self-boycotting" people who hate me for decades.  I won't bother everyone with the list, but as a couple of examples, I'll never buy another Gillette product again (despite using them for most of my life) and I'll never go to Disney World again (even if grand children want to go and I'm the only one that can take them).  So not buying particular games is really not a huge sacrifice to me.
   

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

You make a good point Anon. I will say, for myself, like I'd never play Thirsty Sword Lesbians, I would likely have tried games by Black Hat....except when I realized they're a raging douchebag company I'll never buy/play anything from them.

Not for me.  However, there are so many different games now and so many players compared to when I started >45 years ago that I haven't a clue about the majority of players outside my circle.

Sure, wargamers trend more right-wing, storygamers trend more left-wing.

RPGers seem to have gone along with general sci-fi & fantasy nerd culture from being Libertarian in the 1970s to mostly Left-Liberal now. One big inflection point was WoTC acquiring TSR, the Seattle left-coast leftist culture helping drive the community. Then the Left in general went insane from around 2012.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

It wasn't this way in the past.  I've gamed with people of all political stripes for most of my life.  It's only in the last 10 years (and primarily post-Trump) that this hasn't been true.  And it's mainly because the left has become total narcissists and Marxists.  No exaggeration.  All of us (right or left) gamed in pretty much the same way.  Then the left went narcissistic and suddenly they couldn't play at a table that didn't "see" them, meaning that each of them had to be the center of attention all of the time.  And with an old school style referee, they can't guarantee that.  So story games and meta mechanics were invented to that every special snowflake pansexual genderfluid otherkin can make sure the spotlight gets shined on them all the time.  And the Marxism, well when you all believe in Critical Theory and that all relationships boil down to victims vs oppressors, no woke warrior worth their soy is going to allow some Dungeon Master (See!  Legacy of slavery...) victimize them (or remove the spotlight from them).  I never saw a political divide in RPGs until the left started screaming that "The personal is political!" and injecting woke nonsense into everything.  So, yeah, I see it, and it's totally the left's fault.  And we all know how good the left is at taking personal responsibility for their actions...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 19, 2023, 04:13:15 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

All of us (right or left) gamed in pretty much the same way. 

This. When I started out in the 70's it was a mix.  We had a leftwing professor running our game with right wing guys from a nearby military base and a female (OMG!) flower child type.  There was ZERO friction because all were playing the game in front of us.  Not "playing" at outside politics.  I too didn't see this happen until about 2011 when screechy libtards started pontificating at games.  I truly thought they were just a few borderline insane people unique to our little scene.  Online info told me it was getting widespread.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 19, 2023, 04:13:15 PM

It wasn't this way in the past.  I've gamed with people of all political stripes for most of my life.  It's only in the last 10 years (and primarily post-Trump) that this hasn't been true.  And it's mainly because the left has become total narcissists and Marxists.  No exaggeration.  All of us (right or left) gamed in pretty much the same way.  Then the left went narcissistic and suddenly they couldn't play at a table that didn't "see" them, meaning that each of them had to be the center of attention all of the time.  And with an old school style referee, they can't guarantee that.  So story games and meta mechanics were invented to that every special snowflake pansexual genderfluid otherkin can make sure the spotlight gets shined on them all the time.  And the Marxism, well when you all believe in Critical Theory and that all relationships boil down to victims vs oppressors, no woke warrior worth their soy is going to allow some Dungeon Master (See!  Legacy of slavery...) victimize them (or remove the spotlight from them).  I never saw a political divide in RPGs until the left started screaming that "The personal is political!" and injecting woke nonsense into everything.  So, yeah, I see it, and it's totally the left's fault.  And we all know how good the left is at taking personal responsibility for their actions...

I still play the same way I ever did.  I don't play only with people who agree with me politically, same as I did when I started.  If anything, my audience has broadened.  I just don't play with the types you so eloquently described above.  There are more of them now, so it comes up more.  However, if a radical libertarian or classical liberal or true moderate or even some of the more esoteric people showed up and could set that aside to game, I'd be happy to.  It's not as if we discuss politics in our game sessions even when all of thus there mostly agree.   

Or more broadly, I don't play with people who can't shut up about their cause:  So it's a rare leftist, vegan, or rabid golfer--to name a few examples--that would make the cut on that criteria.  However, there is actually a radical leftist I know who was invited to my games multiple times because she is one of the nicest people you'd ever meet and knows how to turn it off and focus on whatever people were doing.  I know of couple of conservatives that wouldn't make the cut on those grounds, too.  It's merely a much more rare combination.

I can tell you what the editor of my first comic book told me when I still was a wide eyed writer in training:

"Remember, a character is unavoidably 'political', as his choices reflect his world-view. However, this doesn't means that the comic book is political (or, even worse, 'partitical'). Batman doesn't kill. This is a political statement. However 'Batman' the comic book is not against the death penalty - and actually Batman brings to justice criminals that can very well end up on the chair."

...A little speech that reminded me of "Watchmen", a comic book whose characters reflect a wide spectrum of political thought - including some that for sure go against anything that Alan Moore holds holy. And yet every position can be defended (my favorite is Adrian Veidt - go figure).

I guess that the same can be said of RPGs. The creator imagines a world where LGBT+E=MC^2 characters got their rights? I have no problems with that. Does the creator try to shove the idea down your throat "or else'? Yep, I have A LOT of problems with that game.

The idea that Innsmouth's people were pacific and not dangerous and it was the US government the evil entity is, by itself, quite funny. It would make for an incredible twist in a CoC campaign. You start your Cthulhu game (or novel) with "Let's take back the Mythos from that racist antisemite Lovecraft!" ? From line one you are telling me that you have no clue about HPL, the Mythos, antisemitism (*) and what a good game is; you also are telling me that you are a moron.

One of my players in CoC is a transsexual prostitute who works in high places for clients with "certain tastes". I only checked if sex-change surgery was already available in the US in 1920 (it was). Many interesting situations came from this character - including a highway to the Silver Twilight Lodge but also being the obsessive target of the Dead Light, a creature of "darklight" who devours "deviations". It works both ways.

So, I like all kind of ideas, including some I disagree with, as long as my experimentation comes from the freedom of doing it - not "because!" You can play a gay, married PC? Maybe one day I'll try (I would still opt for a lesbian...) You HAVE to play such a PC? That's the moment when the game becomes political. Thanks, but no.

(*) Even funnier than "The Innsmoutians are pacifists" is that "Lovecraft Country" was attacked by the Israeli Times as antisemite. Full Total Karma.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2023, 05:02:50 PM
I still play the same way I ever did.  I don't play only with people who agree with me politically, same as I did when I started.  If anything, my audience has broadened.  I just don't play with the types you so eloquently described above.  There are more of them now, so it comes up more.  However, if a radical libertarian or classical liberal or true moderate or even some of the more esoteric people showed up and could set that aside to game, I'd be happy to.  It's not as if we discuss politics in our game sessions even when all of thus there mostly agree.   

Or more broadly, I don't play with people who can't shut up about their cause:  So it's a rare leftist, vegan, or rabid golfer--to name a few examples--that would make the cut on that criteria.  However, there is actually a radical leftist I know who was invited to my games multiple times because she is one of the nicest people you'd ever meet and knows how to turn it off and focus on whatever people were doing.  I know of couple of conservatives that wouldn't make the cut on those grounds, too.  It's merely a much more rare combination.

I'm similar. My actual gaming hasn't changed much at all, while RPG forum and social media has changed a lot.

I used to encounter a few troublesome players at my convention games -- and I don't think the rate has changed much, but now the troublesome players are more politically charged. These are generally left-leaning, though most of my players in general are left-leaning.

I agree with S'mon that story gamers tend left and wargamers tend right, but there are plenty of exceptions. I know a number of left-leaning OSR gamers in my circles. I'm less sure about 5E, but I had a conservative GM for my last convention 5E game. Traditional RPGs like Call of Cthulhu and Savage Worlds also seem split.

Regarding change in forums and social media -- I'd been on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the 1990s and The Forge in the early 2000s. Those were controversial at times, but they weren't political at all. In 2006, I joined theRPGsite, and at that time, there was controversy over the Blue Rose RPG which was political, but politics hadn't taken over most of gaming discussion. Since then the politics has steadily ramped up here, especially in 2016, and the same happened in RPG discussions in my other social media (mostly Facebook).

I don't play any expressly political games. I do have politics in almost all of my games, but those politics are intrinsic to the setting. My job as the GM is to express the cultures and sub-cultures of the setting in a way the accurately describes why the world is the way it is. This can happen in ways that are *totally* under the radar of the PC's and therefore the players - cultural idiosyncrasies that make up whole of cloth but enforce because of reasons known only to me, which may only get explained to the PC's via roleplaying.

In my modern games I might have modern politics crop up - but it's always contextual. My current Marvel game I'm running is set in 1990 for a reason, not the least of which being I want my players to play in a sane world. But it's also because my world's history is different (WWII didn't end as ours did, and Vietnam ended with a nuke on Hanoi in '68... sorry Jane Fonda) so the political landscape of my world is *vastly* different. This was my attempt of setting up a Marvel-heavy setting where there is actually less overt corruption not only in the U.S. but in the Soviet Republic - because metahumans are abundant and "officially" aren't supposed to cross international boundaries doing "super-human activity".

But I digress. The point being that politics in my games, even my dungeoncrawling games, is always a thing, because civilization demands politics, regardless of the sophistication of that civilization. And civilizational organization requires rules and humans inherently will always try to bend the rules to their favor. That friction is grist for the mill in my games.

I have zero interest in a game where the point of the game is to push an ideology as part of its mechanics or the expressions of its mechanics. I'm not saying I wouldn't run a game where the setting was inherently political one way or another - as long as I think it would be fun to make a game about fucking around with it. Having a game set in a 1984 dystopia where the PC's are fighting the authority of the state could be a lotta fun. If not for the current reality we live in...

But I will fully admit that creators that are hyper-political about ideas I detest, I will make it a purpose to avoid their products regardless of the product's content. Now if they're woke but they don't go on a social media bender and make a good product that is politically neutral - sure I'd consider it. The moment they start being activists - I'm out. And so goes my money with me.

There seems to be these days.  The left seems to have a very hard time separating fantasy from reality.  I guess that was always true but they've spiraled down hill a lot more.

I think age is a bigger factor, but age and political ideology may go hand in hand.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals.

On this account? No. I am a strong conservative and I generally prefer games which operate through group discussion because inviting players into the creative process tends to improve the roleplay. I also tend to use an explicit social contract in lieu of safety tools.

All players, GMs, and game designers bring political ideologies to the table, and in most instances these ideologies introduce a flaw which actively harms your game. "No politics at the table" almost never means no politics; it means that politics are filtered through an expectation that they will improve the game and not harm the game. Political ideas which improve the game are welcome, political ideas which harm it are not.

I think the best example of this is the X-Card. The X-Card is simultaneously a fantastic tool and an abysmal one at the same time because it was a first generation tool. There's a reason the convention-circuit has gotten hung up on the X-Card and never moved on; the majority of players and GMs in these places are left-leaning, and even if they aren't, convention groups are almost invariably under the influence of left-leaning event coordinators. The left is generally organized around outrage activism and the X-Card happens to enable outrage activism.

The X-Card is a bad safety tool which these groups stick with because the players, GMs, and event coordinators have a philosophical flaw in their political ideologies.

Of course, the reverse is also true. I would finger quite a few posters here as throwing the baby out with the bath water by completely ignoring safety tool discussions at all, because if you abstract it it's just about not letting the content of the campaign meander into unproductive dead ends, and that includes the "unsafe" ends. So if you do implement them in a better way than an emergency brake designed to disrupt the game, you get a better game. The unwillingness to give an inch in the culture war becomes a shortsighted inability to take an inch by exploiting the philosophical weaknesses baked into outrage culture. To really exploit the weaknesses of the X-Card, you have to make a better version, which encapsulates the creative freedom of the correct side of the debate and the stagnation on the incorrect side.

I am so woke, I am the dawn!  8) :o  ;D j/k

But seriously though, tenbones is basically where I come down. For social animals politics is like breathing, inescapable. When you get higher up on the sentient, sapient, sophont, something-or-other scale the machinations and coordination only increase. It's integral.

The big thing for me is being able to separate art from the artist, reality from fiction, play from work, a disagreement from friendship, etc. Yet in this younger activist generational culture it's stridently polemical and uncompromising. (Which to be honest probably most of us when young were pushing back against our surrounds to define ourselves in some way too, but this is just laughably divorced from modus vivendi.) It is as if it never grew up from junior high and gestalt thinking, individualization never resulted in the quiet spaces away from school social pressure.

That might be a function of online everything forever. There's no play, or boredom, or grudging cooperation when in different social circles. Where adolescence might force you into contact with church, volunteer, neighborly, family, or whatever social events where you just had to grow up and cooperate, nowadays the idea of self-segregation is lauded as virtue purity. So those moments are not there where social groups who wouldn't mix in "public" in high school would find themselves being genial in "private" events where others won't typically find out.

There's no "non-public" space with the social media internet; it's a perpetual public show trial to justify your existence. It's pathological to think in terms of perpetual contagion, with in-groups & out-groups. You'll get besieged-mentality thinking, leading to a paranoiac purity cycle. Basically you'll end up behaving akin to Borderline Personality Disorder symptoms, forever depressed doubting your self-worth, splitting people into saints and sinners, going through elaborate boundary-crossing schemes to show your loyalty, forever looking out for wrong-think lest your world crashes down and they've all wronged you again.

That such insecurity plays itself out in other hobbies is unsurprising. But notice every social venue is dealing with this atomizing factional behavior, including sewing circles. Personally, a lot of this is people believing online people are always sincere, they got your back, and you can graduate into the higher realms of exalted unreality. Yet, reality is a quality all its own. As is agreeing to disagree and live and let live.

In the age of attention spans reduced to seconds, lack of maturity in behavior is unsurprising. That still does not excuse it.  ;)

Quote from: Fheredin on July 20, 2023, 08:04:12 AMOf course, the reverse is also true. I would finger quite a few posters here as throwing the baby out with the bath water by completely ignoring safety tool discussions at all, because if you abstract it it's just about not letting the content of the campaign meander into unproductive dead ends, and that includes the "unsafe" ends.

Or, and hear me out here, I don't bother playing with snowflakes and baby-brains. If I'm running Call Of Cthulhu, and a player wants to X-card blood, or spiders or whatever, in a GAME, they can feel free to go and find a nice Monopoly table.

Quote from: Fheredin on July 20, 2023, 08:04:12 AM
The X-Card is simultaneously a fantastic tool and an abysmal one at the same time .

No, it's just crap used by those who never grew up.  This is FANTASY/FICTION.  Not real life.  Any player wanting this in my game isn't an adult yet and shouldn't be at the table.  They can determine content when they run a game.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2023, 02:54:32 PM
I've been "self-boycotting" people who hate me for decades.  I won't bother everyone with the list, but as a couple of examples, I'll never buy another Gillette product again (despite using them for most of my life) and I'll never go to Disney World again (even if grand children want to go and I'm the only one that can take them).  So not buying particular games is really not a huge sacrifice to me.
   

I'm fascinated by the "don't give money to people who hate you" stance, since it often feels more like an exaggerated and distorted form of virtue signaling (is "reverse virtue signaling" a thing?) than an honest protest.

Do you honestly think companies hate you, or have they just done or said things that you disagree with? To use your own examples, why do you believe that Gillette and/or Disney "hate" you? It seems far more likely that you've found a reason to hate them and want to convince the world that they hate you so can shout about it and take the supposed high road by boycotting them.


Take Care,

Lou Prosperi

Quote from: LouProsperi on July 20, 2023, 11:00:47 AM
I'm fascinated by the "don't give money to people who hate you" stance, since it often feels more like an exaggerated and distorted form of virtue signaling (is "reverse virtue signaling" a thing?) than an honest protest.

Do you honestly think companies hate you, or have they just done or said things that you disagree with? To use your own examples, why do you believe that Gillette and/or Disney "hate" you? It seems far more likely that you've found a reason to hate them and want to convince the world that they hate you so can shout about it and take the supposed high road by boycotting them.


Take Care,

Lou Prosperi

"Yes, it's totally virtue signaling not to spend your money on horseshit you don't need because you find the commercials and promoted values abhorrent, but perfectly fine to actively dox people and put them out of a job because they said something that hurt your feelings."

That's what you meant right?

Quote from: LouProsperi on July 20, 2023, 11:00:47 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2023, 02:54:32 PM
I've been "self-boycotting" people who hate me for decades.  I won't bother everyone with the list, but as a couple of examples, I'll never buy another Gillette product again (despite using them for most of my life) and I'll never go to Disney World again (even if grand children want to go and I'm the only one that can take them).  So not buying particular games is really not a huge sacrifice to me.
   

I'm fascinated by the "don't give money to people who hate you" stance, since it often feels more like an exaggerated and distorted form of virtue signaling (is "reverse virtue signaling" a thing?) than an honest protest.

Do you honestly think companies hate you, or have they just done or said things that you disagree with? To use your own examples, why do you believe that Gillette and/or Disney "hate" you? It seems far more likely that you've found a reason to hate them and want to convince the world that they hate you so can shout about it and take the supposed high road by boycotting them.

What Brad said.  Plus:

First, "Don't give money to people who hate you" is the short version so that we don't need to explain the concepts every single time.  Of course there is more nuance than that.  I don't actually think that "Gillette hates me".  Gillette is a company run by people that decided it was a good idea to run a multi-million dollar ad campaign implying that their current customer base was awful.  In other words, they were virtue signaling that they hated me.  So I take them at their word and don't buy their product anymore.  I didn't start this.  Chances are, in any specific case, the moron in charge of the marketing campaign doesn't actually hate me (personally or impersonally) but just wants to woke virtue signal.  However, that makes them a "useless idiot" mouthing the words of a few people who would be quite happy to see me dead.  I know you don't see it that way, but then there's a lot of stuff you don't see.

Second, I don't go out of my way to "shout" my boycotts like this.  I'm not on social media at all.  I don't bring this up in every conversation.  I didn't list all the boycotts.  I call them "self" boycotts because I'm not organizing a way to takeover Gillette and Disney and get everyone there fired that doesn't toe my line.  Nor am I advocating specifically that other people boycott those two companies.  You'll note that I didn't even list my reasons.  What I do advocate is that people form a list of entities that don't have their best interests in mind, and stop giving those entities money.  Or, "Don't give money to people who hate you".  If you think Disney doesn't hate you, that's fine.  My list is personal.  Any list you might or might not make is yours.

But given your other posts thus far on this forum, I doubt your question was asked in good faith.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 20, 2023, 11:42:44 AM
Second, I don't go out of my way to "shout" my boycotts like this.

That's just it, isn't it? People who actively vote with their wallets will, at most, tell their buddies something like, "Fuck that tranny Bud Light crap," and that's the end of it. Maybe make fun of anyone who brings it to a party, but it's localized to their family/friend group, they aren't going out of their way, accosting people in the store, or stopping traffic on the freeway with giant signs. The whole Budweiser boycott was essentially a few people bringing the ad campaign to light and lots and lots of people individually deciding to not purchase the beer. That's it. No one tried to get anyone fired, no one was firebombing buildings, no protests, not one person was beat up.

The more I think about it, the more it's obvious to me that the reason leftist/Marxists get so mad about this sort of stuff is that, despite their near 100% control over most forms of media, they cannot deal with anyone not doing what they want, much less a bunch of rednecks, rubes, and hicks who decided not to engage. To bring this back to RPGs, it's the same as people here saying we're not gonna give Wokeman Games any more money because DCC has decided to murder the English language, which results in shrieks and pure retardation from leftist shills. They cannot handle anyone deciding to do anything for themselves, especially spending their money how they wish. God forbid someone exercise free will.

We saw that attitude first with feminism. Heaven forbid a woman choose to do something other than become a CEO. If she did that, she was brainwashed by the Patriarchy. Once someone makes choices the left disagrees with, freedom goes out the window.

As for the original topic, RPGs didn't used to reflect political ideology because we were able to maintain a level of suspension of disbelief. Over time, factions pushed and pushed until everything became political. Some factions may have been more responsible than others, but now here we are. I can't pretend it ain't what it is, anymore. So now, when I see "they" used to describe everybody, and I see the word "goddess" has been removed from the lexicon and obviously female deities are being described with the male-form of the word, I know that gender ideology crap is being pushed on me. It isn't something that's being done to "appeal to the wider audience" or to prevent a scandal. Because there's a scandal either way. There is no neutral middle ground, because there isn't allowed to be. Everything is political.

I wish it weren't, but it is.

Quote from: Brad on July 20, 2023, 11:12:45 AM

Quote from: LouProsperi on July 20, 2023, 11:00:47 AM
I'm fascinated by the "don't give money to people who hate you" stance, since it often feels more like an exaggerated and distorted form of virtue signaling (is "reverse virtue signaling" a thing?) than an honest protest.

Do you honestly think companies hate you, or have they just done or said things that you disagree with? To use your own examples, why do you believe that Gillette and/or Disney "hate" you? It seems far more likely that you've found a reason to hate them and want to convince the world that they hate you so can shout about it and take the supposed high road by boycotting them.


Take Care,

Lou Prosperi

"Yes, it's totally virtue signaling not to spend your money on horseshit you don't need because you find the commercials and promoted values abhorrent, but perfectly fine to actively dox people and put them out of a job because they said something that hurt your feelings."

That's what you meant right?

Let me take that in two parts:

Quote
"Yes, it's totally virtue signaling not to spend your money on horseshit you don't need because you find the commercials and promoted values abhorrent,

Choosing to not spend your money on products made by companies you don't like or find objectionable isn't virtue signaling. I have no issue with how people choose to spend their money. I don't eat at Chik-fil-A because I find their support of anti-LGBTQ and hate groups objectionable. For another example, as curious as I've been about the quality of Pundit's game products, I can't bring myself to pay for one because I don't want to support someone who goes out of their way to promote anger and division within the game community.

The virtue signaling comes in when a boycott like that is wrapped in the whole "don't give money to people who hate you" thing. It's portraying your decision as the result of you being a victim of a company that hates you.

Quote
but perfectly fine to actively dox people and put them out of a job because they said something that hurt your feelings."

I have no idea what you're referring to here.


Take Care,

Lou

Quote from: LouProsperi on July 20, 2023, 02:07:20 PM

Choosing to not spend your money on products made by companies you don't like or find objectionable isn't virtue signaling. I have no issue with how people choose to spend their money. I don't eat at Chik-fil-A because I find their support of anti-LGBTQ and hate groups objectionable.

Take Care,

Lou

Wow, It's been a LONG time since I was transported into a drug created alternate universe via a forum post.  ::)

Quote from: LouProsperi on July 20, 2023, 11:00:47 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2023, 02:54:32 PM
I've been "self-boycotting" people who hate me for decades.  I won't bother everyone with the list, but as a couple of examples, I'll never buy another Gillette product again (despite using them for most of my life) and I'll never go to Disney World again (even if grand children want to go and I'm the only one that can take them).  So not buying particular games is really not a huge sacrifice to me.
   

I'm fascinated by the "don't give money to people who hate you" stance, since it often feels more like an exaggerated and distorted form of virtue signaling (is "reverse virtue signaling" a thing?) than an honest protest.

Do you honestly think companies hate you, or have they just done or said things that you disagree with? To use your own examples, why do you believe that Gillette and/or Disney "hate" you? It seems far more likely that you've found a reason to hate them and want to convince the world that they hate you so can shout about it and take the supposed high road by boycotting them.


Take Care,

Lou Prosperi

I know wretched husks don't understand things like self respect, but it's a thing many men have.

Quote from: LouProsperi on July 20, 2023, 02:07:20 PM
It's portraying your decision as the result of you being a victim of a company that hates you.

Imagine contradicting yourself IN THE SAME POST.

Holy fuck...

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 20, 2023, 08:22:11 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on July 20, 2023, 08:04:12 AMOf course, the reverse is also true. I would finger quite a few posters here as throwing the baby out with the bath water by completely ignoring safety tool discussions at all, because if you abstract it it's just about not letting the content of the campaign meander into unproductive dead ends, and that includes the "unsafe" ends.

Or, and hear me out here, I don't bother playing with snowflakes and baby-brains. If I'm running Call Of Cthulhu, and a player wants to X-card blood, or spiders or whatever, in a GAME, they can feel free to go and find a nice Monopoly table.

...Uhh, you do realize that doesn't apply to my conclusion because I abstracted it away from just safety tools and into the broader social contract of the game? If you're going to reduce one of my posts to a single sentence, perhaps you could do yourself a favor by reading the second half of the sentence. Subordinate clauses, yo.

I understand your point of view, but my point is that you are entrenching an attitude rather than trying to advance the game, which limits your potential just as much as they have limited theirs. The leftists can't move past the X-Card because it's an offense-based mechanic and their political machinery depends on offense. You can move past it, but have chosen not to.

Neither of you are going anywhere, so pardon me for not seeing a ton of difference.

No, not really for sane people. Let me use my current group as an example:

The DM is sorta centre right
One player is very much a leftist (socialized medicine, unions are good, etc)
Other player I have no real idea and maybe he doesn't either, but he's Bi.
I'm a right wing conservative Christian Puritan.
But none of us is Woke, ergo we're not insane.

We're into our 3rd year of enjoying AD&D2e

Now, the loonies DO tend to certain games more than others, for instance PbtA games, 5e, Fate... The other type of loonies tend to other games like Myfarog or "Play it like we say Gary intended it to be played!" (BrOSR)...

I'm sure that you can find sane pèople playing those games, but it is a red flag to know someone plays that, something that warrants further inspection to gatekeep your table/group.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 20, 2023, 07:49:51 PM
I'm sure that you can find sane pèople playing those games, but it is a red flag to know someone plays that, something that warrants further inspection to gatekeep your table/group.

I find the litmus test for sanity, is "I like Experience-X, therefore I play Game-Y as it delivers for me," while loons will froth over "Game-Z is the end all be all, and everything else is outright wrong." After all, game systems are only tools for running games, not games in and of themselves. Much like saying "I like woodworking" is sane, but "I get excited about chisels" is verging on loon territory.

I avoid titles written with a partisan attitude because the writing itself is mediocre and deranged, and obviously written to sublimate the writer's own desire to mass murder white people.

Spire: The City Must Fall is a textbook example. It is about oppressed black elves rising up and genociding the evil white elves who oppress them. The allegory for real life race relations is as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face.

Unfortunately, these kinds of titles are everywhere nowadays. I haven't found any games that suit my tastes in years.

I appreciated the satyrical games back in the 90s. They were definitely poking fun at the establishment, etc. But they were doing it in a subversive and clever manner. It didn't get in the way of the game, and you could take it or leave it.
Now, it's the 'scolds trying to shove all that baby politics down your throat. Spoiler alert, it doesn't work very well as a tactic.

I used to believe (and support) the idea of separating Creator from Creation.

Now, my only concern is voting with my wallet.

There are explicit political stance RPGs so those are obvious as "RPG choice reflects ideology", but otherwise I'm unsure OSR vs. 5e or Shadowrun 2e vs. 6e, or Palladium Fantasy vs RuneQuest is a political choice.

The OSR has the nostalgia factor which skews older and 5e has the current thing factor so it skews younger, and as the last 2 generations have been lost to communist indoctrination via the schools and internet, it's not a surprise to see younger games as useful idiots for the marxists.

As for X-cards and all other safety tools, any players who need or want such things should avoid my table now and forever. As a deplorable extremist, my GMing style is much too dangerous and should be left only to a table of my wretched kind.

To OP:
Yes.

As far as what game system choice, there's two things that draw those of a strong, left social view.  First is subject matter and the second is lack of solid central mechanics.  As far as subject matter, they tend to pick hyper focused and controlled settings.  Many times the books give a very specific form of play rather than opening up the world to be explored by the players.  Also, they tend to shy away from nuanced factions and tend to be very heavy handed in stating that one group is evil and that the players should hate them. 

As far as in game play style, they tend to ignore the nature of their PC's innate characteristics and simply make them a self insert.  They will clearly be stuck on making their PC make the political correct choice no matter what.  They will also shame other players for PCs that engage in "problematic" behavior.

As GMs, they tend to be very much a conductor on a railroad.  Hell, it's been my experience that at the most extreme, they will way over power the PCs but force them to play the parts written for them in the adventure with little player agency allowed.

This is my first hand observations in a politically diverse pool of players.

Quote from: Spinachcat on July 21, 2023, 03:12:53 AM
I used to believe (and support) the idea of separating Creator from Creation.

Now, my only concern is voting with my wallet.

I still support separating Creator from Creation--as long as the Creator can avoid making the Creation all about the Creator.  Meet me halfway.  If the Creator can't somewhat separate the two, then I don't see why I should be bothered to bend over backwards to excuse his lack of effort.  Plus, that separation failure inevitably makes his Creation a lesser product than it could have been in more reasonable and lucid hands.

Note, it doesn't matter to me all that much whether I agree or disagree with the Creator's position.  Where someone I agree or mostly agree with fails to separate, I'm not buying their products, either. 

The vote with my wallet part kicks in hard when the Creator is so out of control that they make it impossible for me to even meet them halfway.  That is, because of what he has said and done in past products, even if he managed to somehow overcome that in a new product, I'd find it difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt any longer.

"Do RPG choices reflect political ideology?"

How's this for a weaselly answer:  They can, and often do, but not all that many of them have to.

By "have to", I'll suggest the following definition: When a game itself is structured, via inbuilt setting or (possibly, though I'm not sure how) actual rules mechanics, to reinforce and favour gameplay choices that explicitly express and promulgate a particular philosophy, ideology or worldview, such that trying to play against that worldview produces substandard results at best (if nothing else, by taking a counterproductive amount of time to adjust the game to your tastes) and is outright impossible at worst.

To pick a bete noire mentioned already in this thread, theoretically it should be perfectly possible to use the rules system of Thirsty Sword Lesbians to play a game set in the Warhammer 40K universe, but who would want to bother?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 19, 2023, 04:13:15 PM
All of us (right or left) gamed in pretty much the same way.  Then the left went narcissistic and suddenly they couldn't play at a table that didn't "see" them, meaning that each of them had to be the center of attention all of the time.  And with an old school style referee, they can't guarantee that.  So story games and meta mechanics were invented to that every special snowflake pansexual genderfluid otherkin can make sure the spotlight gets shined on them all the time.

In fairness, storygame mechanics and ideas have been around forever. As I say, read A&E, Dragon, and Space Gamer from the late 70s and there isn't a style today that didn't exist then.

What has happened is the special snowflake people learned it was much easier to munchkin those rules than more wargame-derived ones.

But even some people on the Yellow and Red list prefer wargamey rules and have wargame roots (Steve Jackson, US one, comes to mind).

Quote from: Scooter on July 19, 2023, 04:33:15 PM
This. When I started out in the 70's it was a mix.  We had a leftwing professor running our game with right wing guys from a nearby military base and a female (OMG!) flower child type.  There was ZERO friction because all were playing the game in front of us.

Am I the only one who misses those flower-child women who played D&D (mostly...rarely non-fantasy) in the late 70s or early 80s?

Quote from: Reckall on July 19, 2023, 05:49:50 PM
I can tell you what the editor of my first comic book told me when I still was a wide eyed writer in training:

"Remember, a character is unavoidably 'political', as his choices reflect his world-view. However, this doesn't means that the comic book is political (or, even worse, 'partitical'). Batman doesn't kill. This is a political statement. However 'Batman' the comic book is not against the death penalty - and actually Batman brings to justice criminals that can very well end up on the chair."

...A little speech that reminded me of "Watchmen", a comic book whose characters reflect a wide spectrum of political thought - including some that for sure go against anything that Alan Moore holds holy. And yet every position can be defended (my favorite is Adrian Veidt - go figure).

More and more I think a better word for the problem is "partisan".  While I disagree with your editor on some details (that's a bit too much 'the personal is the political' for my tastes) the broader point: that having a character have a worldview isn't endorsing or pushing that worldview.

When you cross into that your become a partisan, not an artist. I think that is why I didn't react as strongly to SJG announcing their abortion policy or even doing the "fund Hillary" thing because it's outside of the game and they haven't tried to fire me as a fan. Contrast that to Evil Hat who makes clear they'd feel like they had cooties if I bought their game.

A number of long-running ttrpg IPs had clearly political slants since the 80s and 90s.

Every cyberpunk game, for example. Cyberpunk as a genre is inherently political because it depicts a dystopian future where corpos run amuck and abuse the poor working class stiffs. It's nihilistic af because the players are expected to thoughtlessly accept this and not try to challenge the system and work towards reform.

Those shitty emo goth games that are somehow still being published a decade after the original company was dissolved are obnoxiously political. Even when it isn't necessary, the IP is depicted as a dystopian hellscape where the PCs are freedom fighters fighting vainly against a corrupt broken system. They're expected to challenge the system, only to fail because it either kills them or they switch sides. It's nihilistic af.

This nihilistic shit doesn't appeal to me at all. I prefer games where you're intended to have fun, not listen to failed novelists wallow in their self-inflicted misery. But that fun-hating idiocy is infecting the industry and has become increasingly partisan too.

Quote from: PulpHerb on July 21, 2023, 04:01:39 PM... the broader point: that having a character have a worldview isn't endorsing or pushing that worldview.

Agreed. But this is one of the points on which modern Wokism tends to disagree with most classical liberal philosophy: a fundamental principle of Woke criticism holds that presenting a character's worldview plausibly or realistically enough to make it understandable, even if not sympathetic, is endorsing it, because sufficient exposure to an idea will subconsciously "normalize" that idea in an audience even if the idea itself is presented in superficially condemnatory terms. The classic phrasing is, To Depict Is To Endorse.

For me a politically-partisan game would be one which refused to make the setting's expected antagonists at all rational or understandable from their own point of view.  Even Tolkien's orcs had reasons for their own worldview which made sense to those who'd lived their lives.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 21, 2023, 04:12:36 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on July 21, 2023, 04:01:39 PM... the broader point: that having a character have a worldview isn't endorsing or pushing that worldview.

Agreed. But this is one of the points on which modern Wokism tends to disagree with most classical liberal philosophy: a fundamental principle of Woke criticism holds that presenting a character's worldview plausibly or realistically enough to make it understandable, even if not sympathetic, is endorsing it.

Some argue presenting it at all is endorsement.

Which is a big issue with modern comics. The villains have to be as woke as the protagonists so there is no real conflict and it's just about eating and hanging out or *Three's Company* level "I overheard something and misunderstood" plots.

Quote from: LouProsperi on July 20, 2023, 02:07:20 PM
For another example, as curious as I've been about the quality of Pundit's game products, I can't bring myself to pay for one because I don't want to support someone who goes out of their way to promote anger and division within the game community.

If this is true why are you using the site Pundit owns and moderates as your vehicle to discuss gaming? Why not discuss it in other forums not controlled by people whose games you avoid because you think they are trying to create division? By using his forums instead of MeWe or OD&D Forum or Knight&Knave aren't you helping amplify him by making his personal platform attractive?

Quote from: BadApple on July 21, 2023, 04:39:25 AM
As far as what game system choice, there's two things that draw those of a strong, left social view.  First is subject matter and the second is lack of solid central mechanics.  As far as subject matter, they tend to pick hyper focused and controlled settings.  Many times the books give a very specific form of play rather than opening up the world to be explored by the players.  Also, they tend to shy away from nuanced factions and tend to be very heavy handed in stating that one group is evil and that the players should hate them.

These tendencies don't fit with my experience.

1) Mechanics:

1a) Many games rely heavily on GM decision-making more than mechanics, like _Amber Diceless_, _Everway_, and Pundit's _Lords of Olympus_. I don't think these are associated with political left-or-right. Pundit is an Amber fan, but I also know many left-leaning Amber fans.

1b) Games with solid central mechanics include D&D 4E, for example. Also, a lot of games from The Forge were criticized as being near-board-game-like in their mechanical focus. I've seen plenty of left-leaning people who enjoy these games.

2) Good-vs-evil also doesn't seem purely leftist. Early D&D featured strict good-vs-evil alignment rather than shades-of-grey factions, and I think it was more conservative than, say, World of Darkness that established more shades-of-grey factions.


I'm sure there are some trends regarding game style and mechanics, but there are enough exceptions that I would hesitate to generalize - and it may vary depending on region or local scene. For example, I know there are a lot of conservative OSR fans here, but I also know many left-leaning OSR fans in my other circles.

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2023, 05:10:14 PM
These tendencies don't fit with my experience.

1) Mechanics:

1a) Many games rely heavily on GM decision-making more than mechanics, like _Amber Diceless_, _Everway_, and Pundit's _Lords of Olympus_. I don't think these are associated with political left-or-right. Pundit is an Amber fan, but I also know many left-leaning Amber fans.

1b) Games with solid central mechanics include D&D 4E, for example. Also, a lot of games from The Forge were criticized as being near-board-game-like in their mechanical focus. I've seen plenty of left-leaning people who enjoy these games.

2) Good-vs-evil also doesn't seem purely leftist. Early D&D featured strict good-vs-evil alignment rather than shades-of-grey factions, and I think it was more conservative than, say, World of Darkness that established more shades-of-grey factions.


I'm sure there are some trends regarding game style and mechanics, but there are enough exceptions that I would hesitate to generalize - and it may vary depending on region or local scene. For example, I know there are a lot of conservative OSR fans here, but I also know many left-leaning OSR fans in my other circles.

First, there's no absolute boundary on any of this.  I know some far right guys that like Powered by the Apocalypse games and lefties that like lots of crunch too.  That said, when I see a group playing a PbtA game, it's a fair bet that they are a very heavily left leaning group by head count.

Second, modern leftists tend to view groups as homogeneous and very simplified as good or bad.  That tends to reflect on their depiction of in-game faction as well.  To me, this is the biggest failing of game design by leftist game makers as well as leftist GMs and players in making a good game.  Making bad guys that are interesting means you have to humanize them and that seems to really be an issue for the modern far left ideology. 

Finally, am I going to categorize someone simply because of how you enjoy an unrelated hobby?  No.  Hell, eating organic and making your own soap doesn't make you a hippie.  I certainly have people mischaracterize my views frequently because they think because I engage in one activity that I must belong to a particular group.  I do notice trends though.  What you play and how you play does reveal a bit about how you think and that will be linked to your ideology.  It's not bigotry to recognize correlational and trends.  It is bigotry to think that those trends are absolutes. 

RPG's should have an internally consistent, appropriate morality and politics for the setting.

When I run my Victorian game, Colonialism is just how things work, Communists and Anarchists are villains, and Great White Hunters are heroic explorers (unless they're a bounder, such as they're a Hun or something equally sinister.) Because that's how Victorians in the West saw the world.

Likewise if I run something in Middle Earth, good and evil are almost tangible universal forces, with clear lines of separation. Evil can cast a wide shadow for a long time, but the light of goodness will eventually shine through.

I loathe the Hollywood trope that heroes in historical settings have to agree with modern progressive values, even if they're living in a hut in 8th century Wales. They never want the local Lord to just be slightly less of a bastard, so that they can keep enough grain to eat. Nah, they're bursting with zeal to have an American style revolution. "FREEDOM!" shouts the peasant who is literally incapable of understanding the concept of not living under Feudalism.

Historical people were genocidal assholes. I'm totally fine with not playing them ever.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 22, 2023, 09:50:22 AM
Historical people were genocidal assholes. I'm totally fine with not playing them ever.

Luckily you were born at a time, and adopted political and moral frameworks, that are perfect, and absolutely won't be shat on by future generations. You are truly blessed that your personal ideology, and objective goodness, are identical.

I'll try to struggle through the disappointment that you wouldn't play at my table.

(https://pix-media.priceonomics-media.com/blog/808/ScreenShot2014-09-09at11.45.37AM.png)

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 22, 2023, 09:54:41 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 22, 2023, 09:50:22 AM
Historical people were genocidal assholes. I'm totally fine with not playing them ever.

Luckily you were born at a time, and adopted political and moral frameworks, that are perfect, and absolutely won't be shat on by future generations. You are truly blessed that your personal ideology, and objective goodness, are identical.

I'll try to struggle through the disappointment that you wouldn't play at my table.

(https://pix-media.priceonomics-media.com/blog/808/ScreenShot2014-09-09at11.45.37AM.png)

Yes, exactly. I'm lucky to have grown up when I did. Those future generations can get fucked. I'm celibate because I don't want to touch or conceive nutjobs indoctrinated by our increasingly deranged society to think asphyxiation is loving intimacy.

Sorry I won't play at your table, but I hope you have fun without me anyway. It won't be as fun without me, of course, but I'm sure you'll manage just fine.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 22, 2023, 09:50:22 AM
Historical people were genocidal assholes. I'm totally fine with not playing them ever.

  So are contemporary people. Do you do solo gaming only? :)

  On topic, things that will push me away from a game are:

• The game itself or the publisher overtly denigrating me (usually as a member of the group--no one's lashed out at me personally yet :) ) or proclaiming they don't want my business.
• The game foregrounding elements which disrupt my enjoyment or that I don't want to deal with.
• The community or culture around the game likewise giving me the impression that I'm not welcome.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 22, 2023, 03:34:38 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 22, 2023, 09:50:22 AM
Historical people were genocidal assholes. I'm totally fine with not playing them ever.

  So are contemporary people. Do you do solo gaming only? :)

Yeah, contemporary people are hell too and only get worse as time goes. I'm not interested in what the industry is selling, even if it is sanitized. I'm bored of fantasy and all the non-fantasy has shit rules design and its own head up its ass with shit lore masturbation. The new political slant makes it worse.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 22, 2023, 09:50:22 AM
Historical people were genocidal assholes. I'm totally fine with not playing them ever.

... and yet I've absolutely had players be genocidal assholes in very long-term campaigns, those same PC's became ingrained into the very history of my settings. Infamy can have its own value for a TTRPG setting.

Most people are startling unaware of themselves and their beliefs. They mistake the power of their internal emotional convictions over the power of the supposed principles they operate under. Most times there *are no principles* at all. This is precisely why people fight over alignment. *MOST* people do not understand the nuances of Ethics or Morality and confuse the two and fight over Batman being evil/good/neutral/chaotic/lawful when it suits their purposes losing sight that these are axiomatic considerations and people are far more complex.

The same is true of politics. Talk to any average European about firearms while being a Texan and see how different two otherwise perfectly friendly people see the world. Talk to someone that lives in Papua New Guinea about your concerns of Global Big Pharma, there's a good bet they don't give a shit.

When it comes to gaming - the GM's job is to set the stage for the setting. The players job is to create a PC that they intend on engaging with that setting as presented by the GM. If a TTRPG creator has an ulterior motive, that is politically driven... *GOOD LUCK*. I can't think of any very popular or successful game with obvious political motives that is worth a damn. Because nuance is where the fun conflict occurs. And ideologues tend to look at their political views as articles of religious faith, free of any scrutiny.

This is precisely why Woke activists can't do super-hero comics. It's not to say Woke-ideology hasn't always existed in comics - it certainly has, in one form or another. But what Woke people don't realize is those champions of their ideology are almost always villains. Magneto is the *perfect* example. A minority of a minority, who is fighting against an actual genocidal pogrom designed to wipe his people out... or so he believes. And he's willing to do anything, including the exact same things he believes his detractors would do, to prevent/prosecute it. This is what makes him a great villain - he's honest about it. Woke assholes aren't honest. They possess zero self-awareness because it's emotion, not principle.

As for voting with my dollar? Why *wouldn't* you? I derive no virtue about telling anyone reading this about my purchases. I purchase things I consider GOOD for ME. I might comment on people buying things I consider dogshit, yet they continue to complain about it non-stop, because it's WEIRD to me watching people flagellate themselves over the next WotC Outrage... when who *gives a fuck* at this point? The ship has long sailed. Go play something GOOD. Put your money there and be HAPPY.

It's not virtuous to point out the obvious. But you know emotions>reason is the current zeitgeist for many people new to grappling with this stuff.

My gaming culture consists of: 1) People who play at my table 2) People that enjoy talking about the hobby we share 3) People that will buy my products and hopefully work their way up to #2 and maybe #1. Politics? I have no problem with politics at my table. You can be a raging leftist, but as long as you're prepared to give and receive in equal amounts outside of my game, we're cool. In game? STFU and play. If you can't do that? I'll happily escort you to the door. No problems here.

Quote from: tenbones on July 25, 2023, 10:40:13 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 22, 2023, 09:50:22 AM
Historical people were genocidal assholes. I'm totally fine with not playing them ever.

... and yet I've absolutely had players be genocidal assholes in very long-term campaigns, those same PC's became ingrained into the very history of my settings. Infamy can have its own value for a TTRPG setting.

glances at evil campaigns

Yeah, I guess you're right.

I guess I've had to many bad experiences with creeps in the hobby. The types who post on public pbp forums detailed scenes of his PC engaging in cannibal snuff torture-porn. Some fandoms, I'm not gonna name names but you can probably guess which ones, attract those types like flies to carrion. It's made me very leery of any kind of games which touch on any non-family-friendly topics. I can never be sure beforehand if someone is auditioning to be a horror writer or is indulging a fetish. The religious cultist attitudes in many fandoms amplifies the problem, as it trains otherwise sane people (I assume) to accept and defend disgusting stuff because it's tradition.

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 21, 2023, 11:59:58 PM

I loathe the Hollywood trope that heroes in historical settings have to agree with modern progressive values, even if they're living in a hut in 8th century Wales. They never want the local Lord to just be slightly less of a bastard, so that they can keep enough grain to eat. Nah, they're bursting with zeal to have an American style revolution. "FREEDOM!" shouts the peasant who is literally incapable of understanding the concept of not living under Feudalism.

Most modern Hollywood historical productions do this shit. The shitty games are simply emulating this. Erasing history is a communist tactic. Funny thing is, modern progressive ideology is ANTI freedom. It is slavery to groupthink. Fall in line with the program or be canceled

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 25, 2023, 03:42:53 PM
Most modern Hollywood historical productions do this shit. The shitty games are simply emulating this. Erasing history is a communist tactic.

I think even right-liberal Hollywood mangles history like this, making the heroes Whigs basically. Braveheart or 300 do it. I read an American historical novel The Crusader and it was exactly the same.

I thought Gladiator was quite good for having a Roman-esque feel to the protagonist, much more than the earlier film they ripped off, Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire, which had a typical Hollywood protagonist. But Gladiator was by Ridley Scott who's English, and is a rare exception IMO.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 19, 2023, 04:13:15 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

It wasn't this way in the past.  I've gamed with people of all political stripes for most of my life.  It's only in the last 10 years (and primarily post-Trump) that this hasn't been true.  And it's mainly because the left has become total narcissists and Marxists.  No exaggeration.  All of us (right or left) gamed in pretty much the same way.  Then the left went narcissistic and suddenly they couldn't play at a table that didn't "see" them, meaning that each of them had to be the center of attention all of the time.  And with an old school style referee, they can't guarantee that.  So story games and meta mechanics were invented to that every special snowflake pansexual genderfluid otherkin can make sure the spotlight gets shined on them all the time.  And the Marxism, well when you all believe in Critical Theory and that all relationships boil down to victims vs oppressors, no woke warrior worth their soy is going to allow some Dungeon Master (See!  Legacy of slavery...) victimize them (or remove the spotlight from them).  I never saw a political divide in RPGs until the left started screaming that "The personal is political!" and injecting woke nonsense into everything.  So, yeah, I see it, and it's totally the left's fault.  And we all know how good the left is at taking personal responsibility for their actions...

Well, I for one completely disagree that it is "totally" the Left's fault, though I agree there is far more blame there than they want to admit. I think it is patently ridiculous to say almost anything is totally one side's fault or another—any relationship whether between individuals or groups is the result of their dynamic and not entirely the responsibility of one or the other. You lack empathy and awareness, pal.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 25, 2023, 10:58:24 AM
glances at evil campaigns

Yeah, I guess you're right.

I guess I've had to many bad experiences with creeps in the hobby. The types who post on public pbp forums detailed scenes of his PC engaging in cannibal snuff torture-porn. Some fandoms, I'm not gonna name names but you can probably guess which ones, attract those types like flies to carrion. It's made me very leery of any kind of games which touch on any non-family-friendly topics. I can never be sure beforehand if someone is auditioning to be a horror writer or is indulging a fetish. The religious cultist attitudes in many fandoms amplifies the problem, as it trains otherwise sane people (I assume) to accept and defend disgusting stuff because it's tradition.

Yeah, the main point I think we're all really faced with is this: We've *always* had creepy fucked up players in the hobby. From the very beginning this was true. But now they are legion. So we need to really be vigilant about who we admit to our tables, and equally importantly, about how we as GM's conduct our games authentically to the setting.

This is how the cultural Marxists have weasled their way in - the degradation of the D&D settings into being the current freakshow without any editorial discipline at WotC was an invitation to this bullshit. Of course... it doesn't help that WotC themselves are fucking creepy weirdos themselves... so again, it's time for all of us to re-edify our positions which always begins and ends at our table. No one dictates to us what we run or how we run as GM's. The hobby begins and ends with us.

As for "evil campaigns" - I honestly rarely run something overtly evil. The closest I've come with any regularity is when I run Underdark campaigns (Drow specifically), which I enjoy quite a bit because "evil campaigns" like any other campaign require structure. There has to be a counter-balance to the notion that "evil" PC's running around doing dastardly shit, happens without any repercussions. Typical murderhobos, even in my "evil campaigns" do not last long in my games. At least not without leashing from the other PC's (Someone has to be that murderous thug the PC's unleash on their foes after all - but even then, he has to come to heel at some point.)

My campaigns are almost always political - even my "D&D adventure" games get political because the PC's have to interact with civilization *at some point* - and civilizations are always political, be it tribal, feudal, monarchial etc, and my NPC's always have their own agendas - for good or ill. That's all part of the game.

Quote from: S'mon on July 26, 2023, 02:49:14 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 25, 2023, 03:42:53 PM
Most modern Hollywood historical productions do this shit. The shitty games are simply emulating this. Erasing history is a communist tactic.

I think even right-liberal Hollywood mangles history like this, making the heroes Whigs basically. Braveheart or 300 do it. I read an American historical novel The Crusader and it was exactly the same.

I thought Gladiator was quite good for having a Roman-esque feel to the protagonist, much more than the earlier film they ripped off, Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire, which had a typical Hollywood protagonist. But Gladiator was by Ridley Scott who's English, and is a rare exception IMO.

Sure - but were you not entertained? heh.

I think the issue is our populace is 1) generally ignorant to the point of being retarded when it comes to history in general 2) when the point of making a movie is to be entertained vs. teaching history, it becomes the slow slide into all kinds of silly beliefs because of #1. Not that this is wrong - because if #1 weren't an issue, people could go on inoculated by the motives of political assholes that fall into #2.

That's the real issue - "entertainment" now are effectively propaganda. Which tends to make for very bad entertainment.

Quote from: tenbones on July 26, 2023, 11:10:13 AM

Quote from: S'mon on July 26, 2023, 02:49:14 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on July 25, 2023, 03:42:53 PM
Most modern Hollywood historical productions do this shit. The shitty games are simply emulating this. Erasing history is a communist tactic.

I think even right-liberal Hollywood mangles history like this, making the heroes Whigs basically. Braveheart or 300 do it. I read an American historical novel The Crusader and it was exactly the same.

I thought Gladiator was quite good for having a Roman-esque feel to the protagonist, much more than the earlier film they ripped off, Decline And Fall of the Roman Empire, which had a typical Hollywood protagonist. But Gladiator was by Ridley Scott who's English, and is a rare exception IMO.

Sure - but were you not entertained? heh.

I think the issue is our populace is 1) generally ignorant to the point of being retarded when it comes to history in general 2) when the point of making a movie is to be entertained vs. teaching history, it becomes the slow slide into all kinds of silly beliefs because of #1. Not that this is wrong - because if #1 weren't an issue, people could go on inoculated by the motives of political assholes that fall into #2.

That's the real issue - "entertainment" now are effectively propaganda. Which tends to make for very bad entertainment.

Ehen, 300 isn't trying to be a historical film, it's a comic book film.

I think the big problem is that a lot of Americans, even at the highest levels of power, think that American style liberty and political systems are some natural human state, only requiring the correct conditions (one of the few ways that American jingoism resembles Communism.) Post WW2, America has fucked up quite a few nations by trying to push square pegs through round holes.

China is the most dangerous and egregious example of this. "If we trade with them, they'll become Capitalists! Wait, China, why are you using your money that way? NNNOOOO!"

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 26, 2023, 12:35:55 PM
I think the big problem is that a lot of Americans, even at the highest levels of power, think that American style liberty and political systems are some natural human state, only requiring the correct conditions (one of the few ways that American jingoism resembles Communism.) Post WW2, America has fucked up quite a few nations by trying to push square pegs through round holes.

China is the most dangerous and egregious example of this. "If we trade with them, they'll become Capitalists! Wait, China, why are you using your money that way? NNNOOOO!"

If by American style liberty - you mean, that we generally follow the Bill of Rights and the Government is limited to local agreed upon rules achieved through representative democracy, and the Federal powers are supposed to be extremely limited to just a half-dozen functions? Then that's about as close as you're going to get at any scale.

And NO - Americans do not have this style of Liberty.

More importantly - how many people play this way in their fantasy-elf game settings? Probably very few. There is a reason why "American Liberty" evolved this way for a very reason. So much so, it's a hard stretch to rationale this in a fantasy setting without getting woo-woo. But it would be fun to try.

And for Galactus's sake, please don't mention Paizo Golarion's Avestan's bullshit attempt at shoe-horning a "Democratic State" into their setting. That place would implode in 48-hrs left to run as it's designed.

Possibly? It's difficult to say. I think in some cases games where their politics on their sleeves and more or less make it known, if you play this then you support our politics.

Evil Hat is the one that most comes to mind. I could never really get into FATE in the first place, but the more and more they took on the ultra political progressive bent, the more and more they turned me off.

I grew up on World of Darkness games which were 90s Liberal and still are for the most part. With some exceptions where it got more progressive in more recent stuff.

I'm a Libertarian by nature. My favorite game system is "Savage Worlds", but my favorite settings are "World of Darkness". Deadlands is probably my 2nd favorite setting...

Looking at my two favorite game systems and settings....I can see why I'm a Libertarian.

I got into Pathfinder 2e recently, and I just roll my eyes when it specifies an npc in an adventure is Nonbinary, but most of their stuff is just "Here's a mathmatically sound D&D style game with lots of cool options."

Quote from: Scooter on July 19, 2023, 04:33:15 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 19, 2023, 04:13:15 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

All of us (right or left) gamed in pretty much the same way. 

This. When I started out in the 70's it was a mix.  We had a leftwing professor running our game with right wing guys from a nearby military base and a female (OMG!) flower child type.  There was ZERO friction because all were playing the game in front of us.  Not "playing" at outside politics.  I too didn't see this happen until about 2011 when screechy libtards started pontificating at games.  I truly thought they were just a few borderline insane people unique to our little scene.  Online info told me it was getting widespread.

As a minor note: 2011 was about the time when I first noticed too. It was as if something snapped among a significant portion of the left leaning gamers.

Remember when we were ahead of the curve in calling out the 'degeneracy' in Vincent Baker's games long before The Woke agreed with us? Now they even find Apocalypse World too yikes for their tastes. Oh the irony.

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on July 19, 2023, 02:56:43 PM
I will say, for myself, like I'd never play Thirsty Sword Lesbians,

I actually #Kickstarted this, and I literally can't play it because of the ideological agenda surrounding it. There's just no way to engage with it without implying political affiliation of some kind. Which is the point. And the fact the promo sessions consisted of nothing but transwomen, including one notorious for linking their vibrating butt plug to a game of Fall Guys, only enforced the notion that this was all rooted in Autogynephilia.

Quote from: Reckall on July 19, 2023, 05:49:50 PM
...A little speech that reminded me of "Watchmen", a comic book whose characters reflect a wide spectrum of political thought - including some that for sure go against anything that Alan Moore holds holy. And yet every position can be defended (my favorite is Adrian Veidt - go figure).

He did vaporize the character whose ideology he disagreed with in the end though.

Quote from: Reckall on July 19, 2023, 05:49:50 PM
Even funnier than "The Innsmoutians are pacifists" is that "Lovecraft Country" was attacked by the Israeli Times as antisemite. Full Total Karma.

One trait about Woke media I'm never not amused by is how it goes full circle into advocating the things is ostensibly seeks to condemn.

Quote from: jhkim on July 19, 2023, 06:23:36 PM
Regarding change in forums and social media -- I'd been on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the 1990s and The Forge in the early 2000s. Those were controversial at times, but they weren't political at all. In 2006, I joined theRPGsite, and at that time, there was controversy over the Blue Rose RPG which was political, but politics hadn't taken over most of gaming discussion. Since then the politics has steadily ramped up here, especially in 2016, and the same happened in RPG discussions in my other social media (mostly Facebook).

It's one of those issues which will take over discussions unless specific measures are taken to prevent it.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 19, 2023, 10:19:43 PM
I think age is a bigger factor, but age and political ideology may go hand in hand.

They do, but I'm noticing folks are not aging into their politics as much as before. It's like everybody's stuck in high school.

Quote from: LouProsperi on July 20, 2023, 11:00:47 AM
I'm fascinated by the "don't give money to people who hate you" stance, since it often feels more like an exaggerated and distorted form of virtue signaling (is "reverse virtue signaling" a thing?) than an honest protest.

Do you honestly think companies hate you, or have they just done or said things that you disagree with?

These days it's increasingly likely the folks who hate me will not take my money in the first place.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 21, 2023, 04:12:36 PM
For me a politically-partisan game would be one which refused to make the setting's expected antagonists at all rational or understandable from their own point of view.  Even Tolkien's orcs had reasons for their own worldview which made sense to those who'd lived their lives.

This is the foundation of empathy and literally how the real-world works, and why the folks who cannot engage in such thinking are so problematic.

Quote from: PulpHerb on July 21, 2023, 04:46:44 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 21, 2023, 04:12:36 PM

Quote from: PulpHerb on July 21, 2023, 04:01:39 PM... the broader point: that having a character have a worldview isn't endorsing or pushing that worldview.

Agreed. But this is one of the points on which modern Wokism tends to disagree with most classical liberal philosophy: a fundamental principle of Woke criticism holds that presenting a character's worldview plausibly or realistically enough to make it understandable, even if not sympathetic, is endorsing it.

Some argue presenting it at all is endorsement.

Which is a big issue with modern comics. The villains have to be as woke as the protagonists so there is no real conflict and it's just about eating and hanging out or *Three's Company* level "I overheard something and misunderstood" plots.

The enemy is both weak and strong. #8 on Eco's Ur-Fascism list. To represent the villain as weak means their ideology isn't a threat worth opposing. Yet to represent the villain as strong means their ideology has at least some practical merit. So these are literally the only scenarios they have left.

Quote from: PulpHerb on July 21, 2023, 04:55:44 PM

Quote from: LouProsperi on July 20, 2023, 02:07:20 PM
For another example, as curious as I've been about the quality of Pundit's game products, I can't bring myself to pay for one because I don't want to support someone who goes out of their way to promote anger and division within the game community.

If this is true why are you using the site Pundit owns and moderates as your vehicle to discuss gaming? Why not discuss it in other forums not controlled by people whose games you avoid because you think they are trying to create division? By using his forums instead of MeWe or OD&D Forum or Knight&Knave aren't you helping amplify him by making his personal platform attractive?

At the very least they are supporting his work by using his forum in the first place. And while he's indeed a shit stirrer, he's also someone who doesn't silence dissent, which folks often see as promoting it.

Quote from: Grognard GM on July 26, 2023, 12:35:55 PM
I think the big problem is that a lot of Americans, even at the highest levels of power, think that American style liberty and political systems are some natural human state, only requiring the correct conditions (one of the few ways that American jingoism resembles Communism.) Post WW2, America has fucked up quite a few nations by trying to push square pegs through round holes.

China is the most dangerous and egregious example of this. "If we trade with them, they'll become Capitalists! Wait, China, why are you using your money that way? NNNOOOO!"

I think that this inability fo comprehending that other people can have other desires is something characteristic for both sides of American politics. Just look at American leftists (called in USA "liberals" which is ridiculous to me) and their relation to Muslims.

Quote from: Adeptus on July 28, 2023, 08:40:29 AM
I think that this inability fo comprehending that other people can have other desires is something characteristic for both sides of American politics. Just look at American leftists (called in USA "liberals" which is ridiculous to me) and their relation to Muslims.

True, and this is true of most countries - whatever the politics, people of that culture share common traits. US conservatives are more like US leftists than they are like Hungarians. US leftists are more like US conservatives than they are like Dutch.

OTOH while South Asian or Arab Muslims are not much like Westerners, they certainly have more in common with conservative and religious Westerners than they do with leftists. Likewise typical Israelis have more in common with conservative Poles & Hungarians than they do with George Soros's leftist activists.