TheRPGSite

Lets flip the question of that other thread .

 Can anyone think of RPGs or works of ffiction that are easily made into RPG situations wherein average normal folks have adventures? Or even better game settings that seeme to celebrate the possible potential of Humans and humnanity?

Here are my candidates :
 SERENITY the RPG , the whole "Firefly" 'Verse appears to show average, decent folk just trying to survive , get along - and do the right thing. Granted River is the exception - but she'd likely rather be "NORMAL" if given half a chance.  Hell, even a slub like Jayne gets a chance to shine as a Hero.

GURPS:WORLD WAR II :  The ultimate setting for ordinary folks  to shine and be HEROEs if given the right situation, or rise above their limitations.

 Trying to think of more.....

- Ed C.

William H. Stoddard over on the SJG forums has said that he ran a whole RPG campaign set in the aftermatch of Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged.
The players were trying to rebuild things and get the country back on its feet.

 Considering the source material - that fairly  "pro-Humanity".

- Ed C.

One word: Unknown Armies

...

Damn, that's two.

Anyway, point still stands. Definitely the most pro-humanity RPG I've found, and specifically so.

It's also one of my favorites. I just wish more people knew about it.

Quote from: KoltarCan anyone think of RPGs or works of ffiction that are easily made into RPG situations wherein average normal folks have adventures? Or even better game settings that seeme to celebrate the possible potential of Humans and humnanity?

- Ed C.

Traveller, to name the obvious.

Mekton (any version), would use the old trope of mecha anime where the Young Hero would be placed into a position where he chooses to embark on the Hero's Journey. The Young Hero would almost always be Joe Average, but would become a Hero as time went on and experience was gained. The best example of this is Mekton Zeta's Starblade Battalion campaign.

DnD 3.x, which is a meritocratic system at its heart. Not to mention the fact that Commoners can rise up to 20th level as NPCs (for amusement, create one and let your players have a go at him - it'll be a hoot!).

Original Gamma World and its close cousin Omega World, because a lot of the ancient artifacts can only be used by a pure strain human.

Twilight: 2000, was a game where most often (as I saw it) the players would try to rebuild civilization after it had been shitwrecked by WW3. Many became minor despots or warlords, but they also would bring back farming (if for nothing more than the ethanol) and protected their holdings.

2300AD and 2320AD, both versions are humanocentric and the history parts embrace what is both best and worst in human nature.

I'll probably think of a few more once I post this.

WFRP challenges normal, everyday folk with mere survival in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds. The only advantage they have are Fate and Fortune Points, which as a resource are painfully limited outside of allowing characters to escape death a couple of times during the campaign.

Quote from: jeff37923Traveller, to name the obvious.

 I almost posted that one - but everyone already knows I love that game setting.

- Ed C.

WFRP and stock D20 are fairly Human positive, even the demi-human player races are basically more a cultural shift then a huge departure from humans.  

Then we have Cthulhu.  Yes the end is fairly grim but the entire game is based around normal people surviving and occasionally triumphing against imaginable odds.

Quote from: kryystThen we have Cthulhu(...)the entire game is based around normal people surviving and occasionally triumphing against imaginable odds.

That's what I was going to say.

Tribe 8 - So human it hurts....

In Harms Way - Well it's historical, so it may not count .

Regards,
David R

Cyberpunk, if you play it right.

Quote from: KoltarOr even better game settings that seeme to celebrate the possible potential of Humans and humnanity?

Mage: The Ascension, in which everything in the universe revolves around the beliefs and convictions of the human species.

My game, of course. (http://hedgames.blogspot.com/2007/05/nightfall.html)

Dark Conspiracy. It was related, system-wise, to Twilight:2000.

Quote from: GrimGentMage: The Ascension, in which everything in the universe revolves around the beliefs and convictions of the human species.

Yeah and IMO one of WW's most idealistic games and my favourite.

Regards,
David R

Hmm, well you can play other races in Tales of Gaea but I often run the "Pesants are all that they can be" adventures. I would say, of my games, Shades of Earth and Roma Imperious stand out the highest and most obvious. They are human-centric (you can't play any other race), you can play (and their are classes for) cooks, actors, musicians and a slew of non-standard adventurer types.

Not of the games I play, I like to think Battletech. Yeah, you heard me. I used to play Mechwarrior but gave up and used my own system. Based in 3025, you had a lot of interesting human on human wars, attempts to rise above the slaughter and, again, depending on play style, a serious hope for the future.

However, that could just be the way I run my game. ;)

Bill

I know I'm going to raise some eyebrows with this, but once you leave aside the mechas, the Battletech RPG is all about humanity getting its shit together.

Well, Empire-era Star Wars is all about humanity ;)

A|State assumes that the players' main goal in life is going to be to help improve the lot of the common man and perhaps free the masses from the control of the corporations; certainly, pretty much all of the players in my A|State campaign more-or-less independently decided that that was what they wanted to do.

Quote from: GrimGentMage: The Ascension, in which everything in the universe revolves around the beliefs and convictions of the human species.

Yes, except that human beings themselves are just chattel to be manipulated and have their collective unconscious directed by an enlightened few who are the elite meant to rule by virtue of being smarter than anyone else.  Its pretentious elitist wiccan teen-geek wank-fantasy.

RPGPundit

Interestingly enough, my FRPG (in the works) is centered around the facet of folklore: "anyone can be a hero" (the cultural, everyman, kinda hero is possible).

Sure not everyone WILL be, but anyone CAN be given the focus of the game (the suggested professions include cooks, craftsmen, and other atypical "adventuring" sorts)

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, except that human beings themselves are just chattel to be manipulated and have their collective unconscious directed by an enlightened few who are the elite meant to rule by virtue of being smarter than anyone else.  Its pretentious elitist wiccan teen-geek wank-fantasy.

RPGPundit

Actually Mages except those of the Technocracy are supposed to "awaken" human beings to their full potential, they want the whole of humanity to be Mages.

But I get that you hate all WW games. Pretentious elitist (maybe) wiccan (yeah you hate them too...but yeah maybe) teen -geek wank fantasy (this goes for most games esp D&D)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RActually Mages except those of the Technocracy are supposed to "awaken" human beings to their full potential, they want the whole of humanity to be Mages.

Regards,
David R

Really? They do? I had spent a lot of time in my day reading Mage, and that was NEVER my impression of the goal of the game. In fact, the goal of the game seemed to be (as the kind of "impossible dream" because the Technocracy was so powerful) for the heroic pseudo-intellectual hippy wiccans to create a new age where EVIL science is defeated forever, and instead of having the wicked byproducts of science like basic hygiene and people living to 100, we have masses of unwashed peasants dying at the age of 40 ruled over by the hippy-wiccan-teen wizard lords who rightly deserve to be the magical masters of the inferior peasantry.
That seems to be the point.

RPGPundit

Twilight 2000, big time.

Tribe 8, absolutely, David. At first glance it looks like your typical WW game, but it's not. People are outcasts but they aren't Special (TM). They're normal dudes trying to win against improbable odds in a world that's totally insane. Man, I love that game to death.

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? They do? I had spent a lot of time in my day reading Mage, and that was NEVER my impression of the goal of the game.

Impressions of the game, like the game itself and the 'magick' in it, were widely variant.

For example, I played a lot of Mage and had a very diferent take on it than you.

Quote from: RPGPunditReally? They do? I had spent a lot of time in my day reading Mage, and that was NEVER my impression of the goal of the game. In fact, the goal of the game seemed to be (as the kind of "impossible dream" because the Technocracy was so powerful) for the heroic pseudo-intellectual hippy wiccans to create a new age where EVIL science is defeated forever, and instead of having the wicked byproducts of science like basic hygiene and people living to 100, we have masses of unwashed peasants dying at the age of 40 ruled over by the hippy-wiccan-teen wizard lords who rightly deserve to be the magical masters of the inferior peasantry.
That seems to be the point.

Strange my reading is/was different. The "impossible dream" was because Mages spent to much time arguing amongst themselves as to how best to guide humanity towards it's full potential. I did find this paternalistic but never really a hindrance to my enjoyment of the game. The technophobia of WW games has been debated endlessly and to me, it's a point of view/pose which I kinda of like. Escapist fantasy and all that. At the end of the day, compared to games like Vampire, Werewolf etc, Mage seems to be more interested in humanity and the direction it is going rather then the immortal creatures of the other games I mentioned.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pierce InverarityTribe 8, absolutely, David. At first glance it looks like your typical WW game, but it's not. People are outcasts but they aren't Special (TM). They're normal dudes trying to win against improbable odds in a world that's totally insane. Man, I love that game to death.

Every time I read Tribe 8 I get something new from the game. Those little details in the game...so vividly evoked.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: KoltarGURPS:WORLD WAR II :  The ultimate setting for ordinary folks get to shine and be HEROEs if given the right situation, or rise above thjeir limitations.

I'm with you there.  

Also, Coyote Trail (for Old West), Silent Hill (a videogame begging to be turned into an RPG), most AFMBE/zombapoc games, and of course, Vice Squad: Miami Nights.  :)

Pete

Well yes, a game that treats regular humanity as peasantry to be put into your service (Mage) is slightly better I'll admit than a game that treats humanity as food (Vampire) or as a pest to be exterminated in the name of the earth mother (Werewolf). But you can hardly consider any of those views "pro-humanity".

RPGPundit

I always interpreted Mage this way:

• The Traditions keep arguing over who's right because, enlightened as they are, they're only human;
• The Technocracy is taking extreme steps to protect humanity from the things they see as dangerous, chaotic, decadent or destructive, because they're only human;
• Both have people's best interests in mind, but neither one can really be said to be right because they're trying too damned hard, which is not surprising because, well, they're only human.
  

Pundit, I really, really don't get this "reg'lar folks are chattel" vibe that you got.  "Reg'lar folk don't get it and really need to no matter what" is more like it, as I read it.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell yes, a game that treats regular humanity as peasantry to be put into your service (Mage) is slightly better I'll admit than a game that treats humanity as food (Vampire) or as a pest to be exterminated in the name of the earth mother (Werewolf). But you can hardly consider any of those views "pro-humanity".

I don't get where Mages want to enslave humanity - maybe the Technocracy - so I think your reading of this particular game is dodgy maybe because of your hate for WW games. So yeah it's definitely a pro-humanity game/setting.

Regards,
David R

Furthermore, consider Mage's Sons of Ether.  What were their dreams for humanity's ascendance?

Jetpacks.  Jetpacks, for everyone.

How is that anti-human?

You really do break the coolometer, Doc

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPunditWell yes, a game that treats regular humanity as peasantry to be put into your service (Mage) is slightly better I'll admit than a game that treats humanity as food (Vampire) or as a pest to be exterminated in the name of the earth mother (Werewolf). But you can hardly consider any of those views "pro-humanity".

You seem to be missing the point that magic(k) is the birthright of each and every human being. If all Avatars in the world awaken, there will be no more "peasants": everyone will be a mage and godhood will lie within everyone's grasp. That's one possible form of a global Ascension. It has nothing to do with some people being "smarter" than others.

Look, in Mage, the Technocracy keeps everyone in the dark, right? They control the average humans and maintain this illusion of "the normal world" to keep control of things.

But why do they do that? Because prior to that, you had the Traditions running things, and you had wonderful stuff like the Black Death and people dying of starvation everywhere and the mages not giving a shit in their ivory towers.

The Traditions are pissed off at the Technocracy now not because they want to "liberate" everyone, but because they're pissed off at no longer running the show anymore. Their idea of "guiding" mankind was one where humans cowered in fear in mud huts and millions died from minor infections or the flu, all so that hermetic sorcerers would be able to cast Lightning Bolt a little bit easier.

Of course, being a WW game, the book takes the sides of the elitist fuckers over that of the "evil technocrats" because we all know science is EVIL, right kiddies?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOf course, being a WW game, the book takes the sides of the elitist fuckers over that of the "evil technocrats" because we all know science is EVIL, right kiddies?

The Technocracy isn't the enemy because of the science that they use as a tool. They are the enemy because they are fascists. Originally they wanted to give the power to the common man, but then decided that the common man couldn't be trusted to govern his own life.

The Technocracy had their heads up their butts for sure, as did some of the Trads.  Idealists, all of them, if often misguided and thinking too hard.  But the real bad guys in Mage, as far as I was concerned, were the Nephandi -- they knew what they were doing was wrong, and they didn't care.

I'm pretty sure that Mage was, in its own text, described as a game about giving a damn.  You have this power now -- what are you going to do with it?

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I'm pretty sure that Mage was, in its own text, described as a game about giving a damn.  You have this power now -- what are you going to do with it?

"At its core, Mage is about giving a damn, about caring and believing in something so deeply that your beliefs can change reality." Yup: it's about the ultimate human potential, for good or ill, and the choices that you make. The same power that in different hands could make the world a better place can just as easily enslave and destroy. The game doesn't tell you what to do with it.

Oddsod's commentary on Mage:

QuoteMage is/was the worst for pretentious wannabe intellectuals, teenagers especially. Universities are the Pawns of the Technocracy, except when the professors (who are all saviors of the Real Intelligentsia, you know, instead of what they commonly are - liberal hippies who hide from reality on college campuses) excuse their classes full of bright-eyed Sleepers and Technocratic drones so that they can get on with teaching the REAL truths of Creation - discredited Victorian "science", Matrix-style computer hacking, Kwai Chang Kane Zen koans, and comic book occultism among other things. The writers neatly avoided the rigors of academia by claiming that all forms of academic regimentation, which are ridiculously scant in some fields already, were evil and Technocratic. Because y'know, there's also no tradition in history of people developing their own individual takes on things after spending a few years as a lab gopher or Greek chamberpot carrier or something. Christianity is basically the same as the universities - nothing the priest or reverend or whatever ever says at Mass is correct or good. It's only when the few priests who aren't Technocratic plants/brainwashed Sleepers/Inquisition agents/Nephandi kiddie rapers shut the doors and tell you all about the Sekrits Uv Da Lord that it's good for anything. All other organized religions are good Tradition religions, never mind that followers of every other organized religion on the planet have a history of being responsible for horrible atrocities. There have been wars conducted by supposedly devout Buddhists and Taoists, followers of possibly the most peaceful religions on the planet - yet that sort of thing never came up in the original Mage, because it would have detracted from the Pretentious Teenage Pseudo-Intellectual Hippie belief that all non-Christian religions are good and peaceful.

So if Mage is about "giving a damn", its only about that in the way fashionable college students "give a damn" about "social justice", la revolucion, etc etc. ad nauseum and think that by going on a couple of marches and bitching about McDonald's they're really making a difference, and should be patted on the back for caring about those fucking fuzzies down in latinamerica or africa or wherever the poor people are whose daddies can't pay for them to go to Oberlin.
Its fashionable upper-middle class college student elitist pretentious "giving a damn", not because you REALLY give a damn, but because pretending to really care about something gives you a chance to posture.

RPGPundit

Okay, I'm done talking to you about this, Pundit.

Good, that's one down.

RPGPundit

Think I'm accidentally on Pundit's side on this one. (Do we have to have sides?)

 When its slow at the store and I read through the World of Darkness stuff - ANY of it...its all pretty much "anti-Humanity" .

 C'mon!!  There must be more RPG books and settings out there that are PRO-Humans and Humanity.


- Ed C.

Conan!

OK, he's one exceptional human, but he is human.

Quote"A god," she whispered. "The Black people spoke of it -- a god from far away and long ago!"
"A devil from the Outer Dark," he grunted. "Oh, they're nothing uncommon. They lurk as thick as fleas outside the belt of light which surrounds this world. I've heard the wise men of Zamora talk of them. Some find their way to Earth, but when they do they have to take on some earthly form and flesh of some sort. A man like myself, with a sword, is a match for any amount of fangs and talons, infernal or terrestrial . . ."

Quote found in an article by G.W. Thomas (http://www.epberglund.com/RGttCM/nightscapes/NS08/ns8nf1.htm).

I'll second Gamma World and, if it hasn't already been mentioned, The Morrow Project.  While I've never played the latter what I have heard of it has always intrigued me and it's one of the few RPGs I still wish I'd picked up back in the day.

What about Space Opera and Star Frontiers?  Or how about the old Indiana Jones RPG?

Skull & Crossbones?  (It was a pirate game of adventure on the Spanish Main from FGU circa the 80s.)

Jorune. With it's three branches of Humanity, Pure strain humans, Boccord and Muadra, the game is fairly human centric. The fact that there are detailed "alien" races and cultures does not detract from the fact that humans are the defacto shapers of the planet's destiny....even though they are not indigenous to the planet.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: darConan!

OK, he's one exceptional human, but he is human.



Quote found in an article by G.W. Thomas (http://www.epberglund.com/RGttCM/nightscapes/NS08/ns8nf1.htm).

Having read the quote, I feel a mad desire for playing some Conan RIGHT NOW.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Cyberpunk, if you play it right.

Hate to drag you back into the conversation, Doc, but could you clarify that statement a little bit? How could Cyberpunk be played to be pro-humanity and how could it be played to be anti-humanity? Do you feel that Cybergeneration is a pro-humanity game and if so, why or why not?

Quote from: Kester PelagiusI'll second Gamma World and, if it hasn't already been mentioned, The Morrow Project.  While I've never played the latter what I have heard of it has always intrigued me and it's one of the few RPGs I still wish I'd picked up back in the day.

What about Space Opera and Star Frontiers?  Or how about the old Indiana Jones RPG?

Skull & Crossbones?  (It was a pirate game of adventure on the Spanish Main from FGU circa the 80s.)

I can't say anything about Indiana Jones or Skull & Crossbones because I've never read or played them. I'd say that Star Frontiers was neutral, because humans were just one of four "good guy" races.

Space Opera? I don't see how you could figure out kind of bias it had because it was so badly written to begin with. IMHO, the only thing good about any Space Opera product was the Jeff Dee artwork that it had.

Quote from: KoltarC'mon!!  There must be more RPG books and settings out there that are PRO-Humans and Humanity.

:confused:

Really, it seems to me that the more managable task is to tally up the games that are explicitly or implicitly "anti-human", and by that we have to clarify whether we mean either "lacking the means to control their own destiny", "serving as foils or chattel for the non-human or in-human main characters", or simply "not about humans".  

Most RPGs are just about people going out adventuring, some of whom may be non-human.  Some games, mostly appearing within the last 15 years, deal with humanity's secret lords or humanity's predators as player characters, and outside of WW's games there really aren't that many.  A relatively small handful of games deal purposefully and exclusively with non-humans, of which GURPS: Goblins is my personal favorite.

All that said, if you're looking for a game that focuses specifically on the human condition where humans are the singular be-all and end-all of the game, then my personal list is pretty short:

• Unknown Armies, where every bit of weirdness and juju out there derives solely from the human condition
  
• Transhuman Space, where, as weird as things get, you're either a human or made by a human, and the game specifically explores the question of human identity in a rapidly-evolving world

The egoist in me wants to list Mariner, too, which will be essentially Traveller with the aliens and space travel filed off.  It's gaming in the real world of here-and-now.  I was tempted to list Twilight: 2000 for almost the same reasons, but I ultimately find that game to be an exploration of the failures of humanity, even though it's all about the human condition and there's plenty of opportunity to rise above the failures.  I simply reject the premise as too pessimistic.

!i!

It's possible to read and play Mage as being in favour of ordinary people determining the course of their lives, but it is a counter-reading to much of the game.

My vote is for Heavy Gear. Almost every setting book had a short discussion of how to play non-military characters in mundane-but-exciting jobs. In the Badlands book for example, the chapter fiction features a trio of characters who run cargo and provide medical assistance to desert travelers (the world Heavy Gear is set on has a large equatorial desert).

I know I throw Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes around on these threads all the time, but it illustrates a salient point in the discussion. Characters emerging freshly from character generation are about as non-cinematic as any I've seen. Fist-fights aren't too bad, but weapons make combat very deadly, with no 'mook' rules or built-in advantage for the PCs. The characters are very human, at a normal human power level.

I love that. You can write very realistic adventures and know they'll be challenging. I had a PI character play two engaging, hysterical sessions trying to buy bullets for a an upcoming rendevous for which he wanted to be armed. No money; no bullets. It was sensational, but I wouldn't have put a player in that situation who couldn't take it.

I feel there are fewer and fewer players who can. I don't begrudge anyone the power-fantasy wish-fulfilment aspect of gaming--that's part of the fun. But the number of players for whom it's the only aspect that's fun seems to be increasing. I don't know if that's caused by poor adventure design, poor GMing for low-power characters, or just a long-term change in what players expect.

Quote from: jeff37923Hate to drag you back into the conversation, Doc, but could you clarify that statement a little bit? How could Cyberpunk be played to be pro-humanity and how could it be played to be anti-humanity? Do you feel that Cybergeneration is a pro-humanity game and if so, why or why not?

I dunno, is Pundit gonna argue with me on THAT, too?

I don't care enough about cyberpunk to argue about it.  And I can see how the game could be interpreted either way; it certainly doesn't have an anti-human bias IMO, very few games actually do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jeff37923Hate to drag you back into the conversation, Doc, but could you clarify that statement a little bit? How could Cyberpunk be played to be pro-humanity and how could it be played to be anti-humanity? Do you feel that Cybergeneration is a pro-humanity game and if so, why or why not?

Yeah.  I'm only going off a hazy memory of Cyberpunk 2020, but I don't remember anything pro-human about it.  Maybe the writeup for the Policeman character template, but that's about it.  CP2020 doesn't have the Human+ PC's are above the human rabble though.

Cyberpunk as a genre, I can agree with though.  Again my hazy memory of Snow Crash tells me this.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Furthermore, consider Mage's Sons of Ether.  What were their dreams for humanity's ascendance?

Jetpacks.  Jetpacks, for everyone.

How is that anti-human?

Mutherfucking jetpacks! :: pumps fist ::

As a basic mechanic of the game, the more cybered-up you get, the less human you become, and there is an increasing chance that you will quite simply lose any sense of human morality, having essentially become a mechanical psychopath.  

The game places definite interest in understanding the nature of what it means to be human, not only mechanically with the cyberpsychosis stuff, but even the example fiction is essentially an SF treatment of the concept of the soul.

Quote from: RPGPunditOddsod's commentary on Mage:

Well, shit. If Oddsod said it, it must be true. I guess the arguments over! Oddsod weighed in against it!

Quote from: Thanatos02Well, shit. If Oddsod said it, it must be true. I guess the arguments over! Oddsod weighed in against it!

Excellent. I'm glad you agree.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit...it certainly doesn't have an anti-human bias IMO, very few games actually do.

I'm pleased that you agree with me.  One down.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditExcellent. I'm glad you agree.

RPGPundit

Actually, Oddsod has some good points. Also, if you have a real beef with post-modernism and deconstruction, I can imagine the furor over Mage. I think I made a statement about some of the racism in the WW lines, as well.

But, I'd argue that it wants to be humanist and succeeds. The rest of that shit is another issue.

Quote from: MoriartyCyberpunk as a genre, I can agree with though.  Again my hazy memory of Snow Crash tells me this.

Yeah, I meant the genre moreso than anything.

Here's my thing about cyberpunk: despite all the guns and the cyberware and the internet and the cool hairdos, the genre really, really, REALLY points up the human condition: to me, it has always been about what defines us as humans, from our foibles and our instincts up to our morals and our dreams.  Gibson's stuff, f'r'ex, really plays that up; "Burning Chrome" spends a good amount of energy talking about how Bobby is always looking for a girl to be his inspiration, and about how Jack feels for Rikki, and what he does for her after they burn chrome down.  His stuff always tasted of sweat and tears and perfume and the smell of new electronics right out of the styrofoam, and about who was there and what they wanted and what was wrong with them and what they did about it.  Visceral, but still...ethical.

That, however, is hard to game.  Guns, drugs chases and gadgets are easier to plot for, so...that gets done most often.  I'm not saying it's bad; I'm not saying that at all.  But I think the genre has a lot of potential to act as a lens under which to examine ourselves, as most SF can, and it's a potential that is often unrealized at the table by necessity.

EDIT: Pundit, yeah, you won the argument.  Whee!  Go you, or something.  The fact that my time's better wasted on other stuff need not tarnish your trophy.

Quote from: jeff37923I can't say anything about Indiana Jones or Skull & Crossbones because I've never read or played them. I'd say that Star Frontiers was neutral, because humans were just one of four "good guy" races.

I don't really recall the Indiana Jones game that well myself, aside from the color coded chart (or was that Boot Hill?) but Skull & Crossbones was a very barebones RPG set aboard (most of the time) a pirate ship with a, largely, democratic crew.  The players had to work together, or at least cooperate, othewise their crew and ship would end up on the bottom of Davey Jone's locker.

Quote from: jeff37923Space Opera? I don't see how you could figure out kind of bias it had because it was so badly written to begin with. IMHO, the only thing good about any Space Opera product was the Jeff Dee artwork that it had.

I've always heard good things about Space Opera, granted that was years ago, but didn't it have a human-centric game universe?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaReally, it seems to me that the more managable task is to tally up the games that are explicitly or implicitly "anti-human", and by that we have to clarify whether we mean either "lacking the means to control their own destiny", "serving as foils or chattel for the non-human or in-human main characters", or simply "not about humans".

What about the original D&D games with their arbitrary level advancement limits on non-human characters?  The rules more or less stacked the deck in the favor of human characters.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaMost RPGs are just about people going out adventuring, some of whom may be non-human.  Some games, mostly appearing within the last 15 years, deal with humanity's secret lords or humanity's predators as player characters, and outside of WW's games there really aren't that many.  A relatively small handful of games deal purposefully and exclusively with non-humans, of which GURPS: Goblins is my personal favorite.

There's also been a few furry games.  And, of course, a few space opera games invert the usual human empire model in favor of a universe where humans are barely second class citizens; Nebuleon, for instance, actually refers to humans as galactic "cockroaches".

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAll that said, if you're looking for a game that focuses specifically on the human condition where humans are the singular be-all and end-all of the game, then my personal list is pretty short:

• Unknown Armies, where every bit of weirdness and juju out there derives solely from the human condition.

What about super hero games?  Wouldn't those be the perfect example?

A close second would have to be the old cold war era espionage games.

Quote from: RPGPunditit certainly doesn't have an anti-human bias IMO, very few games actually do.

Right, just the ones you have a frothing, irrational hatred for.

Quote from: BrantaiRight, just the ones you have a frothing, irrational hatred for.

All of my hatreds are entirely rational.  But of the games I have a frothing hatred for, there are quite a few that are in no way anti-humanity. They just suck for other reasons.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kester PelagiusI've always heard good things about Space Opera, granted that was years ago, but didn't it have a human-centric game universe?

The game universe wasn't humanocentric, but several interstellar governments were comprised entirely of aliens (usually set-up in the good guy aliens or bad guy aliens template).

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I dunno, is Pundit gonna argue with me on THAT, too?

I hope not.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!That, however, is hard to game.  Guns, drugs chases and gadgets are easier to plot for, so...that gets done most often.  I'm not saying it's bad; I'm not saying that at all.  But I think the genre has a lot of potential to act as a lens under which to examine ourselves, as most SF can, and it's a potential that is often unrealized at the table by necessity.

This is why I wanted to get your input on the subject.

I agree that Cyberpunk 2020 could be either pro- or anti- humanity based on how it was played. Apparently, based on the introduction to Cybergeneration written by Mike Pondsmith and the writers at R. Talsorian Games, they also agreed with Dr Rotwang!

In the introduction to Cybergeneration, the creators bemoaned what they saw in the players of their game of Cyberpunk at conventions. The typical player had munchkinised their character to the point where the PC was nothing more than a well-financed, well-connected, corporate killing machine with just enough cybernetics grafted on to keep him on the edge of cyberpsychosis (without going over, of course). They believed that this was the "edge" (anti-humanity), but not the "street" (pro-humanity) that they wanted to bring to players. So they produced a game set in the same Cyberpunk universe, but with limitations on PCs so that a more pro-humanity and role-playing approach could be taken.

Actually, any of my games, except Blood Games and Book of Jalan, and you can play perfectly normal people in them too, as viable characters, if you want - even if everyone else is playing Splorg the Vampire Killer.

-clash

Oh yeah, I forgot one:
   Promethean: The Created

You may not start out human, but it's the only WW game where coming closer to humanity is the goal. And if anything says "Yay Humanity!" to me, it's that.

*steps up to the mic*

Legend of the Five Rings, which holds as the greatest teaching of its in-setting spiritual master "a mortal soul is a power that can change the universe".

I'm sure the fact there's an Emperor and peasants means it doesn't qualify, though, sharing its anti-human bias with history.

That's silly, Christmas Ape. Everyone knows peasents arn't people.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerOh yeah, I forgot one:
   Promethean: The Created

You may not start out human, but it's the only WW game where coming closer to humanity is the goal. And if anything says "Yay Humanity!" to me, it's that.

 That must be the one possible exception to that company's whole default universe.

 I was bored one day the first week that PROMETHEAN appeared. That opening obligatory story was an alright read . Don't know how in  the hell you can get that to work in group roleplay tho.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarThat must be the one possible exception to that company's whole default universe.

Eh, apart from the fact that the nWoD corebook is dedicated solely to playing mortals, mages are also human, and reclaiming your old life is going to be a major theme in Changeling.

Quote from: Thanatos02That's silly, Christmas Ape. Everyone knows peasents arn't people.

You're thinking of eta. :D

Quote from: Christmas ApeYou're thinking of eta. :D

I'm thinking of voters!

Naw, I'm playing.

I think Trinity is a good example of a humanistic game (and Aberrant to a lesser degree).  The psionic orders and Aeon Trinity seek to help the common man (or at least they say they do).  Novas/Aberrants got out of control, but psions are not as powerful, so they have to work with other psions to defeat Aberrants/perform "miracles" for the populace, etc.  It's been discovered (by very few) that the Doyen (alien benefactors of the psionic orders) had been mentally affecting the earth's populace to go along with the psionic orders and basically to hold them as heroes (pretty much no matter what they did).  I doubt any but the highest echelons of the psionic orders knew about this alien help.  The regular "blue-collar" members of the Orders sincerely believe that they are doing what is best for the world through their working in the Orders.  That's pretty noble.  That's pretty humanistic to a degree.

I'll second what some others have pointed out.

The new World of Darkness core game is concerned with mortal investigators encountering and dealing with supernatural conspiracies and occult threats to humanity. The core game assumes that these folks don't have any extraordinary powers themselves (though subsequent products allow for that option).

Mage: The Awakening posits that spiritual enlightenment is, at least in theory, the birthright of all humans.

Promethean: The Created is about artificial constructs that want more than anything to be regular humans, a prize for which they are all too happy to trade their supernatural powers.

The upcoming Changeling: The Lost is about regular folk who would like very much to get back to their old lives from before they were abducted by otherworldly beings, but that normal life has been stolen away and can't be returned to so easily.

Actually, despite their similarity, core WoD is far more pro-humanity than CoC. True to its source material, the latter assumes that human civilization and all its achievements are ultimately meaningless and don't amount to a dust mote in a cosmos of tentacled gods and alien races. It's Nihilism: The Inevitable. It's fun and all, but long-term games really start to wear on you.

I'm also unconvinced about L5R, since the default player types assume samurai-caste and therefore some sort of divine ancestry (to justify why you're lording it over the serfs and the untouchables). If you're playing the Kolat, then there's definitely a pro-humanity stance, but they're traditionally portrayed as villains in the core game.

WFRP, on the other hand, is a good example. It hardly paints a beautiful picture of humanity, but they're no worse than any other race. And the career system really drives home the "average guys going on adventures" theme, since you can start as a rat-catcher or bone-picker or a nobody apprentice. In fact, you don't really have much of a choice in the matter, but by adventuring you have the chance to take your life into your own hands to some extent.

Quote from: Black FlagMage: The Awakening posits that spiritual enlightenment is, at least in theory, the birthright of all humans.

That's no different from Mage: The Ascension, though: the Avatar within any human being could awaken, and it was the principle of the Traditions that all were entitled to enlightenment.

Quote from: GrimGentThat's no different from Mage: The Ascension, though: the Avatar within any human being could awaken, and it was the principle of the Traditions that all were entitled to enlightenment.

But Flag didn't like consensual reality.

Quote from: Thanatos02But Flag didn't like consensual reality.

...Which at least in the context of this thread is slightly oddish, since that consensual reality is precisely what made the setting of old Mage anthropocentric. The universe literally revolved around humanity.

Quote from: teckno72I think Trinity is a good example of a humanistic game (and Aberrant to a lesser degree).  The psionic orders and Aeon Trinity seek to help the common man (or at least they say they do).  Novas/Aberrants got out of control, but psions are not as powerful, so they have to work with other psions to defeat Aberrants/perform "miracles" for the populace, etc.  It's been discovered (by very few) that the Doyen (alien benefactors of the psionic orders) had been mentally affecting the earth's populace to go along with the psionic orders and basically to hold them as heroes (pretty much no matter what they did).  I doubt any but the highest echelons of the psionic orders knew about this alien help.  The regular "blue-collar" members of the Orders sincerely believe that they are doing what is best for the world through their working in the Orders.  That's pretty noble.  That's pretty humanistic to a degree.

Well, Aberrant isn't about playing normal humans, but it at least put some focus on the issues about how novas treat and interact with normal humans.  

I would say that it isn't humanistic, though, in the sense that it leaves this open.  It's pretty easy to run a game which is patronizing of humanity -- i.e. where Team Tomorrow knows what is best for humanity and their problem was just corruption within the ranks (as opposed to a basic flaw in their approach).  Then again, this is true of a lot of games.  Whether the PCs are superheroes or adventurers, they are the elite who protect the masses but are not subject to them.  

In my opinion, the view in Aberrant is slightly biased against a human empowering view.  The Teragen separatists are shown as monsters who have only a glimmer of justification, while Team Tomorrow are the flawed but great heroes.

Quote from: GrimGent...Which at least in the context of this thread is slightly oddish, since that consensual reality is precisely what made the setting of old Mage anthropocentric. The universe literally revolved around humanity.

It might be odd in the context of the thread but, not to put words in Black Flag's mouth, this particular issue seems to be one of personal preferance and not (specifically) if the game is humanocentric or not.

Question for the general populace: is it better for a game to be humanocentric then not? Is it bad for it to not be humanocentric? Is there anything inherantly good about humans? Or, is the degree a game is or is not preoccupied with humanocentrism ethically and morally neutral?

Quote from: Thanatos02Question for the general populace: is it better for a game to be humanocentric then not? Is it bad for it to not be humanocentric? Is there anything inherantly good about humans? Or, is the degree a game is or is not preoccupied with humanocentrism ethically and morally neutral?

I normally couldn't give two shits about the humanocentricism (or lack thereof) of a game.  It just doesn't register to me as important when selecting a game to play, or if it does it must be on a highly unconscious level.  I'll venture out on a limb and say that from my observation most of my extended gaming group (that is, gamers who don't hang out on the internet) don't really examine that aspect of a potential game, either.

Then how do you tell if they're humanity hating Swine or not?

Quote from: Thanatos02Then how do you tell if they're humanity hating Swine or not?

If they're people I associate with, I just assume they probably are. :D

There was a science fiction story that I remember reading  years ago that touched on this topic.

 It was probably written in the late 60s or early 1970s, but set a decade or so later.
A group of aliens land on Earth in their spacecraft. Everyone gets all excited - because they are peaceful pleasant and quite willing to be friends with humanity. The aliens ask to look over the history records of mankind and seem quite fascinated by it all.
 They negotiate a trade trewaty and an embassy ....then a contest is had for humans to travel back to the homeworld of the aliens.  Six or seven people win or are chosen.

 After a long journey they arrive at the home planet of the Aliens. One of the people from Earth says that  "Mankind also has many problems, and even lived with the threat of self-annilhation because of nuclear weapons for 40 or 50 years...but thankfully we didn't pull that trigger"

 The lead Alien pauses when the man said that, then shows the human a view of the planet they are approaching.
Their home planet is scarred by many creaters...the atmosphere looks polluted, the seas are the wrong color ...the ruins of dozens of major cities can be seen.

 The leader Alien then says : "We didn't manage your success. Could you please teach us how to do better?"

 I wish I remembered the name of the story. It might have been in F&SF or ANALOG . It was less than 10 pages in length.

 Imagine putting a role playing game in that setting. Humans given the gift of intersteller travel - as long as they teach another race whar humans have done RIGHT  compared to them.

- Ed C.

Quote from: BrantaiIf they're people I associate with, I just assume they probably are. :D

I knew you'd say that.

Seriously. It's creepy.

Quote from: Thanatos02I knew you'd say that.

Seriously. It's creepy.

Wouldn't be the first time, almost certainly won't be the last.  Just keep an eye on me in case I decide to kill you and steal your life. (http://ninjor.servebeer.com/files/image/emot-awesome.gif)

Dungeons & Dragons: A meritocracy where humans can go kick some orcish ass.

WHFRP: This game is a little too grim to be "yay, humanity!", but you can be a regular joe, and make a difference.

d20 Iron Lords of Jupiter: You can be a regular human if you want, in this mini-game of exciting, pulpy goodness.

Quote from: BrantaiWouldn't be the first time, almost certainly won't be the last.  Just keep an eye on me in case I decide to kill you and steal your life. (http://ninjor.servebeer.com/files/image/emot-awesome.gif)

Heh. The joke would be on you, wouldn't it?

Quote from: KoltarHumans given the gift of intersteller travel - as long as they teach another race whar humans have done RIGHT  compared to them.

- Ed C.

(http://sushinow.com/pics/guidepics/Sushi-Plate5.jpg)

(http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Ghostbusters-Photograph-C10102485.jpeg)

(http://www.phoebe-cates.e-znane.pl/zdjecia/phoebe-cates.jpg)

Quote from: Thanatos02It might be odd in the context of the thread but, not to put words in Black Flag's mouth, this particular issue seems to be one of personal preferance and not (specifically) if the game is humanocentric or not.

Question for the general populace: is it better for a game to be humanocentric then not? Is it bad for it to not be humanocentric? Is there anything inherantly good about humans? Or, is the degree a game is or is not preoccupied with humanocentrism ethically and morally neutral?

Yeah, Mr 2nd Death has it right. I agree that "old Mage" probably does fit the criteria; I just choose to believe it never existed, so it's not part of my paradigm.

As far as the question goes, it's really a non-issue. All games deal with human concerns from a human perspective, since they're written by humans, and all fantasy races are really aspects of humanity. Even games in which humans are powerless weaklings lorded over by supernatural beings are really about the all-too-human desire for power, etc. Games that have humans as the default protagonists are just being more upfront about dealing with human issues and avoid couching them in terms of "elves" or "vampires." On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with exploring humanity via the medium of elves, etc. And part of the fun of fantasy is trying to wrap your mind around alien cultures and ways of thinking, which can't be a bad thing.

What concerns me is not whether the game is "humanocentric" but rather what sorts of power structures it presents and how critical it is of those structures. I can't relate to games that are fundamentally monarchist, for example, or that depict other sorts of elitism as "good" or "natural." A setting based on medieval Romance (i.e. ruling-class propaganda literature) often portrays a "good" king whose rule, with the help of his valiant knights, stabilizes the land and results in peace, prosperity, and happy peasants. The PCs might step in to avert a threat to the king's rule, or at most depose a "bad" king in order to replace him with a "good" one. Monarchism is assumed insofar as the "good" king isn't portrayed as a dictator supported by a group of armed thugs (as in real life).

This is anti-humanist in the sense that humanity as a whole is assumed to be a herd of sheep who require a (possibly divinely-appointed) lord to rule over them and guide them to prosperity. It's based in turn on medieval Christianity and the concept of "divine right," following from the belief in cosmic monarchy. It's true to medieval literary sources and to right-wing reactionaries like Tolkein, but it's impossible for me to swallow unless it's being subverted somehow, which WFRP for example does admirably by obviously showing the propaganda for what it is. In fact, WFRP is a prime example of how to present a medieval setting without endorsing medieval values.

In short, the more a game takes medieval propaganda seriously, the more anti-humanist it's bound to be. Humanism was, after all, a reaction against medieval values as embodied in feudalism and contemporary Christianity.

Quote from: Black FlagWhat concerns me is not whether the game is "humanocentric" but rather what sorts of power structures it presents and how critical it is of those structures.

...

Let me guess - second year Arts?

As you get older, you learn that not quite everything is political. You can just have fun with games and other entertainment, and save the political passion for things that actually matter. You are not going to change the world by roleplaying in your version of utopia, while avoiding roleplaying in your version of dystopias. Also, without setting aside your politics, by roleplaying in other sorts of worlds, and doing your best as a GM to present them as reasonable and "natural", or as a player to live in them as "natural", you come to understand how people could live that way - you as a political person then come to "know your enemy", which is required to be able to defeat him. You cannot change anything for the better - whatever your version of "the better" - without understanding it.  

In this way, you come to understand humanity better. To me, that's one of the fun things about roleplaying. It's not my main reason for doing it, but it's a small part of it, exploring human experiences in different cultures and environments. "What would I do?" and "What would this guy do?" That's an interesting and fun thing. Part of that experience will be playing as a member of a culture whose values I don't always agree with.

QuoteAs you get older, you learn that not quite everything is political.

I don't know if this is a criticism or a suggested amendment to the phrasing, but I would say the critical insight is more that being political is not the same as being politically important. It isn't that you can't find politics in everything from pottery to pronouns. You certainly can, but finding the politics in such things is nowhere near as politically effective as voting, protesting (sometimes, sometimes that's about as effective as praying for a change of policy) or networking directly with those in power. Finding the politics in the seemingly apolitical can be a very interesting (academic) exercise, but that in itself isn't effective politics.

As to the suggestion that exploring a fantasy world that doesn't jibe with one's politics can be fun and enlightening, that I would agree with, definitely. But if BF can't relate to monarchy, then so be it. No, the world won't be changed because of some pro-humanizerating-anti-monarcho-fantasarian manifesto, but it makes as much sense as any aesthetic preference.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!EDIT: Pundit, yeah, you won the argument.  Whee!  Go you, or something.  The fact that my time's better wasted on other stuff need not tarnish your trophy.

No Doc you won the intellegence test and just gave up and said "whatever".  Thus proving you realized that trying to talk rationally to the Mirror-Ron is a lost cause.

You know what ?

 Being "Pro-humanity" isn't a political thing.
Its a self-prservation and helping your fellow man(woman) thing too.

 Black Flag, lighten up a little - and about 60% of what JimBob said too

- Ed Charlton

Quote from: peteramthorNo Doc you won the intellegence test and just gave up and said "whatever".  Thus proving you realized that trying to talk rationally to the Mirror-Ron is a lost cause.

I'm glad I'm not alone in this sentiment.

Quote from: Black FlagYeah, Mr 2nd Death has it right. I agree that "old Mage" probably does fit the criteria; I just choose to believe it never existed, so it's not part of my paradigm.

As far as the question goes, it's really a non-issue. All games deal with human concerns from a human perspective, since they're written by humans, and all fantasy races are really aspects of humanity. Even games in which humans are powerless weaklings lorded over by supernatural beings are really about the all-too-human desire for power, etc. Games that have humans as the default protagonists are just being more upfront about dealing with human issues and avoid couching them in terms of "elves" or "vampires." On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with exploring humanity via the medium of elves, etc. And part of the fun of fantasy is trying to wrap your mind around alien cultures and ways of thinking, which can't be a bad thing.

What concerns me is not whether the game is "humanocentric" but rather what sorts of power structures it presents and how critical it is of those structures. I can't relate to games that are fundamentally monarchist, for example, or that depict other sorts of elitism as "good" or "natural." A setting based on medieval Romance (i.e. ruling-class propaganda literature) often portrays a "good" king whose rule, with the help of his valiant knights, stabilizes the land and results in peace, prosperity, and happy peasants. The PCs might step in to avert a threat to the king's rule, or at most depose a "bad" king in order to replace him with a "good" one. Monarchism is assumed insofar as the "good" king isn't portrayed as a dictator supported by a group of armed thugs (as in real life).

This is anti-humanist in the sense that humanity as a whole is assumed to be a herd of sheep who require a (possibly divinely-appointed) lord to rule over them and guide them to prosperity. It's based in turn on medieval Christianity and the concept of "divine right," following from the belief in cosmic monarchy. It's true to medieval literary sources and to right-wing reactionaries like Tolkein, but it's impossible for me to swallow unless it's being subverted somehow, which WFRP for example does admirably by obviously showing the propaganda for what it is. In fact, WFRP is a prime example of how to present a medieval setting without endorsing medieval values.

In short, the more a game takes medieval propaganda seriously, the more anti-humanist it's bound to be. Humanism was, after all, a reaction against medieval values as embodied in feudalism and contemporary Christianity.

You're thinking too much about this. Take a break. Play for a bit, kill something and take its stuff. Get back in touch with the fun of gaming.

I completely agree that playing in a dystopian setting makes for a good game. If anything, it ought to make for a much better game than one set in a utopia (if such a thing can even be imagined), since conflict is a prerequisite for any good story. And for the record, I'm happy to play and run games in which monarchy is commonplace (along with a host of other unfavorable social structures). But that's not at all what I was talking about.

I was referring to a particular type of whitewashed pseudo-medievalism that derives from unquestioningly mimicking a particular literary genre whose agenda was essentially anti-humanist. It's one thing to be upfront about the anti-humanist bias inherent in one's literary sources--such as in Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon, for example, which are both closely based on their particular literary genres. WFRP, as I mentioned, brilliantly subverts its source material through satire and hyperbole (?). But to altogether avoid mentioning the elephant in the corner is asking too much, and my suspension of disbelief only stretches so far (which necessarily correlates to my enjoyment). And that's what I was talking about.

I don't recall saying anything about "changing the world through roleplaying" or any other such nonsense. But yes, politics is an inextricable part of this discussion. Fantasy worlds have political assumptions built into them, and those impact the applicability of the humanist/anti-humanist labels. The "lighten up, it's just a game" criticism can just as easily be leveled at this whole thread. After all, what does it matter if a game is pro-humanity or not, as long as it's fun? But I do think it's valuable and interesting to examine things often taken for granted, so here I am.

And JimBob, you say a lot of good things, but just because somebody holds radically different views from you, it doesn't automatically make them ignorant, naive, or uninformed. There are crusty, old radicals out there, too! :cool:

NO it doesn't .

 Just wanted to talk about "PRO-Humanity" settings . Sci-Fi or otherwise.

 Thats not nessecarily political.

 Never has to be.

 And so far , Rotwang has one of the best posts on here.

- Ed C.

It's a good rule of thumb that if someone holds the opinion that thinking about something makes it less fun, they're usually a fucking idiot.

Blackflag> JimBob is on the right track here. Openness is a virtue. Being able to understand another world through critical sympathy is the basis of all relations unconditioned by violence. RPGs can, amongst other things, provide us with a kind of practice at doing that - playing characters in historical periods or other worlds is one simple way of learning to attune one's self to another set of meanings.

As for politics, it's important to remember that the personal is political. Engaging with the politics of a game doesn't mean just criticising the political and religious institutions it has within it, but thinking through the totality of relations that go on in it. Just because your characters in D&D work for the "commune" instead of the "king" doesn't mean the game is any less about killing things and taking their stuff to accumulate superhuman powers.

Quote from: jeff37923You're thinking too much about this. Take a break. Play for a bit, kill something and take its stuff. Get back in touch with the fun of gaming.

I appreciate your sentiment, but did you consider that maybe thinking about these things is a source of fun for me? I know this is probably heresy around here, but I don't see fantasy games as purely escapist, as just a way to veg out and turn the brain off. I see it rather as a stimulating activity that allows me to explore ideas and let my imagination roam without the barriers of realism to tie it down. But fantasy worlds have their own rules, and so naturally I'm interested in the structure of those worlds and their rules and how to relate to them. I'm interested in how characters act when given a certain set of circumstances (which might be very different from ours in the real world). I don't give a fig about gaming theory, so I'm not sure how to describe it. But it definitely is about fun. Just maybe not the same sort as yours.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!(http://www.phoebe-cates.e-znane.pl/zdjecia/phoebe-cates.jpg)

Part of the reason that Dr. Rotwang has one of the best posts.
Women. Smiling , Cheerfulness...infectious goofiness.

 Loo, RPG settings aren't ONLY the "fantasy" kind of thing.  "BABYLON 5", "STAR TREK", The Asimov FOUNDATION books, the "Verse of "Firefly"/SERENITY can all be good RPG background settings.

 One of the best lines over the course of the BABYLON 5 TV series was when Delenn said something about humans creating communities wherever they go . Apparently that made them a bit different or unique among the many races portrayed on the show.

 Are there any pure written-for RPG setting that also have that unbridled cheerfulness optimism for Humans as good guys or better than they realize that they are?


- Ed C.

Quote from: Black FlagI appreciate your sentiment, but did you consider that maybe thinking about these things is a source of fun for me? I know this is probably heresy around here, but I don't see fantasy games as purely escapist, as just a way to veg out and turn the brain off. I see it rather as a stimulating activity that allows me to explore ideas and let my imagination roam without the barriers of realism to tie it down. But fantasy worlds have their own rules, and so naturally I'm interested in the structure of those worlds and their rules and how to relate to them. I'm interested in how characters act when given a certain set of circumstances (which might be very different from ours in the real world). I don't give a fig about gaming theory, so I'm not sure how to describe it. But it definitely is about fun. Just maybe not the same sort as yours.

Tell me if I'm grokking where you're coming from. The fun you derive from gaming lies in examining the structure of the game universe and how the rules interact with that structure and also in how the characters interact with the structure as it plays out. Am I correct? If so, it looks like the thing you enjoy most about a RPG is observing and understanding the process of one being played more than playing one.

I jump on this thread a bit late, but I think that most games that I know are very pro - humanity. Even some oWoD products, and obviously the current WoD line which is targeted to play with normal people. I don't see where does Koltar get the anti - humanity feeling from the WoD stuff (note: not Vampire or Werewolf stuff, I mean WoD stuff, the blue books).

I've never perceived that these type of games were a minority. On the contrary.

And, to put a good example, take RQ Vikings. There is nothing more human tha human raiders raiding another human people, and kicking the supernatural butt all along Europe.

It's the picture one, right?

Sorry? :confused:

Quote from: KoltarAre there any pure written-for RPG setting that also have that unbridled cheerfulness optimism for Humans as good guys or better than they realize that they are?

"Cheerful optimism"...nah...but "better than they realize that they are", Tribe 8 and Mage are two that comes to mind.

Regards,
David R

QuoteOriginally Posted by Koltar
Are there any pure written-for RPG setting that also have that unbridled cheerfulness optimism for Humans as good guys or better than they realize that they are?

I've been clamoring for a totally non-ironic hardcore Soviet scifi RPG for the longest time now.

"Soviet scifi"?  Please to explain, comrade.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia"Soviet scifi"?  Please to explain, comrade.

!i!

What's this, comrade? You haven't heard of Boris Arvatov? Author of "Red Star"? Co-founder of the Proletkult movement that was suppressed by The Party for being too "leftist"/"workerist"? Report to the re-education camps.

I tried to find some images to show what the gameworld of Red Star would look like, but my google fu fails me. It would look like the most far-out Soviet Constructivist architectural fantasies / exhibition design. Concept art by the Vesnin brothers, by Leonidov and Sokolov, El Lissitzky's Pressa show, Tatlin's Monument to the Third International...

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Cyberpunk, if you play it right.

Mirrorshades aren't human, Doc.

Quote from: KoltarLets flip the question of that other thread .

 Can anyone think of RPGs or works of ffiction that are easily made into RPG situations wherein average normal folks have adventures? Or even better game settings that seeme to celebrate the possible potential of Humans and humnanity?
- Ed C.

It seems to me that these are two very different things--that is, there seem to be a fair number of games about human potential where the p.c.s are not normal people.  I don't want to get into an argument about whether Mage is pro-human or not, but its p.c.s are not average Joes or Janes.

I'm glad to see that Imperator mentioned Runequest Vikings above.  Really, the whole Runequest III Fantasy Earth setting would fit here fairly well, as default p.c.s would start out as fairly normal folks.  So would older games like Privateers and Gentlemen, Bushido, and Flashing Blades--though all of the latter could have class issues, if you want to make them issues.  Warlords of Alexander and Zenobia would fit too, I think.

Quote from: Black FlagThis is anti-humanist in the sense that humanity as a whole is assumed to be a herd of sheep who require a (possibly divinely-appointed) lord to rule over them and guide them to prosperity. It's based in turn on medieval Christianity and the concept of "divine right," following from the belief in cosmic monarchy. It's true to medieval literary sources and to right-wing reactionaries like Tolkein, but it's impossible for me to swallow unless it's being subverted somehow, which WFRP for example does admirably by obviously showing the propaganda for what it is. In fact, WFRP is a prime example of how to present a medieval setting without endorsing medieval values.

Well, fair enough.  IRL I have no love for monarchy.  But the link proposed here between humanism and democracy is pretty tenuous.  Humanism can be, and historically was, for the most part, extraordinarily elitist.  While deeply interested in individuals, humanists of the Renaissance were for the most part very dismissive of the masses.  Just think of two archetypal humanist treatises on rule--Machiavelli's Prince and Erasmus's Education of a Christian Prince.  Both are deeply monarchist and Machiavelli in particular has a very jaundiced view of ordinary people--he really does see them as sheep. Even the sort of 'civic humanism' posited by Hans Baron is really about political participation by the urban patriciate, who can have the requisite classical education--it does not imply anything approaching mass democracy.  That can more easily be found in medieval communes of the 12th century.

Also, there is nothing particularly medieval about ideas of monarchy.  The concept of divine-right monarchy is much stronger in Early Modern Europe than in medieval.  Arguably, it's also stronger in the Later Roman Empire as well.  Certainly autocratic kingship can be found in Ancient Near Eastern empires like the Assyrian, or in China for much of its history.  Really, monarchy--and the ideas of a natural social hierarchy--are very common in many cultures before the last couple of centuries.  So if you want settings without them, you are turning your back on quite a lot of possibilities.

Quote from: Black FlagIn short, the more a game takes medieval propaganda seriously, the more anti-humanist it's bound to be. Humanism was, after all, a reaction against medieval values as embodied in feudalism and contemporary Christianity.

Sorry, just can't swallow this.  Most anglophone historians now tend to the idea that there was no such thing in medieval Europe as 'feudalism'--it is an imaginary construct of the 18th century and later projected back on the medieval past.  Further, the core of Renaissance humanism wasn't a reaction against medieval values; it was the championing of the studia humanitatis, the humanities.  Like most programs of education, this was very elitist (as noted above) and entirely compatible with deep interest in Christianity (as in Erasmus).

"RED STAR" ??

 Isn't that an OGL or D20 compatible setting book ?

 We had it on the shelves at the store for awhile - but I don't remember anyone buying it.

- Ed C.

Quote from: FritzefWhile deeply interested in individuals, humanists of the Renaissance were for the most part very dismissive of the masses.  Just think of two archetypal humanist treatises on rule--Machiavelli's Prince [...] has a very jaundiced view of ordinary people--he really does see them as sheep.

If you have a look at his Discourses, which you can download in txt format here (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10827), or read online here (http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm), you'll find that he's actually very much in favour of the common person. It's simply that he says that in a state which is corrupted, it will inevitably be a principality, while a state which is uncorrupted, it'll inevitably be a republic. That is, when the people care only about wealth, and have no respect for the laws, then rule can only be by a strong individual; when the people value poverty, and respect the laws, then rule will be by the people. You see from this text that in general he favours the republican form of government, but also that he regards most of the states of his day as corrupt. Discourses, which is all about republics, is also much longer than Prince, which is a pretty telling note of where his interests and sympathies lay.

Looking at that, and also his personal history, what you see is that he wrote The Prince as a job application, and also as a pragmatic realisation of the stark reality - it was hopeless trying to get the people to be free, because they were corrupt and didn't care about freedom, so the only thing to do was to hope for a wise prince to rule them well despite their corruption.

He also never once spoke in favour of the divine right of kings, nor of hereditary monarchy, noting that the odds were not good of having everyone who inherited the position being that good. Rather he was in favour of princes who ruled well, and came to their position by their own virtue. But he was more in favour still of republics, where there'd be so many people able to take positions you'd be sure of getting some good ones. So for example he spoke of the war between Hannibal and Rome, noting that in the beginning Rome needed to hedge and delay, and later to go on the offensive; one Fabius favoured delay, while one Scipio favoured attacking. Because Rome was a republic, they had both men, so could choose, and delayed when they needed to, and attacked when they needed to; had they been a principality, only one of these men would have ruled, and so Rome would have been ruined.

I think that to say that a country becomes great by drawing on the abilities of all of its members, and being willing to promote the most humble, is very humanist. Machiavelli praises the poverty of Ciccinattus, who when he was called on by the Senate to save Rome by becoming Dictator, was quite literally out ploughing his half-acre of fields. A man of little property saved Rome, and after saving it, was content to return to his little property. Praising that is very humanist indeed.

So the humanism of Machiavelli was not actually that elitist at all. You just need to read past his job application letter, and consider the context in which it was all written.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat's this, comrade? You haven't heard of Boris Arvatov? Author of "Red Star"? Co-founder of the Proletkult movement that was suppressed by The Party for being too "leftist"/"workerist"? Report to the re-education camps.

While I've heard the term whispered here and there, I have to confess that I'm largely ignorant of the genre.

There was, however, a Soviet-era Russian sci-fi short story that one of my high school English teachers had us read.  I wish I could recall the author, because I remember the story as being quite good.  It centered around a ship of completely human-looking aliens landing in Antarctica because their blood was built around ammonia instead of water, and they lived at far, far colder temperatures than Earthlings.  One of them fell in love with an Earthling researcher, and at the end of the story, just before the aliens returned for home, the Earthling took off his glove to touch the cheek of the alien -- he got frostbite on his fingers, and she got a burn on her cheek.  Anyone familiar with this story?

!i!

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI've been clamoring for a totally non-ironic hardcore Soviet scifi RPG for the longest time now.

You could run something like Lem's more serious works pretty easily in a half-dozen systems. They're not "social realism" but works like Solaris definitely have a Soviet influence (the theme of the social construction of knowledge in that book, frex). As for running Soviet sci-fi, it'd mostly be a question of whether you wanted to transplant the Soviet Union into space, or present a Marxist-Leninist (or Stalinist or Trotskyist or whateverist) view of the future.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's a good rule of thumb that if someone holds the opinion that thinking about something makes it less fun, they're usually a fucking idiot.

Its also a good rule of thumb that if someone is overanalyzing a subject, then they are not actually trying to participate and experience it.

Also Red Star is not just a d20/OGL setting put out by Green Ronin, but it is also a great comic book series (that has since died after a two year run).

Quote from: jeff37923Its also a good rule of thumb that if someone is overanalyzing a subject, then they are not actually trying to participate and experience it.

Actually, that's a really fucking dumb rule of thumb. Experiencing something is always bound up with thinking it, including rationally analysing it, remembering other relevant facts about it, placing the experience within a greater structure and within context, and so on. The better we think something, the more deeply we experience it.

Nor would your rule of thumb, even if it's true, apply here. Participating in playing a game doesn't mean giving one's self over to the power of the game, such that one's distaste for absolute monarchies etc. must be suspended if the game has them. Black Flag doesn't want to play games that uncritically portray political configurations he considers abhorrent.

He does want to - and evidently does - play RPGs. All that's going on are that the criteria by which he selects games are better worked out than the ordinary person's "I like fantasy because it's cool" reasoning.

Simply because one person's tastes are more sophisticated than another's doesn't mean the person with the more sophisticated taste is somehow less fully participating and experiencing the event or series of events in question.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineActually, that's a really fucking dumb rule of thumb. Experiencing something is always bound up with thinking it, including rationally analysing it, remembering other relevant facts about it, placing the experience within a greater structure and within context, and so on. The better we think something, the more deeply we experience it.

Nor would your rule of thumb, even if it's true, apply here. Participating in playing a game doesn't mean giving one's self over to the power of the game, such that one's distaste for absolute monarchies etc. must be suspended if the game has them. Black Flag doesn't want to play games that uncritically portray political configurations he considers abhorrent.

He does want to - and evidently does - play RPGs. All that's going on are that the criteria by which he selects games are better worked out than the ordinary person's "I like fantasy because it's cool" reasoning.

Simply because one person's tastes are more sophisticated than another's doesn't mean the person with the more sophisticated taste is somehow less fully participating and experiencing the event or series of events in question.

OK, obviously I've struck a nerve here with you or else you wouldn't have pulled this pseudointellectual twat routine.

Now, tell me, since you say that the better we think something then the better we experience it. Does a mentally retarded person then not experience events just as deeply as a normal person? Or does the fact that they are retarded make them somehow less human? What about education? Take two people with the same IQ and mental abilities, one has a college degree and one has only graduated high school - which one experiences life more deeply and why?

You say that Black Flag doesn't want to play games that uncritically portray political configurations he considers abhorrent. What if the campaign goal of the game is to overthrow that political configuration? You know, Rebel against the Empire, like in Star Wars.

Now here's the kicker. I feel that you are a pretentious cretin whose self-aggrandizing has encompassed even the games that you play to the point that you have become the very example of what RPGPundit has called "swine".

In short, you may take your deconstruction of playing a game and shove it up your ass. There's a huge difference between analysis of a process and being actively involved in experiencing that process. In the former you are only observing and in the later you are the observed.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineHe does want to - and evidently does - play RPGs. All that's going on are that the criteria by which he selects games are better worked out than the ordinary person's "I like fantasy because it's cool" reasoning.

Simply because one person's tastes are more sophisticated than another's doesn't mean the person with the more sophisticated taste is somehow less fully participating and experiencing the event or series of events in question.

I don't agree that not wanting to play rpgs where the dominant power structure is unquestioned is in some way "more sophisticated" than, say, refusing to play an rpg unless you can be a drowlesbianstripperninja. It's simply personal taste.

Sure, lots of people have elaborate rationalisations to justify their personal tastes, but it doesn't follow that those rationalisations are in fact true. "Me not like kings, game like kings, me not like game," dress it up in fancy language if you want, talk about the dialectic of the deconstruction of the dominant hegemonic patriarchal paradigm if you want, but what it comes down to is that the guy just doesn't like kings.

If it were more than personal dislike, then he'd be willing to play games with kings and explore the individual mentality and culture of a monarchy, because, you know, know thy enemy and all that. If it were genuine politics, well then he'd understand that roleplaying in a game world is neither a moral nor an immoral act - it's unmoral, it's just a fucking game.

But hey, he wants to sound sophisticated instead, and thus the long words and elaborate rationalisations. He could just say, "I don't like kings", and who'd care? But you know, same as this, "ZOMFG rpgs r teh art!" thing, some people gotta dress up their fun and personal tastes as something fancy.

You don't like kings. Fair enough. I don't like the fucking kender. But I don't pretend it's anything other than good old irrational unreasonable unfair personal taste.

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you have a look at his Discourses, which you can download in txt format here (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10827), or read online here (http://www.constitution.org/mac/disclivy_.htm), you'll find that he's actually very much in favour of the common person. It's simply that he says that in a state which is corrupted, it will inevitably be a principality, while a state which is uncorrupted, it'll inevitably be a republic. That is, when the people care only about wealth, and have no respect for the laws, then rule can only be by a strong individual; when the people value poverty, and respect the laws, then rule will be by the people. You see from this text that in general he favours the republican form of government, but also that he regards most of the states of his day as corrupt. Discourses, which is all about republics, is also much longer than Prince, which is a pretty telling note of where his interests and sympathies lay...

(More excellent stuff about Machiavelli snipped)

So the humanism of Machiavelli was not actually that elitist at all. You just need to read past his job application letter, and consider the context in which it was all written.

Busted!  You are right, of course--though one reason the Discourses is so long is that it is a commentary on Livy, rather than a stand-alone work.

I would still contend that Renaissance humanism is deeply elitist--that it looks to a ruling class of the urban patriciate (or, indeed, a prince) and (like most ancient theorists) sees democracy as an inferior form of government to rule by the elite. But I guess that really doesn't  have much to do with this thread, so I'll shut up about it.

Fun fact: you can dismiss anyone just by calling them pseudointellectual. Clearly, everyone who thinks hard is just pretentious.

Quote from: Koltar"RED STAR" ??

 Isn't that an OGL or D20 compatible setting book ?

 We had it on the shelves at the store for awhile - but I don't remember anyone buying it.

- Ed C.

Yeah, Anemone pointed me to that--it's an RPG based on a (1990s?) graphic novel. It's about as close to Soviet scifi as Vampire Hunter D is to Bram Stoker.

Quote from: Thanatos02Fun fact: you can dismiss anyone just by calling them pseudointellectual.

And you can paint both sides of the fence by calling them a "pseudointellectual dumbass".

!i!

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou could run something like Lem's more serious works pretty easily in a half-dozen systems. They're not "social realism" but works like Solaris definitely have a Soviet influence (the theme of the social construction of knowledge in that book, frex).

I would go for Lem's Pilot Pirx stories. They're more like Warsaw Pact scifi than crazy Communist utopia: nothing works, stuff is always badly designed and breaks down, and part of the adventure is having it in spite of your own gear.

There's this great story of Pirx, then pilot of some kind of garbage-truck starship, finally meeting an alien ship but not being able to make contact or even report or record the incident.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd you can paint both sides of the fence by calling them a "pseudointellectual dumbass".

!i!

Bit like saying "turd," isn't it?

Turd.

Quote from: Thanatos02Fun fact: you can dismiss anyone just by calling them pseudointellectual. Clearly, everyone who thinks hard is just pretentious.

No. Anyone who uses words the meaning of which they plainly do not understand (like "incoherent") is a sign of pretension. Anyone will fuck up fancy words now and then, but doing so regularly is a sign of pretension; an unpretentious person will stick to words they're sure of, and which will be everyday words for their audience. Of course, if their intended audience is a very narrow one (like, "my followers") that also can be, but is not always, a sign of pretension.

Thinking hard is not pretentious or pseudointellectual. Thinking in a muddled way and claiming it's clear and simple and anyone who doesn't understand it is just stupid absolutely is pretentious and pseudointellectual. Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid or crazy is.. well, it can be pretentious and pseudointellecutal, but more often it's just fucking childish.

So that's the yardstick to measure pretension to being smart -  fancy words the meaning of which they plainly don't understand. This includes words they make up and the meaning of which is kept vague. Vague words are a sure sign of vague thinking, and vague thinking is definitely not a sign of being an intellectual. Of course, vague words can also be a sign of deceit, but that's another story.

Sorry, man, but that's not really the point. I don't think Flag or Pseudophedrine (or I, as long as we're playing this game) are being pseudo-intellectual. You're claiming to call them on the table here for muddled thinking diguised by big words. Before, the general accusations were that they arn't (or Flag wasn't) enjoying gaming because he was thinking too hard.

Whatever. Fuck that, man. Come on, what is this shit?
Actually, I know. JimBob, I hate to pick on you, but you've got this obnoxious habit of finding a talking point and using it to write someone off of the conversation as a whole if you disagree with them. Do they use big words? Pseudointellectual. Otherwise? Accuse them of not gaming.
They're non-sequeters. They don't follow logically. They're talking points added to the conversation that only serve to change the topic to a percieved vice. And suddenly, we're not talking about games that are humano-centric, but rather we're debating Pseudophedrines gamer credibility (as if it mattered) or if Black Flag likes playing games or not. Or if they're... swine?

I like to think about the moral and ethical implications of rule sets and game settings. Rules tell you what you can and can't do in a game world. The setting tells you how things interact as a whole. They're the cornerstone of how I look to build characters, how I act in play, and surprisingly, I have a shit-load of fun.

Amusingly, the words you seem to be accusing of being vague - those scary, frightening, long words, are typically used because they're more specific. They're not vague. They serve to facilitate conversation. They're not 'bad'. And if I use one, I don't care if others don't get it. That's the only time the conversation becomes muddled. So far, you seem to be implying that the posters using 'big' words don't know their meanings. Are you sure that's the case?

Quote from: Thanatos02Sorry, man, but that's not really the point. I don't think Flag or Pseudophedrine (or I, as long as we're playing this game) are being pseudo-intellectual. You're claiming to call them on the table here for muddled thinking diguised by big words.

Did I say that? Please point to where I said either Black Flag or Pseudoephedrine had muddled thinking disguised by big words. I was speaking to the general point raised by you, Thanatos02 - the general point of how you can tell if someone's being pretentious or pseudointellectual.

Quote from: Thanatos02Before, the general accusations were that they arn't (or Flag wasn't) enjoying gaming because he was thinking too hard.

So far as I can tell, no-one was saying that Black Flag wasn't enjoying gaming. That would be being a Forger, saying that a person who says they're having fun actually isn't, and most of us wouldn't do that. The guy says he enjoys games like this, but not games like that. We suggested that he broaden his view so he could enjoy a wider variety of games. I think you'd find people doing that with all sorts of issues. If we can say, "hey, don't bash d20, give it a go," why can't we say, "hey, don't bash games set in a monarchy, give it a go"?

Quote from: Thanatos02Actually, I know. JimBob, I hate to pick on you, but you've got this obnoxious habit of finding a talking point and using it to write someone off of the conversation as a whole if you disagree with them. Do they use big words? Pseudointellectual. Otherwise? Accuse them of not gaming.

Where did I say that Black Flag was pseudointellectual? Where did I say he didn't game? You are confusing different posts of mine, relating to different people, or people in general.

Quote from: Thanatos02Amusingly, the words you seem to be accusing of being vague - those scary, frightening, long words, are typically used because they're more specific. They're not vague. They serve to facilitate conversation. They're not 'bad'. And if I use one, I don't care if others don't get it.

I'm confused here. At first you say that you you're using words to facilitate meaning - to make it easier to get your meaning across. Fair enough. But then you say that you don't care if others "get it" or not. So you want people to understand you, but also you don't care if they don't understand you. That's like saying, "I'm using this chisel to make a better chair, but I don't care if it actually is a better chair." It doesn't make sense.

Do you want to communicate clearly or not? I mean, stuff you've written so far that I've read has seemed pretty clear to me, but here you're saying that actually you don't care if it is or not. So I don't know, maybe sometimes I thought I'd understood you but actually you were trying to say something else and I fucked it up.

Quote from: Thanatos02So far, you seem to be implying that the posters using 'big' words don't know their meanings. Are you sure that's the case?

In many cases, yes. In the case of you, Pseudoephedrine and Black Flag, I've not seen it. I'm talking about the more general case, Forgers and such.

It's not all about you, you know. If I wanted to criticise you in particular, I'd go ahead and do so, it's not like we have to be afraid someone will ban us or something.

Just to put my own two cents in here.

In post #104 I asked Black Flag if I was understanding his point of view. He never responded.

Now, I went off on Pseudoephedrine because my perception of his posts where that I was getting a smarmy attitude from someone who has gotten an education yet lacks experience to properly use that education. I felt like I was getting some patronizing snark from someone who hasn't fully thought through what he was posting. It pissed me off.

Now, Thanatos02, before you start going off on a tangent, understand this. My headache with the arguements presented is that while you can sit back and read about gaming or even read the rules of a game, that is still not the same as actually playing a game and getting the experience of that process (which, I feel, is an important aspect of any conversation on gaming). Now if you read about and observe gaming, without participating in a game, then you have chosen to overlook the experience you did not have, and enter a conversation on it - you are talking out of your ass.

Example, d20 Traveller personal combat and I. When I first read the rules, they looked confusing and shaky as a rule set. When I actually played them, I found that it worked pretty smoothly - but I wouldn't have known that If I had only read the rules and not used them in an actual play situation. If I had, say, written a review on T20 about that, I would have been doing my editor and audience a disservice because I hadn't done my homework.

::sighs::

Communicating over the net is so much tougher then just talking face to face, ya know? Like, I lay this shit out and it seems pretty clear, and then it's not. So then I get to go back and decide if I wanna take the time, and all that shit. Ok, then let's get something straight really quick; I'm not sitting here with a stick up my ass being all pissed off. I don't have any real issues with this, so I hope everyone's on the level. Now, let's talk about some gaming.

JimBob, I started on you, but I didn't quote you. I think you have some rhetorical tricks you fall back on that arn't always on the mark. Jargon words are a good target to look at, but when you're talking to Psuedophedrine, I'm just saying that this is a guy that's always looked like he knows what the fuck he's talking about. And when I said that I don't care if people understand what I'm saying, well, I stand by that, but it's more complicated. I was irritated. To specify, if I use a jargon word, I am specifying my conversation towards people that are going to know what that word means. I know I do, and I know it means something. If someone else doesn't, and I'm having a conversation with them directly, I'll go out of my way to expound, because conversation is only useful if I'm understood. But if I'm making a general comment or making general conversation, and I feel the word is warrented, I'm not interested if everyone knows what it means. I don't feel it's my obligation to. They can look it up. (And I'm not talking about made-up jargon or uselessly interjected words. Those defeat the point of conversation, and that's not really my goal.) Sometimes using jargon is easier and more concise then typing it out.

As for Black Flag, well, I don't really know the person very well, but it seems like Flag is someone who knows their stuff, at least. I happen to agree with the premise that one ought to be able to judge a game on a political level if one wants. Flag doesn't like a game with an uncritical view of monarchy, for example. Flag has a reason for it, and states it. I think that's a viewpoint one can take without playing it; it has shit to do with rules, for the most part.

It's like having a beef with alignment in D&D, and not playing because it's integrated in the system. It's a smallish qualm, but it might easily be enough to not play Planescape, because the setting is deep with alignment as a trope. You dig?

See, that's not all about you JimBob. If I'm not pointing at you specifically, and I'm writing a post, where something you didn't say comes up, you can likely assume I'm not talking about you. If it's vague, well, I'm sorry. As for me, I'm aware it's not all about me. I don't know what you mean to say, except as a passive-aggressive "Fuck off, it's not your issue." Here's the dig, man. It is my issue. You wern't critisizing me, but I don't give a damn. You have a tendancy to shit on my internets, so I'll get in your grill about it if I think I want to.

Quote from: jeff37923Tell me if I'm grokking where you're coming from. The fun you derive from gaming lies in examining the structure of the game universe and how the rules interact with that structure and also in how the characters interact with the structure as it plays out. Am I correct? If so, it looks like the thing you enjoy most about a RPG is observing and understanding the process of one being played more than playing one.

Sorry to be so long in replying, but I just moved and was w/o Internet.

To clarify, I recently have tended to be GM more than player, so therefore I naturally take a more holistic view of character-setting interaction. As a player (of a PC), I'm mostly interested in how my character interacts within the setting. Either case involves playing the game (and also preparing to play the game, in the former case). I've never just observed other people playing. I can't imagine that would be very enjoyable.

I'm not suggesting that RPGs are an academic activity (heaven forbid). However, I do recognize that my academic background probably does influence the way I think about everyday things. But I only tend to overthink things that are enjoyable and interesting, if that makes any sense. ;)

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine...Black Flag doesn't want to play games that uncritically portray political configurations he considers abhorrent....

Quote from: Thanatos02Flag doesn't like a game with an uncritical view of monarchy...

"Uncritically" is really the catchword, isn't it? I don't think I made it explicit enough, so people thought I was saying the same thing minus that word, in which case I agree that it sounds absurd. For the record, two of my favorite fantasy settings are Exalted and WFRP's Old World. Both include plenty of abhorrent political situations (the latter contains nothing but...), while neither does so uncritically. Indeed, I can safely say the vast majority of my gaming has taken place in a monarchic setting of some sort, or else some other oligarchic or elitist political structure. As I said before, utopias are no fun and strain the suspension of disbelief beyond the pale. In fact, it's the depiction of the absolute monarchy as utopia that I originally cited as being a problem from the common-man perspective. But at this stage, it's gotten beyond the bounds of this thread and should probably be discussed elsewhere if by some chance there's still anything left to say about it.

Quote from: Thanatos02Communicating over the net is so much tougher then just talking face to face, ya know? Like, I lay this shit out and it seems pretty clear, and then it's not.

I feel your pain, brother. Posting on webfora has made me question my communication skills. Very little seems to come across the way I intend it. I chalk it up to the limitations of the medium (even with the plethora of emoticons), combined with the fact that I'm probably spouting some shit from way out in left field to begin with. :pundit:

But hey, at least here you won't get banned over a simple misunderstanding.

How about Riddle of steel?

Quote from: Black FlagBut hey, at least here you won't get banned over a simple misunderstanding.

And that's why I'm here. Plus, even when I disagree with JimBob, Pundit, or anyone else in one thread I don't feel awkward about agreeing with them in another. I don't feel like I'm on unfriendly terms with anyone here, even if I become frustrated or irritated sometimes.

Quote from: ShewolfHow about Riddle of steel?

I hear about this a bunch, but don't know a thing about it. Now's as good a time as any to ask, "What is this game all about?"

Quote from: Black FlagSorry to be so long in replying, but I just moved and was w/o Internet.

To clarify, I recently have tended to be GM more than player, so therefore I naturally take a more holistic view of character-setting interaction. As a player (of a PC), I'm mostly interested in how my character interacts within the setting. Either case involves playing the game (and also preparing to play the game, in the former case). I've never just observed other people playing. I can't imagine that would be very enjoyable.

I'm not suggesting that RPGs are an academic activity (heaven forbid). However, I do recognize that my academic background probably does influence the way I think about everyday things. But I only tend to overthink things that are enjoyable and interesting, if that makes any sense. ;)

OK, cool, this clarifies things for me immensely. Thank you.

I do understand the overthinking the parts that are enjoyable and interesting, and it makes sense.

QuoteNow, I went off on Pseudoephedrine because my perception of his posts where that I was getting a smarmy attitude from someone who has gotten an education yet lacks experience to properly use that education. I felt like I was getting some patronizing snark from someone who hasn't fully thought through what he was posting.

Then you thought, or felt, or mystically intuited or whatever wrongly. I know exactly how to properly use my education - to poke holes in ridiculous ideas like "It is overanalysing a game to be concerned about the attitudes it takes towards politics". Now I'm certainly mean and nasty in how I poke holes in those ridiculous ideas, but let's not confuse me being mean with me being pretentious (that is, pretending to be something I am not).

Of the pair of us, one of us thinks that thinking deeply is enjoyable and important. The other thinks that it's not fun, and not that useful. Which one of the two of us do you think is more likely to arrive at correct conclusions about, well, anything and everything? The guy who thinks alot, or the guy who doesn't?

Quote from: jeff37923OK, obviously I've struck a nerve here with you or else you wouldn't have pulled this pseudointellectual twat routine.

Yeah, actually. I take great offense from anti-intellectual cunts like you, you sebaceous dick scraping.

QuoteNow, tell me, since you say that the better we think something then the better we experience it. Does a mentally retarded person then not experience events just as deeply as a normal person?

What does this have to do with Black Flag thinking about RPGs?

QuoteOr does the fact that they are retarded make them somehow less human?

Nope! Nice try though. What's next, the Nazis? I hear those Nazis are bad. I'll bet you'll have this entire argument locked up if only you can figure out some resemblance between my argument, and whatever those bad dude Nazis said.

QuoteWhat about education? Take two people with the same IQ and mental abilities, one has a college degree and one has only graduated high school - which one experiences life more deeply and why?

Hypothetical abstractions don't experience life at all, so I hypothetically don't know which one of your hypothetical people has a more hypothetically satisfying hypothetical life filled with hypothetical experiences.

QuoteYou say that Black Flag doesn't want to play games that uncritically portray political configurations he considers abhorrent. What if the campaign goal of the game is to overthrow that political configuration? You know, Rebel against the Empire, like in Star Wars.

Well, I would ask him whether or not he likes those kinds of games. I certainly wouldn't tell him "You're thinking too much."

QuoteNow here's the kicker. I feel that you are a pretentious cretin whose self-aggrandizing has encompassed even the games that you play to the point that you have become the very example of what RPGPundit has called "swine".

Oh shit, I'm probably a fag, nigger, commie, deadbeat dad, welfare queen, kiddie-raper too! I heard that I cheated on my taxes, took the money to buy drugs and celebrated by punching out an orphan using a puppy taped to a half-brick! One time, I didn't stand during the national anthem! An old lady was crossing the street, and I stood there and didn't help her at all!

QuoteIn short, you may take your deconstruction of playing a game and shove it up your ass. There's a huge difference between analysis of a process and being actively involved in experiencing that process. In the former you are only observing and in the later you are the observed.

This is the funniest thing you've said yet.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou don't like kings. Fair enough. I don't like the fucking kender. But I don't pretend it's anything other than good old irrational unreasonable unfair personal taste.

That's where we disagree, mate. I'm of the opinion that tastes aren't irrational or private, though I don't deny that's a popular viewpoint held by many today. I think giving reasonable justifications for why we like things is pretty much how we sophisticate our tastes. The better the justifications, the more sophisticated our tastes.

That doesn't mean we all have to become anarchists, or even focus specifically on politics but it's important to have reasons why we like things, to evaluate those reasons as being either good or bad (which in turn help us to evaluate those things as good or bad), and to strive to constantly improve our reasons and the tastes they undergird, even if that means giving up something we thought might've been good at first, but realise upon reflection isn't actually very good.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThen you thought, or felt, or mystically intuited or whatever wrongly. I know exactly how to properly use my education - to poke holes in ridiculous ideas like "It is overanalysing a game to be concerned about the attitudes it takes towards politics". Now I'm certainly mean and nasty in how I poke holes in those ridiculous ideas, but let's not confuse me being mean with me being pretentious (that is, pretending to be something I am not).

Of the pair of us, one of us thinks that thinking deeply is enjoyable and important. The other thinks that it's not fun, and not that useful. Which one of the two of us do you think is more likely to arrive at correct conclusions about, well, anything and everything? The guy who thinks alot, or the guy who doesn't?

I give you an A for the effort of trolling, but I've already said my thoughts on this. Do enjoy the sound of one hand clapping.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI would go for Lem's Pilot Pirx stories. They're more like Warsaw Pact scifi than crazy Communist utopia: nothing works, stuff is always badly designed and breaks down, and part of the adventure is having it in spite of your own gear.

There's this great story of Pirx, then pilot of some kind of garbage-truck starship, finally meeting an alien ship but not being able to make contact or even report or record the incident.

I haven't read Lem's Pirx stories, actually (them and the Futurological Congress, to reveal the glaring gaps in my Lem knowledge). They sound a bit like his story "Eden" though, which has travelers crash landing on an incomprehensible planet about which they learn next to nothing.

Quote from: jeff37923I give you an A for the effort of trolling, but I've already said my thoughts on this. Do enjoy the sound of one hand clapping.

You had thoughts?

It's just that for things like rpgs, I've never seen a "reasonable justification" for some personal taste issue that wasn't really simply a "rationalisation."

I mean, the standard of thought and debate is not terribly fucking high, you know? Just look at RPGPundit and TonyLB abusing each-other in their Pistols thread.

We're talking about guys like Black Flag. First, he names himself after the anarchist flag. Then he uses it as his avatar. In case anyone is a spastic thalidomide baby and still doesn't get the point, he puts "Anarchist" as his tagline under the screen nick.

Now, if he were posting in a forum about politics or economics or something, fair enough. But this is a forum about roleplaying games. He's yet to tell us about his exciting experiences roleplaying in anarchist-themed campaigns. That would definitely be on-topic for "rpgs that say Yay! Humanity!" Is he really here for rpgs? Or just to preach? Or what?

It's not subtle, or smart, or a "reasonable justification" we're seeing here. Just "LOOK AT ME, I'M A REBEL, YEAH YEAH YEAH. And fuck your thread, bitch."

My campaigns in general, I try to make them all about people. k3w1pw0rz I find distract from that. That's not rational or reasonable, it's just what I like. It parallels my politics, but it isn't my politics. Part of saying "yay! humanity!" is not flopping your politics out there like a limp dick. Just you know, talking to people.

Sure mate, but the trick to getting out of the shitty state of thinking about RPGs is to keep on trying to raise the bar and to help folks start forming those reasonable justifications while kicking over shitty reasons whenever you find them.

For example, over in that thread about Iron Heroes and Arcana Evolved, I tried to do pretty much what I'm talking about. The guy asked "Why should I give a rat's left bollock for this Iron Heroes business" and I said "Well, because..." and gave some reasons. It seems to've gone well, in that plenty of folks have accepted those reasons as being pretty good ones to like Iron Heroes. Now, the reasons I gave aren't the only kind of good reasons, but I'm just trying to show that it's possible.

...and what did any of the above back & forth argument have to do with pro-humanity RPG settings?

 Just wondering.


- Ed C.

Sometimes, in order to answer a question properly, you have to answer several other questions as well, especially when the other questions deal with the method of how you answer the original question.

In this case, the role of thought and analysis in relation to RPGs was called into question, and its value to roleplaying and discussions about roleplaying was defended.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSometimes, in order to answer a question properly, you have to answer several other questions as well, especially when the other questions deal with the method of how you answer the original question.

In this case, the role of thought and analysis in relation to RPGs was called into question, and its value to roleplaying and discussions about roleplaying was defended.

No, it was actually me getting pissed off at your condescending manner of posting and flaming you. Nothing more significant than that. If you want to believe that you just won a victory for "the role of thought and analysis in relation to RPGs" then you can, but its just ego-stroking.

Pseudo?

 You're over-analyzing shit WAY too much.

 HHmm... as goofy as it sounds here is another example of a Yay!! Humanity setting :

 The cheezy Buck Rogers TV show version of the future. The late '70s Buck Rogers show  with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray.
imagine setting a role playing game campaiign against that backdrop - they had Miss Galaxy contests, casinos, slavegirls, "space Vampires" (of a kind), and the Earth Defense force seemed to have its act together .

- Ed C.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou had thoughts?

Not ones he thought about too much, though.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's not subtle, or smart, or a "reasonable justification" we're seeing here. Just "LOOK AT ME, I'M A REBEL, YEAH YEAH YEAH. And fuck your thread, bitch."

My campaigns in general, I try to make them all about people. k3w1pw0rz I find distract from that. That's not rational or reasonable, it's just what I like. It parallels my politics, but it isn't my politics. Part of saying "yay! humanity!" is not flopping your politics out there like a limp dick. Just you know, talking to people.

You're kind of doing it again, this time with Black Flag. Flag has talked about gaming, but you again call into question as to if (he's?) here for that. Are you really here to talk about gaming? I see you may think about politics in relation to it so, I'd like to tell you you're gaming wrong...

Also, it's not surprising that your politics inform your likes. You don't reflect on it much, but my guess is that playing an obvious facist or a monarchist that was actively trying to quash democracy might not suit you. And you'd just say, "I don't like that." but it's because one informs another. Just because you don't acknowledge it, doesn't mean it's there. Of course, I just painted a random scenerio; I really have no clue how complicated, concious, rational, or cohesive your polticial views are. The closer those are to the center of your thought-process, the more they'll emerge in your day to day life.

Quote from: jeff37923No, it was actually me getting pissed off at your condescending manner of posting and flaming you. Nothing more significant than that. If you want to believe that you just won a victory for "the role of thought and analysis in relation to RPGs" then you can, but its just ego-stroking.

Hah, you fucking loony. I flamed you first. And yes, degrading anti-intellectual shitbricks like you _is_ a victory for thought. It's not a large one, but it's satisfying nonetheless.

Quote from: KoltarPseudo?
You're over-analyzing shit WAY too much.

In one ear, out the other. Koltar, I know you're a vile sycophant and thus prone to mindless repetition of the viewpoints of others, but do try to read the thread.

You know I've been going through this back and forth and it occured to me that for any game to be "Yay Humanity" a certain amount of politics needs to be involved.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou know I've been going through this back and forth and it occured to me that for any game to be "Yay Humanity" a certain amount of politics needs to be involved.

Regards,
David R

You're spot on there. Even determining what is "Pro-human" and what isn't is political. For example, in the OP, it's determined that "sticking up for the average guy" is pro-human, while supporting elites who rise above the average person by birth isn't. That's more "egalitarian" than "pro-human" but somehow the two terms have become synoyms here.

Quote from: David RYou know I've been going through this back and forth and it occured to me that for any game to be "Yay Humanity" a certain amount of politics needs to be involved.

Regards,
David R

I think that's part of how we ended up here, boss. By which I mean that I agree with what you're saying.

Politics isn't the only thing, and it may not be the core thing, but I don't think you can get rid of it.

Quote from: KoltarHHmm... as goofy as it sounds here is another example of a Yay!! Humanity setting :

 The cheezy Buck Rogers TV show version of the future. The late '70s Buck Rogers show  with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray.
imagine setting a role playing game campaiign against that backdrop - they had Miss Galaxy contests, casinos, slavegirls, "space Vampires" (of a kind), and the Earth Defense force seemed to have its act together .

That sounds like a rockin' good time!

Quote from: jrientsThat sounds like a rockin' good time!

 SEE??
 No Politics ! - Silly Cheezy Sci-Fi fun for everyone.

- Ed C.

Typically, the more a show (book, game, whatever) reinforces your own view of the world, the less likely you are to notice the assumptions on which it is built.

There are very definite political assumptions, for instance, in assuming that casinos or Miss Galaxy contests will continue to exist in the 25th century. You're just not noticing them (or ignoring them, but I think in this case that's unlikely).

Mercenaries, Spies & Private Eyes allows normal Joes and Janes to kick butt all over the place with the Combat Adds and the Pugilism skill and weird Martial Arts skills.

Quote from: KoltarHHmm... as goofy as it sounds here is another example of a Yay!! Humanity setting :

 The cheezy Buck Rogers TV show version of the future. The late '70s Buck Rogers show  with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray.
imagine setting a role playing game campaiign against that backdrop - they had Miss Galaxy contests, casinos, slavegirls, "space Vampires" (of a kind), and the Earth Defense force seemed to have its act together .

- Ed C.

I was going to suggest somebody run an Encounter Critical PBP, and I would have posted THIS as my character concept:

(http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/lepoo/tele/buck_rogers.jpg)

The humanity!

Quote from: David RYou know I've been going through this back and forth and it occured to me that for any game to be "Yay Humanity" a certain amount of politics needs to be involved.

Agreed. It's tied into the question of who falls under the category "humanity" and whether some get to be treated as "more human than others."

Of course, there's no need to supply a ready-made answer for the players, since having them decide what is pro-human is a large part of the fun. I ran an extended prelude for an Exalted PC a while back, a 3-4 session adventure that led up to and included her Exaltation, meaning that much of the action occurred while the PC was a mortal. It was set in the Hundred Kingdoms (an intentionally vague part of the official setting where GMs can insert any number of small, disparate nations). The PC was a high-ranking diplomat/spy from an sinsular, chauvinistic culture with rigid social castes and a slavish adherence to tradition and ritual, which was ruled by a council of matriarchs from the four noble families, along with a rotating "monarch" who served as a stand-in for their patron goddess. This nation had expansionist goals and was looking to take advantage of their neighbors, a small, peaceful, and cosmopolitan city-state that was a major trade hub ruled by an elected senate made up of members of the top merchant class. The latter were looking to sign a treaty of mutual defense with their old enemies, since they were in danger of being invaded by a third nation that was rapidly expanding and threatened them both.

This third power was a former kindom that had been transformed by a charismatic mercenary-turned-dictator who had assassinated the old king, enslaved the former nobility (dividing their possessions among his followers), and was set out to "liberate" his neighbors from their oppressive regimes. The warlord in question was overseeing the siege of the aforementioned city-state himself, giving the PC the chance to meet him and hear his ideology first-hand. He wanted to redistribute the wealth, abolish slavery (except for the captured nobles and loyalists, who would be sold to the Guild in exchange for arms and supplies), and establish a world in which common people need bow to no king or cult (the PC saw the remains of a crucified Immaculate monk in the camp). Sort of like Conan meets Pol Pot. And though there were rumors that he was Anathema, etc., he was just a very audacious mortal.

The warlord was convinced that the common people of the city wanted him to "free" them. Of course, he never asked them himself, relying instead on intelligence derived from a conspiracy within the city whose motives turned out to be quite different (being a Yozi cult led by the god-blood son of a fisherwoman who wanted to claim his "rightful place" as ruler of the city once the senate fell and the dust settled). The senate, on the other hand, wanted to preserve their way of life and preferably the independence of their city, although their own factionalism prevented them from reaching any sort of consensus without outside intervention. The rulership of the PC's home country, on the other hand, ordered her to convince the senate to make their city a vassal state in exchange for protection, and she was also to arrange for the assassination of the warlord once he entered the city. There's a lot more to it, but this isn't Actual Play, so I'm only hitting the relevant parts.

So, you see there were several possible options of whom to side with, and none none of them was especially appealing or obviously "correct" (since that wouldn't be any fun). The Yozi cult was the most obviously "wrong" answer from the point of view of the people's wellbeing (although I would have gone with anything), and the senate was portrayed as probably being too weak to survive in its current state without some compromise with one of the other two factions. But I was perfectly willing to run with any outcome, including some unforeseen one. Even then, what the player did still surprised me... But that's another story.

Confronted with various "wrong" answers, the PC had to come up with a "right" one, or at least choose a path that aimed at the greater good in the long run. Then she had to convince a sufficient number of people of the rightness of that path, since no one person can do it all alone. And all the while the human cost of those decisions was evident all around (a besieged city was particularly good for that, including traveling merchants who were trapped there despite having nothing to do with the political conflict). The question of whether divine heritage, tradition, wealth, charisma or military power gives one the right to determine the fates of "the common man" was of a big question throughout. There was also a beast-man merchant from the Eastern forests trapped in the city whom the PC convinced to come to the city's aid, despite not being seen as "human" by most of the populace. In the end, she was proved herself to be more "human" than the cultists or the warlord or the matriarchs, all of whom had lost touch with their humanity in the pursuit of some greater goal.

Quote from: Thanatos02Not ones he thought about too much, though.

And another one enjoys the sound of one hand clapping. You guys should get a band together.

Black flag.... as much as that is far from my style in terms of gaming, your enthusiasm is contagious. I'd be interested in reading more in actual play if you'd be willing to post.

As regards this thread: It's been said, but I have to echo that DnD is the quintessencial humanistic pursuit. Except when a couple of players (myself included) get their hands on it and go for the most absurd character options available. It then gets pro-robot-cowboys. For serious.

As regards the tangent on tastes being arbitrary or having justifications... it gave me an idea that might merit another thread entirely. Who knows.

Quote from: jeff37923And another one enjoys the sound of one hand clapping. You guys should get a band together.

no u

It just makes me think that there's something for everyone in my D&D games, over here. Shit-loads of politics and history, and then the orcs on dune-buggies, 6-guns, airships, and fireballs. Throw in some heretical norse cults (based on self-sacrifice and mortification) vs. sinister wizard cabals, and a bunch of facist imperial goons doing their thing 'for the greater good'.

It's a ton of fun.
(EDIT: It's also pro-human? Seriously. Well, pro-sentiant being. I think we're all on the same page on that one, here. Do elves and orcs count as human?)

Quote from: Thanatos02(EDIT: It's also pro-human? Seriously. Well, pro-sentiant being. I think we're all on the same page on that one, here. Do elves and orcs count as human?)

I'm pretty sure they don't, T-Rex.

I don't know...
You can say that "human is as human does" and call something pro-humanity if it advocates values and actions that would be described as "humane." That might give non-human races an opportunity to show greater "humanity" than some monsters who just happened to be born of human parents.

I mean, what are we, racists? :haw:

Quote from: Black FlagI don't know...
You can say that "human is as human does" and call something pro-humanity if it advocates values and actions that would be described as "humane." That might give non-human races an opportunity to show greater "humanity" than some monsters who just happened to be born of human parents.

I mean, what are we, racists? :haw:

As long as there arn't politics behind it! Now, I know dudes and ladies enjoy a good role-playing session, but I'm having trouble with this one!

RPG DISCUSSION FORUM POSTINGS

I've got this thing where I'm making a game, but I'm not entirely sure it's not really biased. I've been adding fantasy races whos treatment is heavily based off historical precedent!

What I'm worried about is, is it racist to play a racist character? Or! What if you are playing a character whose circumstances are similar to an actual oppressed character? I've heard people have issues with that!

Actually, if you're trying to be true to certain time periods, a character would be an oddball for not being overtly racist. Call of Cthulhu 1920's, for example. Just reading Lovecraft or Howard makes me laugh at their unabashed racism. I still read it, tho... :p

When it comes to fantasy "races," it stands to reason that there would be some prejudice, since the human race already has a lot of internal prejudice. Obviously, that was the point of my previous pun on the word racist (since we're in the habit of calling fantasy humanoid species "races").

Like all unfavorable situations, I think it can be a good opportunity for roleplay, as long as it's done critically and not just as an excuse to be crass. As far as playing an "oppressed" character, it helps if you've ever been in a minority of some kind. This might be tough for white, hetero, Christian males to wrap their heads around, but anyone who has been discriminated against for any reason should be familiar with the feelings of frustration and defensiveness that come with being a minority. Once you've got that down, it's just a matter of degree.

Done right, it could be a very interesting time, and you might even surprise yourself. It also ties into the notion of who gets to be treated as "human," since racism entails putting people who are different from you in the "other" category, which in turn suggests that because of their strangeness they're less deserving of compassion, etc. But what is it that makes other humanoids non-human? Is it just that they're a different species? But they might be mutually fertile with humans, suggesting a close kinship. Is it just that they look different? You could say, "They're evil," but I don't buy it. So what is it?

Quote from: KoltarHHmm... as goofy as it sounds here is another example of a Yay!! Humanity setting :

 The cheezy Buck Rogers TV show version of the future. The late '70s Buck Rogers show  with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray.
imagine setting a role playing game campaiign against that backdrop - they had Miss Galaxy contests, casinos, slavegirls, "space Vampires" (of a kind), and the Earth Defense force seemed to have its act together .

- Ed C.

Too bad the series was off the air by the time TSR got the license.  A RPG based on the series (first season) would have been very nice.

Quote from: Thanatos02
As long as there arn't politics behind it! Now, I know dudes and ladies enjoy a good role-playing session, but I'm having trouble with this one!

RPG DISCUSSION FORUM POSTINGS

I've got this thing where I'm making a game, but I'm not entirely sure it's not really biased. I've been adding fantasy races whos treatment is heavily based off historical precedent!

What I'm worried about is, is it racist to play a racist character? Or! What if you are playing a character whose circumstances are similar to an actual oppressed character? I've heard people have issues with that!

 Thanatos2 ,

 THATS a different thread  discussion.


- Ed C.

Examples of settings that might be thought of as "Pro-HUmanity" or the "Average Guy can get into Adventures!" :

TRAVELLER : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveller_%28role-playing_game%29

..and of course GURPS:TRAVELLER:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS_Traveller

Possibly GURPS:Inifinite Worlds : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS_Infinite_Worlds

BANESTORM/Yrth : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GURPS_Banestorm

The "BuffyVerse" :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffyverse
..there may be monstaers - but it is shown that humans CAN win against them and often do if they work together.

Babylon 5 universe : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5


Blue Planet : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Planet_%28role-playing_game%29

SERENITY/The "verse : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_%28role-playing_game%29

Star Trek universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek

Stargate universe and setting : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_SG-1

Transhuman Space : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhuman_Space


...trying to think of more or linkable examples of more.

- Ed C.

I know Traveller has already been mentioned, but more specifically, the first game that came to mind was Traveller: The New Era. While I detest the system, I am one of those rare few who love the New Era. Why? Because it's all about hope, about reforging and rebuilding after the fall. Most post-apoc games tend to wallow in the ruins of civilization, and an awful lot of games have their settings on the point of crisis and collapse. Oh, woe is me, the end times are upon us. We've screwed everything up and now it's all downhill. TNE says fuck that, we're going to go out and seize control of our destiny and put everything back together, only better than before. It's about bringing hope and civilization to those whose worlds have fallen into barbarism and tyranny. It's all about celebrating humanity's potential. Personally, I always find it fucking uplifting to play and GM, in a way classic Traveller never was.

Quote from: KoltarThanatos2 ,

 THATS a different thread  discussion.


- Ed C.

It would be if racism didn't have something to do with the human condition?

Human Condition Web Discussion



I dunno. See, I was thinking that a game that says "Yay Humanity!" also has to reconcile itself with negatives about the human condition.

Otherwise, it's just shallow optimism!

But that's not the same as celebrating our faults, though! That would be really awkward. Crossburning, the RPG has already kind of come out, and nobody even liked it! (it was really bad) But it's kind of the same as politics - if you have too much, it becomes a game based soley on that issue.

Quote from: Thanatos02I dunno. See, I was thinking that a game that says "Yay Humanity!" also has to reconcile itself with negatives about the human condition.

Otherwise, it's just shallow optimism!

This has been cropping up alot in our post game discussions - "the negative aspects" of the human condition. Granted I'm not talking about published settings but rather my own homebrews...but considering the fact that I consider my games pretty "humanistic" in tone and theme, my players have said afterwards that campaign and characters seem pretty downbeat...so much so that one player has been threatening to base a character (in any setting) on John Cusack's character in Say Anything.

 "...paved with the best intentions" seems to be a common theme that the players discover/create in all my campaigns.

Regards,
David R

NOPE.

 This was about the "Human Condition" or philosophic navel gazing.

 I specificallly was looking for settings that were "Pro-Humanity!!" or  settings where Humanity is better than it realizes it is.

 Not angsty /depressing ... Oh my gawd !/the human condition stuff.

 There already was a thread for the angst settings.


- Ed C.

Sorry dude! But to be fair, I think you're saying that because you're not really paying attention!

To elaborate: We got a bunch of dudes and ladies (who may or may not be human? But are totally on the level.) doing their thing. To make things more fun, for this example, they're doing it in space! That's pretty neat.

But the human condition posits a certain degree of tribalism. It's true! And even when they're doing their thing being cool in space, these issues pop up. But that's not where it stops. Maybe they don't have to burn space crosses, right?

If they don't, that's a bonus for all humanity, right? Every hurdle they jump and every tie of unity they create is humanity transcending its flaws. Humanity can be better then it thinks it is! But for that to happen, there has to be something in the human nature that has created a problem in the past that exists to be overcome in the game!

This might be tough, though, if you think that anything negative is angsty? Despite your positive guise, you sure do seem to come to the party loaded with some assumption! Including assumptions of thread-ownership. What do you do if I show up and stomp in your thread? Stomp, stomp! This issue is more complicated then you thought! Maybe you can't just whisk all the complexities of life under the rug.

Quote from: Thanatos02Sorry dude! But to be fair, I think you're saying that because you're not really paying attention!

To elaborate: We got a bunch of dudes and ladies (who may or may not be human? But are totally on the level.) doing their thing. To make things more fun, for this example, they're doing it in space! That's pretty neat.

But the human condition posits a certain degree of tribalism. It's true! And even when they're doing their thing being cool in space, these issues pop up. But that's not where it stops. Maybe they don't have to burn space crosses, right?

If they don't, that's a bonus for all humanity, right? Every hurdle they jump and every tie of unity they create is humanity transcending its flaws. Humanity can be better then it thinks it is! But for that to happen, there has to be something in the human nature that has created a problem in the past that exists to be overcome in the game!

This might be tough, though, if you think that anything negative is angsty? Despite your positive guise, you sure do seem to come to the party loaded with some assumption! Including assumptions of thread-ownership. What do you do if I show up and stomp in your thread? Stomp, stomp! This issue is more complicated then you thought! Maybe you can't just whisk all the complexities of life under the rug.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE, T-REX.  WHAT IF THE PROBLEM OVERCOME BY HUMANITY IS CREATED BY ALIENS?  THEY'RE AROUND IN SPACE, YOU KNOW.

Quote from: BrantaiTHAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE, T-REX.  WHAT IF THE PROBLEM OVERCOME BY HUMANITY IS CREATED BY ALIENS?  THEY'RE AROUND IN SPACE, YOU KNOW.

True! But that does not discount my theory!

All of the artifacts written by humans are shadows of our own concepts. Aliens can easily be assumed to be shadows of our own ideologies! This goes double if you're of the jungian school of thought. I mean, I'm not, really? But I think that aliens are really just doubles for other races or deux ex machina.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=64376#post64376

I'm so SWINE...

Regards,
David R