Sparked by a conversation elsewhere, but it made me realise something about settings I like: they feature prejudice and thus discrimination. Usually a lot of it along a whole range of values.
My favourite setting of all is history, which is chock-full of it. Nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, social class, wealth - every one of them is a potential source of tension and confrontation. And I love it. A setting feels a hell of a lot more real and credible when people have darker impulses and can be petty and narrow-minded about stuff that in the scheme of things is really stupid to get bothered about.
When I played WFRP2e, one of the things I appreciated having to deal with repeatedly was that even aside from being a foreigner (an Imperial in the Border Princes), my character was a peasant. Quite often important people completely overlooked him, or assumed he was a servant/bodyguard, or just didn't know how to place him at all. For a large proportion of the game, he was also illiterate, which caused the odd amusing situation where he had to rely on one of the other PCs to deciper a written missive.
That, ironically, was the only white character I've played in a very long time. My current character is a black Frenchman (of Senegalese descent and a Muslim by upbringing) in a game set in contemporary Paris. In one of our historical games (set in 1750 New York province), my character was half-Iroquois and very obviously not a European in his manner and dress, which caused complications.
See for me roleplaying isn't supposed to be a total escape from everything that makes our world what it is. I don't want Star Trek level utopian "everyone just loves each other and gets along", that's dull to me. I only need an escape from right-here-right-now, so as long as I'm not playing a game of contemporary people living ordinary lives, I'm golden.
I should also add, as an addendum, I am not white. I see and deal with discrimination in real life. That doesn't make it something I'd prefer to gloss over and pretend doesn't happen in my fictional worlds, it's something that is very much just a part of life. I also don't see myself as a victim, which is why discrimination isn't a tender issue for me to deal with in-game, or feel it needs to be excised for my personal comfort.
I don't mind that these discussions happen once in a while: I just resent it when they're framed in a passive-aggressive hypothetical against hypothetical bad GMs (as it was in that other place).
There is merit in exploring morally grey topics in RPGs. I mean, Blizzard made Orcs into a noble race with their own culture and all that: definitely not the mindless spawn of darkness of the typical Tolkienism. So it can work!
But yeah, sometimes we just want monsters to kill without doubting our own world view. I don't play RPGs to open up sociological shame about myself and my ideas about tropes in RPGs. Sure there's a place for having that debate, but if can be done without the usual garbage like: "GMs who use themes such as racism in their game settings ARE irredeemably racist themselves". Once that comes up, I'm out.
I agree on much of this.
I like a setting where things feel logical and where history has played out and the PCs live in a wold where that is going on.
Also, I enjoyed going with something familiar, but tweaking it in a few directions, so that the players feel racism and prejudice from a few directions, racial, guild, social class, and magic types. Probably social class is the heaviest discrimination, to be honest.
It is part of the World in Motion, this feeling that history, large and small, has weight and is happening all around the players.
"There are racial issues alive in Celtricia as well. Small Hobyts and the strong Orcash are the most numerous races in Celtricia, followed by the three original clans of the Humans, the ancient Omwo~ (Elven), the Klaxik (Dwarven), the Gnomic, and the Gartier. These races comprise the primary inhabitants of Celtricia that are within the civilized world. Understand, however, that it is considered an effect of culture to be able to integrate and work with other races, especially in the North-West Cradle areas where Orcash live side-by-side with Omwo~. Barabarians are tribal, integrated cultures are civilized. So in hyper-integrated cultures, race is considered much less of a divider than Guild or Country, however you will find many areas that hold to their own. However, some cults still hold to the ideas that the Ogrillites are 'born in sin', while others see the still-existing outside tribes as evidence of the inferiority of the Ogrillites. There is much growth still to happen.
But this very disintegration of racial identity is another dynamic that needs attention. The Omwo~, the firstborn servants of the Planars, are a race in remmision. Many ancient writings point to the advent of humans as a replacement for the Omwo~. The Stunatu, the Klaxiks, Gnomics, and Hobyts, were created to be workers, servants of others, back in the Age of Legends. In the last five centuries, the humans, who were created to replace the Omwo~ as the stewards of the 'Waking Dream' in most older religious texts, have watched the Hobyts outpace and supplant them with a cheerful, hard-working smile. And overshadowing that, the even more recent inclusion of many of the the Ogrillite races, the servants and tools created to defend the Cairnhold in the Age of Legends, and the bloody-handed soldiers of Arbor and the Dreadwing throughout the Age of Heroes and the early Age of Statehood, into the sunlit streets, shops, and even governments of today's Celtricia.
From here (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/45381378/Setting%20Overview%20Extended).
I like historical games, but I also like fantasy, sci-fi, or alternate histories where the prejudices are quite different from the historical ones.
For example, I don't have a problem with Star Trek as a setting. Sure, old Earth prejudices are gone - but varying with the time period, there is plenty of prejudice against (and from) Cardassians, Romulans, Borg, androids, holograms, and others.
For example, in my Vinland game, the predominant prejudice was against the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) - who were the war-mongering invaders into the territory of the Icelandic settlers and their Algonquian-speaking allies. Plus they were cannibals and in league with dark, alien spirits.
I like racial wars.
Years ago when S&W:White Box came out, I drew up a human-only PC setting where the Elves and Dwarves are locked in a global genocidal racial war destined to destroy the world. Humans can only hope to stay neutral and hope their gods can save them from the apocalypse. Woe be upon human nations that have taken sides in the conflict.
In my Warhammer games, I play up the "fear of others" so even citizens of the Empire in the Empire are looked askance if they are not natives to the town.
I'm of like mind with the OP.
I've been playing in an online CoC group that's running Ripples of Carcosa. The first segment is set in ancient Rome and our Citizen PCs treated the slave PC pretty poorly... then, during the next segment, set in Medieval England, the Norman PCs had no qualms about abusing the Saxon Peasants... only worrying about their deaths as an economic concern. It really helped with the flavor of those settings... if the slaves and saxon had been treated as full equals it would have undermined the verisimilitude and lessened the impact of the coming horrors.
Agreed. I love playing in settings that make room for discrimination to be a thing - not because I'm secretly* a racist asshole who just wants to get my bigotry fix, but, as mentioned, it adds a level of verisimilitude to the game world. My DM's custom setting has quite a bit of casual racism both between and within the different cultures, as well as a good bit of social discrimination, which makes for a lot of interesting interaction both within and without the party and ultimately results in a better game.
*My fantasy racism toward elves is not remotely secret. :p
Quote from: Necrozius;825828Sure there's a place for having that debate, but if can be done without the usual garbage like: "GMs who use themes such as racism in their game settings ARE irredeemably racist themselves".
That sentiment comes from BNGs and SJWs, people who cannot sufficiently separate reality from a game setting.
I associate our modern morality with our modern world. Since I play in settings that are materially different from ours, they are are also morally different. So in a medieval fantasy game, the Enlightenment has not happened. And for pre-Enlightenment people, suspicion, brutality, severe hierarchies, and widespread ignorance were the norm.
I like my fantasy like my steaks - dark and bloody. So I definitely agree. I don't mind playing in an utopian setting once in a while, but I don't see it as objectively, or so to say, OOCly "inclusive and egalitarian" - by playing in a tainted, prejudiced society, we can experiment with actual real life issues, rather than pretend that sweeping them conveniently away, with Hollywood - level white - washing and Balderisation, is making us objectively "nobler" players.
To no offense to D&D players, I think a lot of this comes from the way how alignments and such are played out nowadays. If you take players raised, like me, on Warhammer, CoC or Elric, they will have very different expectations of RPG worlds than ones that started out playing D&D.
I have no idea how to run NPCs completely divorced of prejudice.
Quote from: Old One Eye;825865I have no idea how to run NPCs completely divorced of prejudice.
I imagine it would be like running NPCs devoid of envy or jealousy of any kind.
Quote from: Bren;825886I imagine it would be like running NPCs devoid of envy or jealousy of any kind.
It would be pretty darn weird... unless it was something like Paranoia and all the PCs and NPCs were clones of each other... even then something would come up... odd numbered clones oppressing their even numbered brothers.
Quote from: Haffrung;825857And for pre-Enlightenment people, suspicion, brutality, severe hierarchies, and widespread ignorance were the norm.
Thank goodness we don't have any of that nowadays!
Quote from: Old One Eye;825865I have no idea how to run NPCs completely divorced of prejudice.
Agreed, and it seems to me that the OP is arguing against a straw man.
Yes, there are settings like Star Trek where many modern-day prejudices like human racism and sexism are largely absent. However, that doesn't mean there is zero prejudice in that setting - it's just different than common real-world prejudices.
In practice, I don't find any problem playing in the Star Trek universe - and I find there is plenty of conflict and prejudice.
I reject, contemptuously, the brain-damaged premise that what I put in my game setting and how I have my NPCs react reflect by definition my real-life values.
There are indeed some elements I downplay. One of my wife's high school friends hung himself from a bridge that's visible from our front porch; I don't make hanging, and especially suicide by hanging, a prominent part of my game. I've known too many rape victims to have sexual assault make a prominent part of plots. But that has nothing to do with making my setting reflect my values, and far more to do with my personal squick factor.
Unless egalitarian cosmopolitan utopia is part of the setting conceit (a fair chunk of Star Trek's Federation), I too like to include all the range of beauty and ugliness in societies. One of the reasons I couldn't hack PF -- besides it being a warmed over plate of D&D 3e, a dish I already despised -- was because each party was comprised of the most special of snowflakes, and the setting seemed to assume no one would dare bat an eye at it all. Boooring!
:rolleyes:
Conflict is the millstone of life, and creatures with their own attitudes are grist for the mill. Grind it fine, shake it up into the air, and then wait for that spark. Bang.
Quote from: jhkim;825891Agreed, and it seems to me that the OP is arguing against a straw man.
Yes, there are settings like Star Trek where many modern-day prejudices like human racism and sexism are largely absent. However, that doesn't mean there is zero prejudice in that setting - it's just different than common real-world prejudices.
In practice, I don't find any problem playing in the Star Trek universe - and I find there is plenty of conflict and prejudice.
I think the issue does not lie in the binary situations (no prejudice/lots of hate).
There is so much in between that GMs fail to remember when creating cardboard cut-out NPCS and social situations. One of my favorite scenes or recent note included a Grand Shell master of the Blue Turtles Honorable Warriors, who looks down on women, telling one particular female PC that, "Well, I can trust this to you, but you're not like most women", and the confrontation THAT led to.
Wait... people run campaigns without prejudice and racism in them because they're scared of being perceived as racists? or because it makes them "feel bad"?
This is a real thing? Isn't that like playing "Candyland" and calling it and "RPG"?
Quote from: tenbones;825962Wait... people run campaigns without prejudice and racism in them because they're scared of being perceived as racists? or because it makes them "feel bad"?
This is a real thing? Isn't that like playing "Candyland" and calling it and "RPG"?
Ask Pundit if it shows up on the 'Swine-O-Meter'.
Quote from: tenbones;825962Wait... people run campaigns without prejudice and racism in them because they're scared of being perceived as racists? or because it makes them "feel bad"?
This is a real thing? Isn't that like playing "Candyland" and calling it and "RPG"?
I think it's fairer to say there's a very small number of Outrage Brigaders who probably aren't playing who want everyone to run campaigns without prejudice and racism in them because triggers/privilege/original sin whatever.
Whatever.
In my experience, it's an interesting challenge to play an "outsider" provided the GM handles it properly.
Quote from: tenbones;825962Wait... people run campaigns without prejudice and racism in them because they're scared of being perceived as racists? or because it makes them "feel bad"?
This is a real thing? Isn't that like playing "Candyland" and calling it and "RPG"?
A poster in the other thread mentioned playing a game set in the 1930s. She's playing a black woman who is a major up and coming movie start. but faces no prejudices or limitations for her race. I can't help but wonder why play that character? If the only difference her ethnicity makes is totally cosmetic. To be fair it is a Pulp style game so not beholden to be "realistic" but that would seriously mess with my sense of verisimilitude. And seems kind of dull to boot.
But some just really don't like dealing with that real life issues in gaming.
Quote from: Nexus;826043A poster in the other thread mentioned playing a game set in the 1930s. She's playing a black woman who is a major up and coming movie start. but faces no prejudices or limitations for her race. I can't help but wonder why play that character? If the only difference her ethnicity makes is totally cosmetic. To be fair it is a Pulp style game so not beholden to be "realistic" but that would seriously mess with my sense of verisimilitude. And seems kind of dull to boot.
But some just really don't like dealing with that real life issues in gaming.
Black celebrities are historically accurate. Minimal limitations...yeah. No prejudice...not really accurate.
Two examples off the top of my head: Josephine Baker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Baker) and Paul Robeson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson). Either one sounds like a fun character to play.
Quote from: Bren;826047Black celebrities are historically accurate.
That wasn't my problem with the character concept. I'm aware there were black celebrities during the time period.
QuoteMinimal limitations...yeah. No prejudice...not really accurate.
That she was a major starlet for MGM, basically a super star of her day without facing any issues for her race is what threw me.
Quote from: Nexus;826049That wasn't my problem with the character concept. I'm aware there were black celebrities during the time period.
Sorry if I gave the impression I thought you were incorrect. I was adding some nuance. I agree that a black star with discrimination issues is significantly a-historic.
I'm not sure there's a lot of purpose in making a decision on a hypothetical. If I have a player at my table who wants to play that character, then we'd have a conversation. At a minimum, I'd want to understand what the player understands about the period, why they want that character, and how the changes will impact play both for that player and for others.
I have a lot of female Call of Cthulhu players. A lot of their characters are female. Some of those characters play out like the Miss Fisher Mysteries, i.e. some of their female PCs are a bit exceptional and face less gender discrimination than would be strictly accurate. Part of that is because it is more fun that way. Part of it, is frankly that all the players (and even the GM) sometimes forget to implement the mix of coddling/protection on the one hand and discrimination on the other that women faced in the period.
QuoteThat she was a major starlet for MGM, basically a super star of her day without facing any issues for her race is what threw me.
As a GM, I'd be happier if only one of the two player requests applied, i.e. she is a simple starlet, not a star, but with no prejudice or she is a major star but there is some prejudice that she has to work against or struggle with.
Quote from: Bren;826054As a GM, I'd be happier if only one of the two player requests applied, i.e. she is a simple starlet, not a star, but with no prejudice or she is a major star but there is some prejudice that she has to work against or struggle with.
Interesting. I'd be more comfortable with a major star not dealing with significant discrimination - particularly in a pulp game. A less famous person would have a lot more trouble with mundane discrimination, whereas a world-famous star like Josephine Baker would have tons of doors opened for her, be invited to parties, and so forth. Famous people were often treated as exceptions. i.e. "There's a black woman at the door, shall I let her in?" "That's no black woman - that's Josephine Baker! Of course she should come in."
Of course, pulp covers a wide variety. Is this pulp in the spirit of The Shadow and other over-the-top tales that make like effort towards realism? Or is this pulp as in Dashiell Hammett stories?
Quote from: Nexus;826043A poster in the other thread mentioned playing a game set in the 1930s. She's playing a black woman who is a major up and coming movie start. but faces no prejudices or limitations for her race. I can't help but wonder why play that character? If the only difference her ethnicity makes is totally cosmetic. To be fair it is a Pulp style game so not beholden to be "realistic" but that would seriously mess with my sense of verisimilitude. And seems kind of dull to boot.
But some just really don't like dealing with that real life issues in gaming.
My recollection of that post is that it was more of a "sometimes I want to deal with discrimination issues and other times I don't", with examples of both cases. The black starlet was the example chosen for the "other times I don't" case.
The poster didn't mention why they specifically wanted the starlet to be black, but it may not have been for purely cosmetic reasons. Even without dealing with day-to-day racism, the character's upbringing may have been very different from a white woman's in the same setting, she'd likely have different social contacts and values, etc. Although the lines are getting pretty blurry these days, "white culture" and "black culture" remain fairly distinct in the US and would have been even more so half a century ago.
Quote from: nDervish;826103My recollection of that post is that it was more of a "sometimes I want to deal with discrimination issues and other times I don't", with examples of both cases. The black starlet was the example chosen for the "other times I don't" case.
The poster didn't mention why they specifically wanted the starlet to be black, but it may not have been for purely cosmetic reasons. Even without dealing with day-to-day racism, the character's upbringing may have been very different from a white woman's in the same setting, she'd likely have different social contacts and values, etc. Although the lines are getting pretty blurry these days, "white culture" and "black culture" remain fairly distinct in the US and would have been even more so half a century ago.
She didn't mention it, but I suspect the reason the PC was black was actually quite simple: because the player/poster is.
I do the same thing; as a non-white person I almost never play white characters (I also almost never play non-humans). That WFPR2e character in my first game with my group was the only time I have done in the last decade. Then in that instance, making him of peasant stock was a deliberate choice, knowing he'd face classist discrimination (which he did).
Every character since has been black or of mixed ethnicity, and visibly so. I even make a point of researching any given setting to find an appropriate in-game heritage so they can be. If that means my character is discriminated against, so much the better, it makes playing them more interesting. It's a conscious and entirely intentional choice to take on all the issues that playing a character of the non-dominant ethnicity brings.
Quote from: jhkim;826091Interesting. I'd be more comfortable with a major star not dealing with significant discrimination - particularly in a pulp game. A less famous person would have a lot more trouble with mundane discrimination, whereas a world-famous star like Josephine Baker would have tons of doors opened for her, be invited to parties, and so forth. Famous people were often treated as exceptions. i.e. "There's a black woman at the door, shall I let her in?" "That's no black woman - that's Josephine Baker! Of course she should come in."
Of course, pulp covers a wide variety. Is this pulp in the spirit of The Shadow and other over-the-top tales that make like effort towards realism? Or is this pulp as in Dashiell Hammett stories?
AFAICT fro, what the poster said and glancing through her links, The character has never faced any issues due to her race, period as I understand. Not in reaching her position, not in her life or the course of the game. She wasn't born a movie star and "none at all" is different from no significant. Even status isn't going to stop all discrimination, particularly from an in times of virulent and overt racism. Just some of it might be more hidden. I mean there's an old joke that depicts that attitude
"What do you call a rich black man in an expensive suit?"
You can probably guess the punchline.
The game is Spirit of the Century. I don't begrudge them their choice. It's their game and they should do what they find fun. It just strikes me as an odd choice to make and kind of dull as it makes the character's ethnicity basically cosmetic and the setting more of a pastiche and a major aspect of what would appeal to me about a playing such a character in a historical game barely background flavor.
Quote from: nDervish;826103My recollection of that post is that it was more of a "sometimes I want to deal with discrimination issues and other times I don't", with examples of both cases. The black starlet was the example chosen for the "other times I don't" case.
From what she said, she usually likes her characters facing discrimination in modern settings for being like her (black and a lesbian) but doesn't like in some settings such as historical ones.
Like I said, it strikes me as an odd preference. But its her's. Its not Badwrongfun but it feels odd and I do admit I recent the implication from her and others that GM aren't willing to make those kind of concessions in their games are doing it wrong (or even racists).
QuoteThe poster didn't mention why they specifically wanted the starlet to be black, but it may not have been for purely cosmetic reasons.
From what I gathered from comments she likes to play characters that are like her. Again no arm in that.
QuoteEven without dealing with day-to-day racism, the character's upbringing may have been very different from a white woman's in the same setting, she'd likely have different social contacts and values, etc. Although the lines are getting pretty blurry these days, "white culture" and "black culture" remain fairly distinct in the US and would have been even more so half a century ago.
Much of that distinction though tended to stem from the racial divide. segregation, different opportunities, etc. If the setting is as such that black people face no discrimination or different treatment then it seems like there would be less of a divide, similar to today than the 1930s. "White culture" and "Black Culture" even today are in part created by racial attitudes. The divide seems to fading or more changing in nature to become economic than racial. Its not like being an elf or a dwarf is more fantasy settings. Unless the same social and cultural issues exist in their version of the 1930s just that her character is immune to them which would just strike me as even stranger. Not a game I'd want to play in really but to each their own.
Quote from: Kiero;826105She didn't mention it, but I suspect the reason the PC was black was actually quite simple: because the player/poster is.
Quote from: Nexus;826113From what she said, she usually likes her characters facing discrimination in modern settings for being like her (black and a lesbian) but doesn't like in some settings such as historical ones.
Ah, yep, that would explain it. Guess I either forgot that detail or wasn't paying close enough attention to catch it in the first place.
Quote from: Nexus;826113Much of that distinction though tended to stem from the racial divide. segregation, different opportunities, etc. If the setting is as such that black people face no discrimination or different treatment then it seems like there would be less of a divide, similar to today than the 1930s. "White culture" and "Black Culture" even today are in part created by racial attitudes.
Even given that, there's the distinction between "X is a part of my character's backstory" and "X is something that will happen (or that I want to happen) in play". When X is "encountering discrimination", then it does open up questions of setting consistency, sure, but is "my character's childhood was shaped by racism, but I don't want to deal with that in-game" really all that different from "my character's childhood was shaped by poverty, but they're financially secure now"?
Quote from: Nexus;826113The divide seems to fading or more changing in nature to become economic than racial.
True. I often question whether it would be more accurate to refer to what's commonly thought of as "black culture" in the modern US as "urban poor culture" instead. I'm not sure whether we've hit that point yet, but it certainly seems to be approaching quickly.
Quote from: nDervish;826120Even given that, there's the distinction between "X is a part of my character's backstory" and "X is something that will happen (or that I want to happen) in play". When X is "encountering discrimination", then it does open up questions of setting consistency, sure, but is "my character's childhood was shaped by racism, but I don't want to deal with that in-game" really all that different from "my character's childhood was shaped by poverty, but they're financially secure now"?
It differs significantly, IMO. A character or a person don't stop being black or a member of an oppressed group at some point unless they actively try to "blend" and even that is going to affect them. I experienced racism growing up and I still do. Racism isn't something that would just "go away" for the course of the character's adult life barring something extraordinary. Race/ethnicity is something the character is, its an integral part of them. Wealth and poverty are (or can be) transitory features. I'm always going to be black. Its pretty much always going to effect my outlook. how I look at the world and how the world looks at me. I might win the lottery tomorrow. That's going to change some things but I'm always going to be black.
If someone doesn't want to deal with those elements in their play that's fine for them, of course. That's part of the nature of escapism. But it will feel weird to me. Especially if the rest of the world is basically historically accurate in regards to race except my PC seems to live in their own reality bubble or the society is completely or almost egalitarian (regarding race and possibly other issues of discrimination) but there's been no other significant historical changes.
QuoteTrue. I often question whether it would be more accurate to refer to what's commonly thought of as "black culture" in the modern US as "urban poor culture" instead. I'm not sure whether we've hit that point yet, but it certainly seems to be approaching quickly.
I agree there. Its seems to be progressig in that direction fairly quickly too (for social change).
Quote from: Nexus;826124It differs significantly, IMO. A character or a person don't stop being black or a member of an oppressed group at some point unless they actively try to "blend" and even that is going to affect them.
Yep. That's why, when making the comparison, I used "being discriminated against" instead of "being black" as the character's past state which the player wanted to leave out of the game's present. Both discrimination and poverty are problems that I can imagine a player wanting to be present as a part of the character's background, but not as a factor in the actual play of the game, even though one can be left behind in the real world and the other generally can't.
Quote from: Nexus;826124I experienced racism growing up and I still do. Racism isn't something that would just "go away" for the course of the character's adult life barring something extraordinary.
Not in reality, no. That's the "questions of setting consistency" that I mentioned - if you want racial discrimination to be part of your character's backstory, but not a part of actual gameplay, then it's possible to do that, but doing so comes at a cost in loss of setting consistency. Depending on the people involved, the loss of consistency may or may not be an acceptable price to pay to make that character concept work.
I'm pretty sure that I don't actually disagree with anything you've said here and I'm fully aware that the "suffered racism in the past, but not now" scenario
really stretches credibility in any kind of real-world terms. The only thing I'm trying to say here is that I can see how someone might want to make a character of that sort despite the credibility/consistency issues.
I am trying to imagine playing in the time period of Raisin in the Sun or Imitation of Life or the life of Billy Holiday, but to have it also divorced from all that era's pathos. That's more of a costume change -- without wearing the costume -- than anything else. Don't they have dress-up conventions to run with that happy fantasy? What's the point of roleplaying that with neither the dynamic tension or pretty clothes?
Quote from: jhkim;826091Interesting. I'd be more comfortable with a major star not dealing with significant discrimination - particularly in a pulp game. A less famous person would have a lot more trouble with mundane discrimination, whereas a world-famous star like Josephine Baker would have tons of doors opened for her, be invited to parties, and so forth. Famous people were often treated as exceptions. i.e. "There's a black woman at the door, shall I let her in?" "That's no black woman - that's Josephine Baker! Of course she should come in."
I guess I was thinking of it from some sort of a point buy balance POV. Rethinking it I don't really like that starlet sans discrimination.
I'd rather just go with a character like Josephine Baker who gets special treatment due to star power, but still has to deal with a world that is racially segregated and discriminatory. Because the PC is a big star she is protected from a lot of the discrimination that others without her wealth and popularity have to face. That would give her a partial PC bubble of protection, but I'd still expect the occasional problem or hassle and talking behind her back by NPCs.
On the other hand, creating a setting that is pre-WWII earth but with no discrimination at all just seems so radically different that as a GM I'd have trouble comprehending where the ramifications stop.
- No Nazis and no Hitler since anti-Semitism doesn't exist. Now we can't punch Nazis in the face. :(
- No Jim Crow laws and no 1920s KKK marches on Washington which means either the Civil War ended much differently or slavery didn't exist or never happened. So Africans must have voluntarily came to the Americas.
- No anti-immigrant attitude towards Irish, Chinese, Italians etc. So no ethnic neighborhoods. Also no Irish mob, no Tongs, and no Corsican Black Hand - which eliminates all the fun punching gangsters in the face. :(
- Probably no Red Scare either which probably causes a different outcome for organized labor in the USA - America probably becomes socialist.
- Native Americans wouldn't have been wiped out since there'd be no "only good Injun is a dead Injun" attitude which makes the America look a lot different. Are the Great Plains still covered with buffalo herds?
The list goes on, but you get the idea.
Honestly the
no discrimination but what the player chooses is better served by either giving PCs an in world magical glow that makes them all immune to the trials and tribulations of ordinary mortals. Or by creating a completely alternate world that isn't our earth (no USA, no Europe, no Africa) but that has the same fashions and gear - which seems about the only things left of our world.
Quote from: Nexus;826112The game is Spirit of the Century. I don't begrudge them their choice. It's their game and they should do what they find fun. It just strikes me as an odd choice to make and kind of dull as it makes the character's ethnicity basically cosmetic and the setting more of a pastiche and a major aspect of what would appeal to me about a playing such a character in a historical game barely background flavor.
From my view, I absolutely enjoy playing in historical games - including all sorts of ugly realities of the period in question. In my Vinland game, characters went on raids to return with slaves and loot, they were subject to clan rules and had marriages arranged for them, and so forth. In my most recent Call of Cthulhu game, there was a ton of prejudice.
However, for me, Spirit of the Century is not in the slightest a historical game. Hell, the pulps of the period were not at all realistic to science, history, or culture - and SotC doesn't even cite any period pulps as its sources. The listed sources for SotC are all post-1970s pulp recreations like The Rocketeer, Indiana Jones, and Tom Strong - and the sample characters and scenarios generally reflect that.
I think the comic Tom Strong is a good example. Tom's wife Dhalua is black (as well as being another science hero), but I don't recall that she particularly faces any discrimination other than from high-heeled Nazis. I don't think that the comic would necessarily be improved by having her face realistic racial attitudes for the various periods. In the midst of fighting cyberpunk Aztec invaders from another dimension, it would be kind of weird to introduce historical race attitudes in the name of believability.
If you're not familiar with Tom Strong, the 1999 movie Wild Wild West is a similar example. I don't think that the movie would have been necessarily improved if James West had faced more realistic discrimination as a black man. There's nothing wrong with history, but it doesn't need to always be enforced.
Quote from: Opaopajr;826138I am trying to imagine playing in the time period of Raisin in the Sun or Imitation of Life or the life of Billy Holiday, but to have it also divorced from all that era's pathos. That's more of a costume change -- without wearing the costume -- than anything else. Don't they have dress-up conventions to run with that happy fantasy? What's the point of roleplaying that with neither the dynamic tension or pretty clothes?
Exactly. It's "Chutes-n'-Ladders the RPG". To people that play that, and enjoy it, great. I think there's a lot of interesting fun to be missed doing that way and it's not my cuppa.
I find it curious when talking about race and cultural biases and such, playing in the Pulp genre gets brought up as a filtered defense against using such notions in ones game. There is certainly middle ground, there's ALWAYS middle ground for a good GM. This very topic was what got me banned from TBP because someone asked in their Pulp-WWII game was it "okay for the NPC's (Americans) to say "Japs" in reference to Japanese soldiers.
I'm Japanese - I said "We don't give a shit what you do at your table in your game." And frankly it's because I accept a couple of conceits: it's how people talked in America back then, and I and my extended Asian family can understand the subtext of it (I'm not saying we condone it - again, depends on the contect). Of course the Outrage Brigade laid into me... "How dare I speak for all Japanese people!" among other such ridiculous points that frankly in light of the topic - pretty much shows you right there my larger point: who are *we*to tell you what you can/can't do in your games?
Look, if your group is having fun and you're staying consistent and true to your goal - do what you like and don't worry about it. It's makebelieve.
Quote from: jhkim;826091whereas a world-famous star like Josephine Baker would have tons of doors opened for her, be invited to parties, and so forth. Famous people were often treated as exceptions. i.e. "There's a black woman at the door, shall I let her in?" "That's no black woman - that's Josephine Baker! Of course she should come in."
Josephine Baker faced discrimination in America, she was the toast of Paris and Europe, but back in America, while she was a star in Harlem, Broadway was a very different story. She left the US for France in the 30's, didn't come back until the 50's and even then couldn't get a hotel reservation for her and her white husband and was refused service at the Stork Club, which became a big brouhaha.
She's the poster child for "World's Greatest Performer Still Will Face Discrimination in the US."
Quote from: tenbones;826153Of course the Outrage Brigade laid into me...
It's alright you poor little Asian guy, you have been brainwashed and beaten down by the White West for so long (Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa) that you don't know what you're saying. Let us, the whites who know better fulfill our Noblesse Oblige and tell you how you should respond as a Japanese man.
It always surprises me that the Outrage Brigade doesn't realize they're the most -ist of all.
Quote from: jhkim;826149From my view, I absolutely enjoy playing in historical games - including all sorts of ugly realities of the period in question. In my Vinland game, characters went on raids to return with slaves and loot, they were subject to clan rules and had marriages arranged for them, and so forth. In my most recent Call of Cthulhu game, there was a ton of prejudice.
However, for me, Spirit of the Century is not in the slightest a historical game. Hell, the pulps of the period were not at all realistic to science, history, or culture - and SotC doesn't even cite any period pulps as its sources. The listed sources for SotC are all post-1970s pulp recreations like The Rocketeer, Indiana Jones, and Tom Strong - and the sample characters and scenarios generally reflect that.
I think the comic Tom Strong is a good example. Tom's wife Dhalua is black (as well as being another science hero), but I don't recall that she particularly faces any discrimination other than from high-heeled Nazis. I don't think that the comic would necessarily be improved by having her face realistic racial attitudes for the various periods. In the midst of fighting cyberpunk Aztec invaders from another dimension, it would be kind of weird to introduce historical race attitudes in the name of believability.
If you're not familiar with Tom Strong, the 1999 movie Wild Wild West is a similar example. I don't think that the movie would have been necessarily improved if James West had faced more realistic discrimination as a black man. There's nothing wrong with history, but it doesn't need to always be enforced.
As I recall Wild Wild West Smith's character did encounter racism. The central antagonist and his cronies were violent racists to the point they targeted black towns to test their weapons. West ran into personally to a degree that ran from odd looks to outright insults.
I never said anything about racism being needed in any objective sense. I said I preferred it. I want a sense of verisimilitude and consistency to be maintained in a setting. If its supposed to be ostensibly the 1930s + Mad Scientists and Nazis then I prefer for other major aspects of that setting to be there (or for their to be reason for them not to be).
It would also take an important character choice and reduce it to something mostly cosmetic or trivial. If I chose to play a black characters in a game set in the 30s it wouldn't be to side step racial issues. If anything, for me internal consistency makes games like that more enjoyably for me. The fantastic stands out more if the setting generally feels "real".
Games like Spirit of the Century aren't historical simulations but that doesn't mean I'd want the time period to be nothing more than an elaborate backdrop. Including some fantastic elements is one thing but tossing out major aspects of the proposed world for reason that seem trivial seems like a waste. May as well just set the game is a completely fictional world and passes up some opportunities for things I find fun.
YMMV. Its a matter of preference. But for me, yes, having a mixed couple in the 30s have to deal with the resulting issues while (or between) fighting Aztec Nazis would make for a more entertaining story. Is it "needed" as in objectively the one way? No, but I never said that to begin with.
Quote from: nDervish;826131The only thing I'm trying to say here is that I can see how someone might want to make a character of that sort despite the credibility/consistency issues.
I don't get why someone would do that but different people like different things and I don't have to "get" something and no one needs my permission. I just most likely wouldn't enjoy the game being described on TBP and those players probably wouldn't enjoy mine.
Quote from: CRKrueger;826166It's alright you poor little Asian guy, you have been brainwashed and beaten down by the White West for so long (Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa) that you don't know what you're saying. Let us, the whites who know better fulfill our Noblesse Oblige and tell you how you should respond as a Japanese man.
It always surprises me that the Outrage Brigade doesn't realize they're the most -ist of all.
Being socially aware means never having to be self aware.
Quote from: CRKrueger;826166It's alright you poor little Asian guy, you have been brainwashed and beaten down by the White West for so long (Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa) that you don't know what you're saying. Let us, the whites who know better fulfill our Noblesse Oblige and tell you how you should respond as a Japanese man.
It always surprises me that the Outrage Brigade doesn't realize they're the most -ist of all.
That's what irked me. It's hard to get under my skin. But the whole thing... I dunno.. sheer arrogance, the self-loathing these assholes must feel for themselves is a little scary.
I pointed that out - 'so wait... you white guys are going to tell me I'm penalized for 'speaking for an entire group - of which I'm part of' by telling me my whole group *is*, in fact, offended by the word 'Jap'. Then they posted up some Japanese politicians who said they're offended by the use of the word 'Jap'..."
When my whole point was this is a fucking game. It's set in WWII. Back then They called us Japs. I'm not saying it's COOL. I'm just saying that's what people did, and it was normal for Americans to do so. Then I posted pictures of Superman bitchslapping a japanese soldier (in full Tojo-bucktooth-w/glasses regalia) and it said "Slap a Jap " - or some such nonsense. I posted a news article from WWII that showed a poll that said 60% of America favored executing all Japanese citizens in America. That was the tone of that era. Why in the fuck would we judge them by "standards" of today?
It's just a game. Do what you feel serves the best kind of game you want to run.
TL;DR Superman did not, in fact, "Slap a Jap" - because Superman is not real. And no it doesn't mean I endorse "slapping japs" because I don't give a fuck that a cartoon character from the 40's says it's okay.
Where does that group of even get off telling someone they're wrong for "speaking for an entire group" when its practically a way of life for most of them and quite often for a group they don't belong too?
Quote from: tenbones;826186That's what irked me. It's hard to get under my skin. But the whole thing... I dunno.. sheer arrogance, the self-loathing these assholes must feel for themselves is a little scary.
I pointed that out - 'so wait... you white guys are going to tell me I'm penalized for 'speaking for an entire group - of which I'm part of' by telling me my whole group *is*, in fact, offended by the word 'Jap'. Then they posted up some Japanese politicians who said they're offended by the use of the word 'Jap'..."
When my whole point was this is a fucking game. It's set in WWII. Back then They called us Japs. I'm not saying it's COOL. I'm just saying that's what people did, and it was normal for Americans to do so. Then I posted pictures of Superman bitchslapping a japanese soldier (in full Tojo-bucktooth-w/glasses regalia) and it said "Slap a Jap " - or some such nonsense. I posted a news article from WWII that showed a poll that said 60% of America favored executing all Japanese citizens in America. That was the tone of that era. Why in the fuck would we judge them by "standards" of today?
It's just a game. Do what you feel serves the best kind of game you want to run.
TL;DR Superman did not, in fact, "Slap a Jap" - because Superman is not real. And no it doesn't mean I endorse "slapping japs" because I don't give a fuck that a cartoon character from the 40's says it's okay.
Oh so much this...
Quote from: CRKrueger;826166It's alright you poor little Asian guy, you have been brainwashed and beaten down by the White West for so long (Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa) that you don't know what you're saying. Let us, the whites who know better fulfill our Noblesse Oblige and tell you how you should respond as a Japanese man.
It always surprises me that the Outrage Brigade doesn't realize they're the most -ist of all.
And this!
Finally a forum of people who get that...i feel so..at home here ;) :D
No seriously...i mean WTF...some people over on TBP are just...so out of sync with reality. And the funny thing is they think
they are the enlightened and modern folk of today. It's hilarious. But also so sad. And they're even proud of their SJW style...there are a lot of those douches that even have SJW titles in their personal-title space at the top of each post.
I think Nexus' sig is also par for the course of their ideology/ideas. I mean, come on! It's like they believe in "you are what you game/gm". Seriously?!
Grow up. And please, get some perspective.
Idiots.
And as always, it's not helped by a moderation that is totally in their quarter. You really can't have a significant discussion with them. If you have good points, you get banned via some shady peer-pressure and/or twisting of arguments. It's sad really.
Erm...sorry...tangent over. As to the topic. I am so on board with Kiero. I want to tackle/face problems in my RPG. Sure, sometimes over the top problems :D and maybe even some games that are very...no PG style. But the more satisfying and memorable games are those where our characters have to face dire situations, not only physically but also mentally and, to take the third rpg level, socially. I want to play in an HBO RPG, not in Sesame-Street RPG most of the times ;)
Quote from: Anglachel;826354No seriously...i mean WTF...some people over on TBP are just...so out of sync with reality. And the funny thing is they think they are the enlightened and modern folk of today. It's hilarious. But also so sad.
It is disturbing when you see the attitudes on TBP and other places online reflected in real life pop culture. See, for example, The Daily Show. I can barely stand to watch that show anymore. I don't know if the writers are mostly SJW millennials or just pandering to them but its become far to much like what its detractors often painted it as being.
A GM plays the part of the rest of the world. That means playing the wise and foolish, the prejudiced and the open-minded, the violent and the peaceful.
How we act in character as player or GM, how our world is shaped and the cosmology drawn, is no reflection on how we are in reality. How foolish.
The whole idea that an appearance of a character with flaws, horrible ones even, that is not a cardboard cut - out villain makes the work somehow condone these behaviours, is idiotic beyond belief.
Thank Heavens these morons can't read anything that hasn't been transcribed into a comic book/film, or they'd start calling for ban of Balzac because Vautrin* dreamt of running a cotton plantation in antebellum South, and he wasn't mouth - frothing heinous.
*a certainly rather shady and evil character, but not one without good points raised regarding the society, even in his first appearance.
Quote from: Nexus;826170Games like Spirit of the Century aren't historical simulations but that doesn't mean I'd want the time period to be nothing more than an elaborate backdrop. Including some fantastic elements is one thing but tossing out major aspects of the proposed world for reason that seem trivial seems like a waste. May as well just set the game is a completely fictional world and passes up some opportunities for things I find fun.
The problem is a bit deeper than that.
To give an example - from what I remember, in CoC you always had a paragraph saying that while playing in the 30s, issues of race and xenophobia can be skipped if players are uncomfortable with it. And it's okay. But nowadays, you'll be more likely to find a paragraph that says they can be played out if they are okay with it. And it's a somewhat slight but noticeable shift in attitudes.
For a lot of people that claim that RPGs are art, they can not dare to step outside their tiny comfort zones, to try and truly experience a different world and view than they have, playing out their little avatars in little hugboxes of their own creation.
Fuck that.
If RPGs are an art by any sort of degree, they aren't meant to be comfortable, since art isn't meant to cuddle you in your beliefs. It's supposed to provoke you. If you can't handle someone playing out a perspective of, say, charitable racist Southern baron in 1830s, it's okay. But don't pretend you are better or more adult for that, because you are not. You are scared and/or scarred, and it's fine - but stop with your delusions of being nobler because you can't handle a "difficult" topic.
It applies to more than just issues of sensitivity in RPGs (and of course, goes way beyond the scope of this small yet important to us hobby), but that's the problem - everyone wants to be the true grown up sophisticated player, but at the same time, can't handle the actual "heat" of being an adult player. If your diet consists of McDonalds, don't pretend to be refined - cook something yourself, you bloody lazy oaf. So we have all sorts of mental gymnastics, to prove that we're all the same, equal players, really. No, we're not. Some of us are more...call it however you want. Ambitious, open minded, pretentious, exploratory - I don't care anymore at this point. Your Little Pony RPG is not equal to my Call of Cthulhu.
And the fact that you can apparently handle games about pirates raping eyesockets, or where sex is used for favours and XP, yet tremble at an idea of an -ist character appearing among the party, only speaks further to your pretentiousness, you bloody band of hipsters.
Quote from: LordVreeg;826358A GM plays the part of the rest of the world. That means playing the wise and foolish, the prejudiced and the open-minded, the violent and the peaceful.
How we act in character as player or GM, how our world is shaped and the cosmology drawn, is no reflection on how we are in reality. How foolish.
You sir, are ON POINT! +1
@Anglachel - I saw your attempts over there trying to reason with them before the inevitable happened. Welcome home old boy. ;)
Quote from: Rincewind1;826395If RPGs are an art by any sort of degree, they aren't meant to be comfortable, since art isn't meant to cuddle you in your beliefs. It's supposed to provoke you. If you can't handle someone playing out a perspective of, say, charitable racist Southern baron in 1830s, it's okay. But don't pretend you are better or more adult for that, because you are not. You are scared and/or scarred, and it's fine - but stop with your delusions of being nobler because you can't handle a "difficult" topic.
It applies to more than just issues of sensitivity in RPGs (and of course, goes way beyond the scope of this small yet important to us hobby), but that's the problem - everyone wants to be the true grown up sophisticated player, but at the same time, can't handle the actual "heat" of being an adult player. If your diet consists of McDonalds, don't pretend to be refined - cook something yourself, you bloody lazy oaf. So we have all sorts of mental gymnastics, to prove that we're all the same, equal players, really. No, we're not. Some of us are more...call it however you want. Ambitious, open minded, pretentious, exploratory - I don't care anymore at this point. Your Little Pony RPG is not equal to my Call of Cthulhu.
And the fact that you can apparently handle games about pirates raping eyesockets, or where sex is used for favours and XP, yet tremble at an idea of an -ist character appearing among the party, only speaks further to your pretentiousness, you bloody band of hipsters.
I couldn't have said this better. I recently re-organized my group. I run a RPG's that tackle very morally ambiguous things on a variety of levels. Even my swashbuckling campaigns have a potentially dark undertones - it's up to the PC's to decide what they're about. I don't play with Alignment - I want my players to do actions that force themselves to do good or evil, or stand by and watch - by intent.
I don't pull punches about what my world's conceits are about - and most of all - I don't tell my PC's how they're supposed to react. The Mods at the TBP, and the players they coddle play a very different kind of game than we do.
I played games like that - when I was in 7th grade. But at some point I said "yes, I fuck the Succubus, because I read in Book of Lairs you can become a Greater Vampire... like her Drow boyfriend. Brian has a helm of Opposite Alignment he can slam onto my head afterwards. Can I do that?"
Jicky, sure, but it's offroading (and hey I was young) from the prescribed adventure. That's what weirds me out - these guys either 1) don't know better or 2) want such a iron-fisted grip on a prescribed experience that is tantamount to what you mentioned: a Happy Meal experience without being challenged.
That's some serious issues right there. RPG's are about conflict. To the degree of conflict they're about is dependent on your GM
I'm interested in fun not art. Games that handwave what feels like prominent aspects of the setting's mood and flavor just aren't as much fun for me. Its not a requirement in the sense every group has to do it and those that don't should feel bad. But don't tell me if I do have "-isms" in my game and won't change that that I am a bad person who should feel bad about playing bad game.
Quote from: tenbones;826548@Anglachel - I saw your attempts over there trying to reason with them before the inevitable happened. Welcome home old boy. ;)
Well, thanks. But i think you mistake me for someone else :D I have not tried to reason with the SJWs and OutrageBrigade...i know that's futile...they are kind of the Borg of rpg.net :D
You know what i find funny? None of those mind-terrorists seem to have a problem with violence...sometimes i find that so...weird.
[sarcastic exaggeration mode] So to play a racist is bad, to play someone who hates women/gay-people/what-have-you is bad...but playing a murder-hobo...that's totally normal and ok...because yeah, being mean to some minorities is sooooo much worse than killing people...yeah...sure.[/sarcastic exaggeration mode]
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Nexus;826558I'm interested in fun not art. Games that handwave what feels like prominent aspects of the setting's mood and flavor just aren't as much fun for me. Its not a requirement in the sense every group has to do it and those that don't should feel bad. But don't tell me if I do have "-isms" in my game and won't change that that I am a bad person who should feel bad about playing bad game.
Yeah, this I agree with.
Nothing wrong with having prejudice in a game, but nothing wrong with lacking it, either.
There is a tendency for some people to say that games are more deep and meaningful if they are darker - especially visible from, say, White Wolf - but also often from fans of other dark games like Call of Cthulhu and/or Warhammer. The implication is that throwing in more murder, torture, slavery, prejudice is somehow supposed to make a game more important and/or artistic. I think that's crap.
I'm also interested in fun, not art. But what I find is that the older I get, the more I like my game-worlds to be like the real world. That includes the flaws, like prejudice.
Quote from: jhkim;825891Agreed, and it seems to me that the OP is arguing against a straw man.
Yes, there are settings like Star Trek where many modern-day prejudices like human racism and sexism are largely absent. However, that doesn't mean there is zero prejudice in that setting - it's just different than common real-world prejudices.
In practice, I don't find any problem playing in the Star Trek universe - and I find there is plenty of conflict and prejudice.
As I read it, I was assuming the OP was more talking about fantasy or historical settings, that try to whitewash things like racism or sexism. Where you can play a woman or a non-majority racial group and be treated exactly like anyone else, and any kind of struggle against prejudice isn't part of the play, because the setting is entirely egalitarian.