Quote from: kanePL;1086575No he shouldn't in my opinion. He could and it's possible to include a black guy in Viking setting like you said but if a GM thinks it will break suspension of disbelief in his setting, he can say 'no'. I would. The GM is not to cater to all player's fantasies, he has a consistent world to uphold and if he thinks a character will break his game, he's allowed to say no.

What's the purpose of that consistent fictional world? Isn't it to offer the players a gaming experience they like?
If the players want a "low realism with oddballs" and the GM wants "total realism with no statistical anomalies at all", the problem actually is a mismatch of the GM's expectations with the players' expectations. If I'm the GM, before working out that consistent world, I sit at the table with the players and I make sure I know what they want.
If what they want really, really isn't my cup of tea, or vice versa, the problem surfaces then, and it doesn't happen that I later nix a character.

Note, BTW, that the archetypal team for a fantasy setting includes a few hobbits, a few men, a dwarf and an elf, and that fellowship is considered as pretty an oddball thing in the source. Elves and dwarves in the same team? And hobbits wandering out of their land to do adventurous things? Statistically very unlikely. Yet it's the very premise of the archetypal adventure.

Quote from: Michele;1086678What's the purpose of that consistent fictional world?

Good question.

If you call something a 'Viking setting' (sticking to that example) it has to consist of Viking tropes and have a Scandinavian touch. With black guys and samurais in numbers it's simply not a Viking setting anymore. It may still be cool setting, but we talked about Viking theme. I think GM may agree to anything that suits him, but I noticed the word 'should' and didn't like it - I often hear a notion that a GM is there to indulge all of his players ideas and let them play whatever they want. I oppose that hence my statement

Quote from: Michele;1086678Elves and dwarves in the same team? And hobbits wandering out of their land to do adventurous things? Statistically very unlikely. Yet it's the very premise of the archetypal adventure.

To be honest I do find that odd and immersion-breaking and that's why I play in human-centric settings If there are other races like elves and dwarves, they're NPCs and mystical, secluded races to meet during adventures. The problem with hobbits away from home is mostly in LoTR, in the other settings I saw halflings/kenders are often adventurous types.

Quote from: SHARK;1086566Greetings!

Why is there this constant, shrieking obsession with having *Black African* characters in everything? Fucking play some fantasy or historical African campaign setting, and everyone can be BLACK. Every character, all the time. BLACK, BLACK, BLACK.

Who gives a fuck if some game is focused on Europe or a European type where everyone is WHITE.

Same thing with mythological shows. Everyone in Arthurian Britain can be fucking WHITE and there's nothing wrong with that. Make a show set in Africa, again, where it makes sense that everyone is fucking BLACK.

Geesus this constant sobbing about whaa! whaa! whaa! We have to go down the fucking checkbox and have at least one Asian, two Muslims, three Black Africans, etc, etc, etc. Fuck this stupid shit gets tiresome. Can't forget to include a fucking bloated, fat Purple Jabba to join the mix, too.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm not sobbing about anything. I'm not trying to force a diversity quota.

I'm pointing out that, in the event that you want a diverse cast, that you should put more effort into it than just including them and being done with it. I'm pointing out that some of these supposedly all-white mythologies had stories about non-white major characters.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to have an ethnically homogeneous cast. I'm pointing that it is unfair to demonize settings that try to include ethnically diverse casts.

People are upset that some Polish game set in an ethnically homogeneous fantasy!Poland doesn't let you play a black hero? Oh well, then I guess they won't play it. Eastern Europe should get a pass for this since they were never involved with Western imperialism (quite the opposite, they were invaded by everyone else), and therefore don't need to pay reparations by meeting a diversity quota.

Quote from: Michele;1086678What's the purpose of that consistent fictional world? Isn't it to offer the players a gaming experience they like?

Not exactly.  Rather, it's to offer the players and GM collectively a gaming experience that, ideally, they all enjoy--or barring that, that all of them mostly enjoy and the bits that they don't are a compromise to make everyone mostly happy.  

As soon as it is put that way, it should be obvious that what any single player wants may be a perfect fit, mostly OK, or anything less than that, including completely at odds.  

We sit down as a group when we plan a campaign, to make sure everyone is at least moderately happy with the plan, even if it isn't perfect for each.  Then once we agree to that, then it is part of my job as a GM to make sure that one player doesn't step on the expectations of the other players.  (I'm actually more open to some ideas than the rest of the players are.  I'm often saying "NO!" on behalf of that consensus, not my own tastes.)  

And again, tastes vary wildly.  A few hobbits, men, dwarf, and elf may seem equally odd to you compared to a Moor in a Viking setting, but that doesn't necessarily apply to other groups.  Somewhere along the way, the idea that "crazy stuff sometimes goes" morphed into "anything goes".  They aren't the same thing.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1086692And again, tastes vary wildly.  A few hobbits, men, dwarf, and elf may seem equally odd to you compared to a Moor in a Viking setting, but that doesn't necessarily apply to other groups.  Somewhere along the way, the idea that "crazy stuff sometimes goes" morphed into "anything goes".  They aren't the same thing.

The argument that "this world has elves and dragons and yet you complain about [implausible, immersion-breaking thing] LOL" has to be the dumbest fucking argument trundled out by these idiots. As if fantasy means no coherence or plausibility whatsoever. GRR Martin included dragons in Westeros, so I guess he may as well include smart-phones and uber then too. Because fantasy.

Quote from: Haffrung;1086696The argument that "this world has elves and dragons and yet you complain about [implausible, immersion-breaking thing] LOL" has to be the dumbest fucking argument trundled out by these idiots. As if fantasy means no coherence or plausibility whatsoever. GRR Martin included dragons in Westeros, so I guess he may as well include smart-phones and uber then too. Because fantasy.

Across campaigns too.  Just because I once allowed* a "samurai hobbit" in a sort of Forgotten Realms campaign, doesn't mean I should allow it in any campaign I run.  

* Actually, it was more like enthusiastically encouraged, because in that campaign it fit perfectly.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1086692Not exactly.  Rather, it's to offer the players and GM collectively a gaming experience that, ideally, they all enjoy--or barring that, that all of them mostly enjoy and the bits that they don't are a compromise to make everyone mostly happy.  

Well, OK. Of course one hopes to enjoy GMing the thing, too. Otherwise, it'd be a job!

Quote from: kanePL;1086686If you call something a 'Viking setting' (sticking to that example) it has to consist of Viking tropes and have a Scandinavian touch. With black guys and samurais in numbers it's simply not a Viking setting anymore.

"In numbers" is possibly the key aspect. If a player asks to be allowed, for whatever reason, to play a samurai in Scandinavia, and comes up with a somewhat half-vaguely-plausible backstory - he's one samurai. Not in numbers. He's an exception. And we all know PCs tend to be exceptional guys, not your average local farmer's sons.
The rest of the place remains Scandinavian, just with a strange stranger arriving in it - something that might happen.

To go back to the thread title, of course what would be preposterous is a ruleset that mandates that you must or must not use a certain culture or ethnic group. And, not only that, the reason being real-life present-day political considerations. That goes both ways, mind you: I'd laugh off a ruleset that told me "the PC team must include at least one left-handed African Baptist samurai because diversity is a value to be upheld in our real-life society", and a ruleset that told me "the PC team must all be dark-haired Bulgarian atheist men because uniformity is a value to be upheld in our real-life society".

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1086571Player's choice.

Yeah, they have the choice to fuck off to another game or play the character that the group, GM included, is offering.

Quote from: Haffrung;1086696The argument that "this world has elves and dragons and yet you complain about [implausible, immersion-breaking thing] LOL" has to be the dumbest fucking argument trundled out by these idiots. As if fantasy means no coherence or plausibility whatsoever. GRR Martin included dragons in Westeros, so I guess he may as well include smart-phones and uber then too. Because fantasy.

That's an obvious strawman.

If you're writing yet another generic fantasy!Europe, then the only reason why it would populated entirely by white people is because the writer decided not to include any fictional historical justification for non-white people to be present.

Despite the facts that 1) the reason real history turned out the way it did was due to guns, germs and steel, and 2) these aren't necessarily factors in a fantasy world with elves and dragons.

There's no reason why fantasy!Africa can't have advanced civilizations that start colonizing the rest of the fantasy!Earth except author fiat.

If people want all-white fantasy, then more power to them. But can we not begrudge those who desire diversity? The SJWs are already doing a great job of stifling minority voices on their own. Let's not make things worse, shall we?

Quote from: Haffrung;1086696The argument that "this world has elves and dragons and yet you complain about [implausible, immersion-breaking thing] LOL" has to be the dumbest fucking argument trundled out by these idiots. As if fantasy means no coherence or plausibility whatsoever. GRR Martin included dragons in Westeros, so I guess he may as well include smart-phones and uber then too. Because fantasy.

I've always wanted to play a sentient penis, but somehow I always get kicked out of the groups where I bring it up. I've even tried to be gender equal by offering to play a sentient vagina, but no, that isn't allowed either.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1086704That's an obvious strawman.

If you're writing yet another generic fantasy!Europe, then the only reason why it would populated entirely by white people is because the writer decided not to include any fictional historical justification for non-white people to be present.

Despite the facts that 1) the reason real history turned out the way it did was due to guns, germs and steel, and 2) these aren't necessarily factors in a fantasy world with elves and dragons.

There's no reason why fantasy!Africa can't have advanced civilizations that start colonizing the rest of the fantasy!Earth except author fiat.

If people want all-white fantasy, then more power to them. But can we not begrudge those who desire diversity? The SJWs are already doing a great job of stifling minority voices on their own. Let's not make things worse, shall we?

Tokenism is fucking insulting. That is what diversity gets us. The same SJWs will attack white people for doing a fantasy Indian setting, fantasy American Indian setting, fantasy Asian setting, or a fantasy African setting.

Different cultures have different myth and history. We aren't allowed to enjoy it anymore and it isn't because some dude wants to create another fantasy European based world view. They get attacked.

There is no way to win. The game is rigged. I cannot write an Indian fantasy world even though I'm Indian. If Monte Cook wrote a game with an Indian setting he'd be attacked for it. It's fucking stupid.

Quote from: jhkim;1086425Overwhelmingly, my experience has been that historical Call of Cthulhu campaigns tend to downplay or ignore historical racism rather than exaggerating it. I had an ethnically prejudiced 1890s PC, but within my wider experience, he was a rare exception. The vast majority of players and GMs that I've met tend to have ahistorical egalitarianism.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say historical Call of Cthulhu campaigns downplay all social issues of the era? And isn't that true of RPGs in general? The enormous gulf in social status between a medieval lord or knight and the common wruck of society, for example, is rarely ever explored in medieval fantasy settings. Most people play RPGs to play out lurid pulp action stories, not engage with troubling social issues.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1086704That's an obvious strawman.

If you're writing yet another generic fantasy!Europe, then the only reason why it would populated entirely by white people is because the writer decided not to include any fictional historical justification for non-white people to be present.

And you just countered with your own strawman. I think it would be unusual for a fantasy setting to have absolutely zero non-white people. But I see no reason why a town in the fringes of civilization of my fantasy world should have the makeup of a California college campus, and have a quarter of the residents people of colour, half the town militia women, etc.

The great majority of people in pre-modern worlds spent most of their lives within 50 miles of where they were born. In cosmopolitan port cities, where a fraction of the population lived, things were different. In my games, a small barony in the wilds will have a homegenous population because almost all the people in that barony will trace their lineage back generations. If and when people from far away do arrive, they're quickly subsumed into the local population.

No, medieval Europe wasn't 100 per cent white. But rural England, France, and Germany were 98 per cent white. If I'm playing a mediterannean sword and sorcery campaign, the setting will be ethnically diverse like medieval Byzantium or Naples. If I'm playing a medieval town on the edge of the forest fantasy campaign, it will be ethnically homegenous.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1086704Despite the facts that 1) the reason real history turned out the way it did was due to guns, germs and steel, and 2) these aren't necessarily factors in a fantasy world with elves and dragons.

Maybe in your worlds. In my worlds, magic plays very little role in the social development of society because wizards are rare and most of them are weird loners and eccentrics with their own agendas. They aren't working for the Department of Progress.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1086704There's no reason why fantasy!Africa can't have advanced civilizations that start colonizing the rest of the fantasy!Earth except author fiat.

I see no reason either. And I don't care what other people do in their games. What pisses me off is accusations that any fantasy setting that features a population like that of historical medieval Europe is racist because you can make a fantasy world anything you like and if you make it 95 per cent white then you're racist. And if you haven't seen that accusation routinely hurled around the geek-sphere, you must be wilfully blind to it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1086704If people want all-white fantasy, then more power to them. But can we not begrudge those who desire diversity? The SJWs are already doing a great job of stifling minority voices on their own. Let's not make things worse, shall we?

I don't begrudge anyone anything in their own games. And I don't begrudge publishers making their own choices about their settings and market. What does get on my tits is small groups of zealots denouncing any publishers who don't share their values about representation, and who treat anyone who disagrees with them as white supremacists. And espousing myths that medieval rural England and Germany were racially diverse is either dishonest or idiotic.

Quote from: Doc Sammy;1086633This is what SJW's actually believe, unfortunately. You hit the nail right on the head, my good man.

SJW's over at RPGnet and Onyx Path Forums spew the most insane and zealous bullshit and for some goddamn reason, some people say that I am the crazy one...

Insane zealotry is very in vogue right now. I'm thinking about trying it on and seeing how it fits; problem is, the only things I care enough about to whip myself into a righteous, frothing rage about are the quality differences between name and no-name cereal brands.

Hm. Perhaps I will start my own Forum...

Quote from: jhkimOverwhelmingly, my experience has been that historical Call of Cthulhu campaigns tend to downplay or ignore historical racism rather than exaggerating it. I had an ethnically prejudiced 1890s PC, but within my wider experience, he was a rare exception. The vast majority of players and GMs that I've met tend to have ahistorical egalitarianism.

Quote from: Haffrung;1086717Wouldn't it be more accurate to say historical Call of Cthulhu campaigns downplay all social issues of the era? And isn't that true of RPGs in general? The enormous gulf in social status between a medieval lord or knight and the common wruck of society, for example, is rarely ever explored in medieval fantasy settings. Most people play RPGs to play out lurid pulp action stories, not engage with troubling social issues.

I partly agree - in that people widely downplay various social issues that are still controversial today, like sexism, racism, and classism. No one seems to worry much about portraying Prohibition, though, as far as I can see - even though it was a social issue of the era. Regardless, I don't think that playing out lurid pulp action is inconsistent with having troubling social issues. I know that my 1890s CoC character Grimmond expressed his prejudice while fighting Chinese lackeys of Fu Manchu in the East End - which is very much pulp action. cf.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3371[/ATTACH]

The thing is that if *I* (or other liberals) were to argue that there shouldn't be racism or sexism in Call of Cthulhu games - then I would be called out for demanding political correctness. Conversely, if there is racism/sexism in games, then I'm engaging in misery tourism. This seems very similar to the claim of the OP - damned if you do, and damned if you don't.