Quote from: deadDMwalking;1086757I'll stand by it.  GMs should work with their players to find ways to accommodate what the player wants.  It may involve some compromises by one or both; there may be some characters that simply can't work in a particular setting.  But a black dude in fantasy medieval Europe isn't that.

My position, roughly, is that you don't get to make that categorical call on someone else's campaign.  Anything could be in bounds.  Anything could be out of bounds.  

I think where these kinds of conversations go off the rails is that the experience of different campaigns that informs the discussions is all over the place.  Perhaps overgeneralizing too much for clarity of the point:

A. Campaigns that come about because the players also have an idea of a character, and then they work with the GM to fit all of those characters into a campaign.  If the players want to play a Were-Gandalf, Daffy Duck as Cleric, Conan with an upper-class British accent, and Medusa the Misunderstood--then that's what they do.  Maybe they team up and fight the Dragon Mafia.  (Not everyone wants to do that campaign.  But given some imagination, anyone could do that, if they set their minds to it.)

B. Campaigns where the point is consistent and coherent setting, and then the campaign explores one or more themes or story-lines.  A coherent setting has some bend, but not nearly as much once you add on the second part.  When you put in oddball characters, the themes and story-lines inevitably become about how those characters stand out, at least somewhat.  You can think of the contract of such a campaign as not only fitting into the setting, but bringing a character that makes the desired action pop.

C. Campaigns that are somewhere between those two extremes--probably most campaigns in reality.  Of course, the closer you get to one side or the other, more restrictions are needed or exceptions are fine.  It's not unusual for such a campaign, however, to be very strict on some things and loose on others.  

My experience has been that grasping the significance of those extremes is not equally spread among the people who lean heavily one way or the other.  Maybe because it's somewhat rare for someone to have preferred B out of the gate, and never dabbled in the other extreme, while the opposite happens more often.  It's somewhat like the differences between extroverts and introverts, where introverts have a better understanding of what makes extroverts tick than vice versa.  (Explaining how an introvert feels to an extrovert is often like explaining color to the color-blind.)  

A key difference is that often when players that prefer style B campaigns say they want a coherent setting, they also mean that they don't want your first reaction to be to come up with a character that pulls the focus away from that coherence.  Another key difference (and one I don't think you really seem to get) is that many players want to make their character informed by the coherence of the setting and theme.  That is, they want to know enough about the setting to make a character that fits seamlessly into the setting, rather than standing out.  They don't approach the campaign with a character in mind, but instead have the setting and theme inform a character that almost organically grows out of the idea.  It's more difficult to do that when another player is making a "look at me" character.  And the instinct to make a "look at me" character is a sign that the player is out of step with the spirit of the campaign as understood by the rest of the group.

The rationale used to criticize those who want "realism" in a game is that the game has fantastical elements. I agree with that, and I want to play a sentient dick. After all, the game's premise is fantastical anyway.

Oh, but no, all of a sudden "realism" is important. Turns out there ARE lines to be drawn, but thing is, you better make sure your lines in the sand are the same as theirs.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1086867My position, roughly, is that you don't get to make that categorical call on someone else's campaign.  Anything could be in bounds.  Anything could be out of bounds.  

I think where these kinds of conversations go off the rails is that the experience of different campaigns that informs the discussions is all over the place.  Perhaps overgeneralizing too much for clarity of the point:

A. Campaigns that come about because the players also have an idea of a character, and then they work with the GM to fit all of those characters into a campaign.  If the players want to play a Were-Gandalf, Daffy Duck as Cleric, Conan with an upper-class British accent, and Medusa the Misunderstood--then that's what they do.  Maybe they team up and fight the Dragon Mafia.  (Not everyone wants to do that campaign.  But given some imagination, anyone could do that, if they set their minds to it.)

B. Campaigns where the point is consistent and coherent setting, and then the campaign explores one or more themes or story-lines.  A coherent setting has some bend, but not nearly as much once you add on the second part.  When you put in oddball characters, the themes and story-lines inevitably become about how those characters stand out, at least somewhat.  You can think of the contract of such a campaign as not only fitting into the setting, but bringing a character that makes the desired action pop.

C. Campaigns that are somewhere between those two extremes--probably most campaigns in reality.  Of course, the closer you get to one side or the other, more restrictions are needed or exceptions are fine.  It's not unusual for such a campaign, however, to be very strict on some things and loose on others.  

My experience has been that grasping the significance of those extremes is not equally spread among the people who lean heavily one way or the other.  Maybe because it's somewhat rare for someone to have preferred B out of the gate, and never dabbled in the other extreme, while the opposite happens more often.  It's somewhat like the differences between extroverts and introverts, where introverts have a better understanding of what makes extroverts tick than vice versa.  (Explaining how an introvert feels to an extrovert is often like explaining color to the color-blind.)  

A key difference is that often when players that prefer style B campaigns say they want a coherent setting, they also mean that they don't want your first reaction to be to come up with a character that pulls the focus away from that coherence.  Another key difference (and one I don't think you really seem to get) is that many players want to make their character informed by the coherence of the setting and theme.  That is, they want to know enough about the setting to make a character that fits seamlessly into the setting, rather than standing out.  They don't approach the campaign with a character in mind, but instead have the setting and theme inform a character that almost organically grows out of the idea.  It's more difficult to do that when another player is making a "look at me" character.  And the instinct to make a "look at me" character is a sign that the player is out of step with the spirit of the campaign as understood by the rest of the group.

Greetings!

Very well put, Steven Mitchell!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Lurtch;1086711Tokenism 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.

I don't claim otherwise. I said that SJWs are stifling minority voices. I've heard plenty of horror stories to the point I don't keep track anymore. It is disgusting.

Quote from: Haffrung;1086718I 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: Haffrung;1086718I 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.

I don't like to spend my time listening to crazy SJWs. They are hypocrites that sabotage their own efforts at progress. I prefer more constructive pursuits, like a nuanced exploration of the relevance of human ethnicity in writing fantasy worlds.

When I'm doing that, I'm asking myself questions like "who is my intended audience? do I want a homogeneous or diverse environment? how much so? what socio-historical factors led to this state of affairs?" Simple questions that any world builder asks eventually.

Quote from: Jaeger;1086818Yes it is possible for there to be a Black Muslim in medieval England.

So What.

Any GM has the right to shoot down the Players Azeem character concept down like a Messerschmitt during the battle of Britain if he wants to.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Exactly.

And there is a reasoning why: The GM Gets to Determine the Campaign They Want to Offer. They have a right to play, too. And part of that is getting to portray a premise and scope they find interesting to run within a setting.

Just as Scope narrows down Space and Time, Premise narrows down the Slices of Life.

I remind people this with Maidens of Marriageable Age Test.

People quickly grasp Scope's Space -- don't immediately travel (or come from) off the map. Scope's Time is a bit harder, but time travelers or 'Machiavellian plots among immortals' examples conveys the game's interest limits to time. But people quickly grasp Premise's Slice of Life limits when you pitch a game about young maidens who want to marry well... especially if they presume from the system or adventure module a certain type of Adventure!

So, for all these examples flying about, try out the "Maidens of Marriageable Age Test." Accomodating that into a campaign is completely within most campaign's coherency and demographics. But!, is that what you wanted to run? Is that what people came to your game to play? How well can Your Campaign accomodate One Player pulling full tilt into "The Adventures of the Marriage Market" against the Rest of the Party's expectations and interests?

It is an openly disruptive player request on the face of it. And that immediately gets into Actions vs. Consequences Out-of-Character, where you need to have The Talk with the Player. In that talk you discuss how to temper their desires and ask how they plan to share the table with others.

Quote from: jhkim;1086824Sure. I'm on the side that different people can and should play games differently. I've got no problems if people want to play a non-racist 1920s, but I also think it should be fine to play in historically racist 1920s. Publishers can publish both for different people's tastes.

I agree with this 100%

But today - it's also 100% bullshit that you could get away with it as a private GM/Player and talk about it publicly. And it's likewise true of *any* publisher in gaming or "geek culture" trying to have that kind of realism (or conceit) as part of their game without the usual suspects fomenting fake outrage and the usual internet mob-tactics to have those publishers defamed into oblivion.

Edit: But I'm biased. I was permanently banned from TBP after being there since early 2002 for saying *essentially* this very same idea.

What I find missing from this obvious discussion about minorities in Jolly Olde Englande-type settings is that no one is talking about the in-game SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES of playing an outsider in such homogeneous societies.

Sure you can play a Moor in Wales circa 900AD... and despite those caveats of the culture, the GM should prepare that player for the social ramifications of playing such a character in that location at that time. And it might not be pretty. If the player understands that... and the GM is willing, go for it.

I say the same things about people wanting to play snowflake races in any of my games.

Quote from: tenbones;1086909I agree with this 100%

But today - it's also 100% bullshit that you could get away with it as a private GM/Player and talk about it publicly. And it's likewise true of *any* publisher in gaming or "geek culture" trying to have that kind of realism (or conceit) as part of their game without the usual suspects fomenting fake outrage and the usual internet mob-tactics to have those publishers defamed into oblivion.

Edit: But I'm biased. I was permanently banned from TBP after being there since early 2002 for saying *essentially* this very same idea.

OK, so I was testing the waters at rpg.net around 2010 and found no 'there' there. Yet supposedly it had a golden time in ye olden days. Was that 2000? Or was it earlier?

Quote from: Opaopajr;1086915OK, so I was testing the waters at rpg.net around 2010 and found no 'there' there. Yet supposedly it had a golden time in ye olden days. Was that 2000? Or was it earlier?

I got hit with two bannings nearly back to back. (I wasn't tenbones there). I might have gotten them reversed. One banning was for defending Paizo's staff for not being racist (the old argument that Orcs were black people and Paizo's cultures are racist). The other was for defending a GM wanting to use the term "Jap" at his WWII game which he said was supposed to be "realistic".

It was funny because the first thing that happened was that I was called a white racist (I had to tell them I was Asian and part Japanese). Then I said "Trust me - Japanese people don't give a fuck that you use the term Jap in your private WWII rpg" - then people screeched at me that I don't get to speak for all Japanese people. And it descended downward from there...

I *think* it was around 2010ish 2011ish? fuck I don't remember.

Funny how they said you didn't get to speak for all Japanese, but these "allies" sure do feel like they speak for all POC.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;1086944Funny how they said you didn't get to speak for all Japanese, but these "allies" sure do feel like they speak for all POC.

Well the joke's on them! I do speak for all Japanese! ALL of them.

Quote from: jhkimSure. I'm on the side that different people can and should play games differently. I've got no problems if people want to play a non-racist 1920s, but I also think it should be fine to play in historically racist 1920s. Publishers can publish both for different people's tastes.

Quote from: tenbones;1086909I agree with this 100%

But today - it's also 100% bullshit that you could get away with it as a private GM/Player and talk about it publicly. And it's likewise true of *any* publisher in gaming or "geek culture" trying to have that kind of realism (or conceit) as part of their game without the usual suspects fomenting fake outrage and the usual internet mob-tactics to have those publishers defamed into oblivion.

I think by the "usual suspects" you mean that social justice advocates would be outraged at any scenario where historical racism appears.

But the curious thing to me is that in current discussion, it's been mostly other posters here on theRPGsite who have been arguing that historical racism should *not* appear, while I've been arguing that it should be OK for historical racism to appear in games. I think it's relevant that there was a recent Kickstarter of Call of Cthulhu scenarios which feature historical racism and a social justice theme ("An Inner Darkness").

Quote from: jhkim;1086967I think by the "usual suspects" you mean that social justice advocates would be outraged at any scenario where historical racism appears.

But the curious thing to me is that in current discussion, it's been mostly other posters here on theRPGsite who have been arguing that historical racism should *not* appear, while I've been arguing that it should be OK for historical racism to appear in games. I think it's relevant that there was a recent Kickstarter of Call of Cthulhu scenarios which feature historical racism and a social justice theme ("An Inner Darkness").

I went to the page hosting the Kickstarter for "An Inner Darkness". Some of the authors of this collection of scenarios do give me the SJWs vibe, and the way they talk about their work has convinced me I'm not the customer for it.

The funny thing is, if they hadn't adopted this preachy tone about what they're trying to do, I would have been more interested with their offerings. But hey: to each is own and good luck to Golden Goblin anyway :-) !

Quote from: jhkim;1086967I think by the "usual suspects" you mean that social justice advocates would be outraged at any scenario where historical racism appears.

But the curious thing to me is that in current discussion, it's been mostly other posters here on theRPGsite who have been arguing that historical racism should *not* appear, while I've been arguing that it should be OK for historical racism to appear in games. I think it's relevant that there was a recent Kickstarter of Call of Cthulhu scenarios which feature historical racism and a social justice theme ("An Inner Darkness").

We're on the same page. What's not being said is that first and foremost - as a GM you set the tone and stage for your group but we all agree that for the game to work there needs to be buy-in from all the players. I can run a totally realistic, game with savagely racist elements in my game (and I have) but without my players buying into those conceits the game wouldn't work.

The fact that people here argue "against it" is not for purely ideological reasons, as much as it's for being inconsequential to the tone of their game. This is precisely why a lot of people level D&D with being some kind of bullshit Ren-Faire form of pseudo medievalism. And it's true. And that's fine and fun too!

"Realism" is not everyone cup of tea for sure. But conversely - you don't hear this kind of discussion much on TBP because it's already assumed if you're there, no way in hell is that conversation happening without ban-hammers coming down. The shame police are on the case. Over on the TBP discussions about "history" have about as much rigor as discussions on any other SJW topic.

And here's the rub which I've said on rare occasion but perhaps without as much specificity as I should. "SJW" as a pejorative vs. Social Justice as a conceptual ideological construct are two different things to me. I can objectively look at the pejorative and toss it around as a label with a bunch of connotations that may in fact include someone that is a pathological believer in Social Justice as an ideology - along with a basket of other kooky shit.

But as an abstract construct - I LOVE Social Justice as a narrative tool. The problem is the people that say they believe in Social Justice don't really admit to the ramifications of it, or the implications of it's practice. As theme its powerful, just like any ideology that is the prime-motivator for an individual is powerful. That's how it is for fanatics. And to be actively (i.e. actually DOING something) engaged in Social Justice, invariably it's going to lead to violence and bloodshed if you're willing to really put your money where your beliefs are.

And that's GREAT material for gaming/fiction. I point to Magneto as the PERFECT rendition of what the UBER Social-Justice Activist would be like. Believes he's the hero... but will kill anyone and everyone that gets in his way - even his own kind, in order to levy his morality upon everyone else in the name of his ideology. But his background is the perfect scapegoat for sympathy.

These ideas of having "realism" in our creative entertainment tend to run completely counter to the SJW religion. And they treat it as such.

It's interesting to me that some people are convinced that historical racism was understood the way we understand it today.  

If you're the GM and you THINK most people in Wales would be particularly prejudiced against someone from 'the Holy Land', what are you basing it on?  There wasn't a feeling of 'they're taking our jobs' and many travelers were of high social standing.  If you literally traveled thousands of miles, you were almost certainly a person of note.  

If people in England were too busy being racist toward the Irish, they didn't have a lot to spend on people from China - further, most of them wouldn't have seen ANY so wouldn't have any stereotypes to fall back on.

If you met a green person today, you'd certainly think it was weird, but about all you could say is 'you're not from around here, are you?'.