Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 01:27:59 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on June 05, 2024, 12:42:05 PMMost of my games are based on actual historical eras and reflect the morals and values of the age they are set in. One of the things I like about the German rpg The Dark Eye is that its setting Aventuria is ruthless in this regard. "Democracy" is considered "demoncracy" and your character better know his or her place in the social hierarchy. It's therefore beneficial if at least one person in the party is a noble, a mage, a priest, or an army officer.

There's a difference between having characters act in historically plausible ways, and making the game actually themed around lessons from the times.

Tolkien, say, wrote about a stratified society with kings and nobles -- but the themes of his works tended to celebrate commoners more than kings, which is not a very medieval theme. Historical fiction and fantasy almost always have themes more from the values from times of the author, rather than from the period it is set in. This goes back a while. Le Morte d'Arthur reflects 15th-century French values far more than 6th-century England, for example.

Yes, but Frodo, Merry, and Pippin are all members of the Hobbit gentry, while Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli belong to the highest ranks of their respective societies.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on June 06, 2024, 05:05:04 AMYes, but Frodo, Merry, and Pippin are all members of the Hobbit gentry, while Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli belong to the highest ranks of their respective societies.

Hey, don't you dare use facts to undermine his point!

And, yes, the only normie of note in the entire Hobbit/LotR series is Sam. Everyone else is either aristocracy or of divine origin. The fact he's the primary hero does subvert the theme somewhat, but not in the way jhkim wants you to believe.

Merry, Pippin and Sam all went because they were friends of the Ringbearer, period.  That two of them were "aristocracy" reflects that they were more from Frodo's own social class.  Boromir went because he was the eldest son of the Steward and therefore the best representative of Gondor, Legolas because he was the son of the Elf-King of Mirkwood, Aragorn because he was the rightful king (not to mention he stood the best chance of getting the Ringbearer to Mount Doom, for a host of reasons).  Gimli just seems to have been selected as a competent representative of the dwarves.  Why would the Free Peoples send a bunch of powerless, uniformed mooks who in no way represented the governments of their people on a mission that important?

A real-world example:  Even the Bolsheviks, when they were negotiating Russia's withdrawal from the Great War, sent ambassadors (including Trotsky's own brother-in-law) empowered by their government to represent them.  They did include a worker, a peasant, and a soldier in their team, but these people had no say in the negotiations.  Even avowed anti-monarchists will send people who know what they're doing and who have actual power in their government on an important mission.

Quote from: Rhymer88 on June 06, 2024, 05:05:04 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 01:27:59 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on June 05, 2024, 12:42:05 PMMost of my games are based on actual historical eras and reflect the morals and values of the age they are set in. One of the things I like about the German rpg The Dark Eye is that its setting Aventuria is ruthless in this regard. "Democracy" is considered "demoncracy" and your character better know his or her place in the social hierarchy. It's therefore beneficial if at least one person in the party is a noble, a mage, a priest, or an army officer.

There's a difference between having characters act in historically plausible ways, and making the game actually themed around lessons from the times.

Tolkien, say, wrote about a stratified society with kings and nobles -- but the themes of his works tended to celebrate commoners more than kings, which is not a very medieval theme. Historical fiction and fantasy almost always have themes more from the values from times of the author, rather than from the period it is set in. This goes back a while. Le Morte d'Arthur reflects 15th-century French values far more than 6th-century England, for example.

Yes, but Frodo, Merry, and Pippin are all members of the Hobbit gentry, while Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli belong to the highest ranks of their respective societies.

I agree - but having gentry as heroes is perfectly consistent with Tolkien's upbringing in the 1890s. Lots of other contemporary fiction from the period have well-born heroes, even if they don't have medieval settings.

I think Tolkien's themes have more in common with others of his era than with medieval writers like Chaucer -- notably, environmentalism and the evils of industrialization (as reflected in the ents and Saruman's factories); but also other themes.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 09:39:05 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on June 06, 2024, 05:05:04 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 01:27:59 AM

Quote from: Rhymer88 on June 05, 2024, 12:42:05 PMMost of my games are based on actual historical eras and reflect the morals and values of the age they are set in. One of the things I like about the German rpg The Dark Eye is that its setting Aventuria is ruthless in this regard. "Democracy" is considered "demoncracy" and your character better know his or her place in the social hierarchy. It's therefore beneficial if at least one person in the party is a noble, a mage, a priest, or an army officer.

There's a difference between having characters act in historically plausible ways, and making the game actually themed around lessons from the times.

Tolkien, say, wrote about a stratified society with kings and nobles -- but the themes of his works tended to celebrate commoners more than kings, which is not a very medieval theme. Historical fiction and fantasy almost always have themes more from the values from times of the author, rather than from the period it is set in. This goes back a while. Le Morte d'Arthur reflects 15th-century French values far more than 6th-century England, for example.

Yes, but Frodo, Merry, and Pippin are all members of the Hobbit gentry, while Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gimli belong to the highest ranks of their respective societies.

I agree - but having gentry as heroes is perfectly consistent with Tolkien's upbringing in the 1890s. Lots of other contemporary fiction from the period have well-born heroes, even if they don't have medieval settings.

I think Tolkien's themes have more in common with others of his era than with medieval writers like Chaucer -- notably, environmentalism and the evils of industrialization (as reflected in the ents and Saruman's factories); but also other themes.

Gee, too bad you couldn't understand this kind of context when we were discussing Robert E Howard. Everything had to to be understood with the sensibilities of Modern Audiences for him, but not for Tolkien.

Fuck right off, jhkim.

Quote from: jeff37923 on June 06, 2024, 10:37:06 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2024, 09:39:05 AMI agree - but having gentry as heroes is perfectly consistent with Tolkien's upbringing in the 1890s. Lots of other contemporary fiction from the period have well-born heroes, even if they don't have medieval settings.

Gee, too bad you couldn't understand this kind of context when we were discussing Robert E Howard. Everything had to to be understood with the sensibilities of Modern Audiences for him, but not for Tolkien.

(I tried to reply in the Rascal article thread, but I got an error posting.)

I made it clear at several points that overt racism was common in R.E. Howard's society - specifically that Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws were popularly supported in many states at that time.

Even if they were common, though, one can still refer to anti-miscegenation laws as overtly racist. It doesn't make sense to say that anti-miscegenation laws weren't overtly racist because they were part of the sensibilities at the time.

I'd be fine saying the same thing there - that overt racism was perfectly consistent with Howards' upbringing in the 1910s.

In general, authors write for audiences of their time. They can still consistently portray their characters as if they are in a different age, but the themes of their work reflect their own times and views.

Quote from: Valatar on June 03, 2024, 02:20:09 PMThere's nothing fundamentally wrong with A message.  Like jhkim pointed out, LotR was awash in the theme that humble nobodies saved the day while surrounded by immensely powerful badasses.  The important distinction here is that Tolkien put out a good story that presented its theme with some elegance and didn't bludgeon the audience with it like a modern girlboss movie.  A good DM should already be striving to avoid any sort of ham-fisted storytelling, so refraining from being overbearing with an aspect of the plot is part and parcel of that.

I think there is a difference between adding messages in a book/movie/etc. or inside a game. While messaging in book/movies/etc. can be annoying and (if done by a big corporation in a supposedly apolitical "franchise") deserves criticism, at least you can walk off the movie or stop to read the book if it get bad. Also there are lot of reviews, so if a movie is full with messages you can discover that before being subjected to it. You don't have the same defenses against a GM who can "surprise message" you. Also walking off to a game like that would have more consequences than simply stopping to watch a movie or a book.

In fact, I think it is a total disrespect to players if you don't know in advance that the players would like that (if GMing with people I know who lean right, I would feel free to mock leftists by making them the villains of my game, but not in a game with unknown people). It's similar than what many teachers do, by injecting biased political stuff in classroom where students can't leave easily (since by doing that they can receive an absence record).