Do you think that if you're playing a game in a historical or semi-historical setting, you should try to adapt the setting's sentiments to make them more connected to modern feelings, regarding issues like minorities, sexuality, etc?
Or is authenticity more important than sensitivity?
Does your answer change if there are members of said minority in your game?
Some case points: First; I bring up the case because I will shortly be running a historical campaign set in China during the Three Kingdoms period. In the party, there's a good chance we'll have a female player. Now, in 2nd century China, women's roles were very highly restricted, and women were treated as a kind of property. I could tweak historical truth and allow her to play an adventuress of some kind; or I could stick to the authentic, explain to her the role of women in this era, and make it clear to her that she could still end up having a lot of significance if she played a female courtier, or a Taoist witch if she was of low birth, or a courtesan if she wished to, or a midwife, etc etc. But that obviously her choice of roles would be more limited than for a male character, and her options would be more limited, since I'm playing a primarily historical campaign. Hell, its mostly like this even in Wuxia (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has a girl trying to escape her limited role as a major theme).
In my Roman campaign we had a female player; of course in that campaign the PCs were all secretly immortal; and the player's character in question was a very competent rider and charioteer and a capable fighter, but she had to mostly hide this behind a "respectable" appearance.
I'm not just talking about women's roles, of course, though to me that's the one that most often comes up. I also wonder what you all think about race or sexuality issues in gaming.
To me, if we're talking about a fantasy setting (even if its medieval fantasy) I generally prefer that said fantasy setting make allowances, that women tend to be treated with more equality than they ever were in our real world; though NOT necessarily with a 20th century earth level of equality, because then that just seems practically absurd. More like "most women should be married off and bear the babies, but if one can fight like a man or drink like a man or fling spells like a man, she should be allowed to do what she pleases". That sort of thing. I also think that it makes sense that there be relatively little racial tension within the human race in a fantasy world, after all, on Oerth or whatever we have Elves or Orcs to take that out on.
But in HISTORICAL campaigns (or "alternate history" campaigns), I think that the historical authenticity is more important than just about anything.
Rome doesn't have a lot of "racial" issues; the Romans had remarkably little racism (to them whether your skin was white or black mattered FAR less than whether you were civilized or barbarian; they had many black skinned senators, and far more of their slaves were blond haired and blue eyed than any other combination).
But Rome does have a lot of issues around concepts of sexuality that are nothing like our own. In Rome "homosexuality" was not considered a particular condition, but rather a practice that could be honourable or shameful depending on whether you were a "catcher" or a "receiver" and whether you were also a man with a family or whether you were "selfishly" only practicing with your own kind.
There's also some very different concepts of what was an "acceptable" perversion and what wasn't. I had to explain to one of my players what a catamite is. :p
At the present era of the game I have to present a certain NPC who is considered one of the great heros of his age, as a generally "good guy", who just happens to enjoy sexual practices that to the romans was within the boundaries of acceptability but that in our culture would consider him to be just about one of the worst kind of pariahs we can imagine: sex with underage boys.
Is the solution to just pretend that instead the Romans were like we are now, and transport all our values on them? To me, doing that kind of thing pretty much makes me ill. But of course, I'm an historian, and to me the most important thing is to tell the truth when you write history.
I think one of the most utterly disgustingly grotesque things about the Deadlands setting is the way that they removed anything that might have been offensive to 20th century sensibilities from their setting. Somehow, in a setting that is basically a very near alternate-earth, you had black people being not just emancipated but treated as absolute equals in a triumphant Confederacy, women being treated just like they were men in the entirety of america, etc etc. It seems so cheap and tawdry to me.
That said, note that I said that historical truth is more important than "just about" anything. I think the one thing that trumps it is the actual comfort zone of your players. Just like its stupid and kind of hideous to try to whitewash the parts of history we in our 21st century mores might find "icky", its kind of pointless and just a little disturbing if you try to constantly rub your player's faces in it, like you're taking some kind of hidden pleasure in playing to the controversy, or even a kind of vicarious amusement at things we today find unacceptable. So its just as important to me, for example, to try to highlite how utterly similar to us the Romans were in so many astounding ways, as to show the ways that they were radically different.
And of course, if your players have personal limits to what they're comfortable dealing with in an RPG, that has to be considered very strongly. Finally, if your pc is playing a character that would find themselves limited by reason of these ancient mores, its up to the DM to try to help them create a character that can nonetheless do interesting and significant things in a campaign, or if the GM knows that this cannot be done, to warn them off of playing that kind of character. Otherwise you're creating a needless problem.
So where do the rest of you stand on this whole thing?
RPGPundit
I prefer to keep historical facts accurate for historical games. If this means that female characters have to dress up as male to get into certain places/organizations, then that character better have a good Disguise skill.
If it means that you're playing a black man in the 1870s in the South, then you're going to be targeted with racial bigotry. Today we'd call that "racist" and "horribly offensive." At the time, in that culture, it was totally accepted.
It if means that you choose to play the priestess of the temple of Isis in Egypt, then you'd better realize that a major activity of that temple was the sucking in of profits from parishoners through the delivery of oral sex by the priestesses and acolytes. (You made a "donation" and you got to "experience the goddess" directly.) Priestess and acolytes identified themselves with bright, red lipstick. This is also the origin of the custom of painting the lips. Today we would refer to that activity as "whoring." At the time, it was "experiencing the goddess."
For me, part and parcel of the roleplaying experience is in facing these situations and the need to work around them to solve the relative conundrum.
I despise campaigns that try to homogenize the historical truths so that it's "more PC" by today's standards.
I don't run into this problem as much because I like running societies in tumult, as opposed to societies with hard and fast rules.
I mean, there would be the French Revolution (EVERYONE killed people and fought for a political viewpoint, hence women and children and everyobody could adventure) or, still on the French note, let's look at the Paladins and the story of Bradamante and Rogero, or in Greece the Amazons or the Cupid and Psyche story (another example of a damsel that rescues her knight). If there is sufficient conflict for adventure, I don't think there should be much of an issue who's fighting along side you, so long as they're fighting along side.
If you want to make a big deal about roleplaying bigotry, etc. nothing is stopping you but the fun of the game. If restricting a character just pisses the player off, I don't see the point. If the player's enthused about historical accuracy and is gung-ho about doing this, I say go for it.
I would suggest that, rather than having the racism/sexism/whateverism be omnipresent, simply make it an occasionally exploitable plot device. If you've seen Samurai Champloo, there's a good enough number of plots where Fuu and/or some minor character must be rescued from the whore-house, having gotten there by misfortune, gambling debt, what have you.
I personally am pretty much a stickler for historical accuracy in purely historical games. Even in In Harm's Way - which is based on historical fiction of the period not history directly - you can still use it to play an historical game. OTOH, I have a history bookshelf that's much bigger than my RPG bookshelf. Most people aren't like that. Other people who play my games can do what they want. If someone wants to allow a female Post Captain in their IHW game, that's totally cool - in fact it has happened to my certain knowledge. That's their game. GM and Game group trumps Game Designer every time.
OTOH, there are a lot of ways to make exceptions to the rule in most any period of history - lots of women have pretended to be men throughout history, though it is rarte at any given time, for example. Given a light enough skin, blacks have 'passed' for whites in the past, though it was very illegal.
Something that's tougher to do in an Historical game is keeping to history and not branching off into alt-history, IMO.
-mice
I would LOVE to have something meaningful to say in this debate, but unfortunately, no one ever wants to play historical games with me.
Quote from: joewolzI would LOVE to have something meaningful to say in this debate, but unfortunately, no one ever wants to play historical games with me.
You probably scare them. :D
-mice
I've never had the chance to run a historical game with my players. They're mostly educated males whose comfort level with the nastier parts of history is pretty high.
That said, unless the sexism/racism/classism/religion of a society is a major plot point (see Brettonia in WFRP), I default to a sort of half-assed fantasy-world egalitarianism.
Yes, that's pretty much the opposite of intellectual rigor. I don't much like the shittier parts of history (which doesn't mean I ignore them, mind you) and I'd much rather forget about them for the three hours or so a week I sit down to play a game with my friends.
When building settings like Shades of Earth (1938) and Roma Imperious (708 AD) I hlook for excpetions and usually add things in. I caught some heat initially for Shades of Earth's portrayal of Blacks in the U.S. (i.e. not a happy time). Then people read deeper and saw the game potential involved. In this way I was true to historical fact. In Shades, women do not have it great but have the potential to manuever within the setting. I have had a number of women who reveled in the role of "early feminist". Shades did not get much in the way of modification as descibed by Pundit.
Roma, on the other hand, took from a couple of different cultures. The Celts, skandians and a number of Bretanni allowed their women a number of freedoms. Did they carry swords and fight in battles? Yes. Did they own property? Ocassionally. As well, they could divorce, rule and exercise a lot of control over the home while men were out viking. Now, was this the norm? Mostly not. However, even men had a questionable life during that time. I took what there was about women's studies and some of the extremes and outlined the expansion of rights with in the setting. So Roma has some pretty liberal views on women's rights by the current setting date but still many prejudices.
China would be a tough one. Within the Roma setting women are not treated as well. I do use this as a means to introduce oriental women to the character pool as exiles from their own lands. That is also another approach to historical racial/gender intolerance. Take the character out of the culture and introduce them to a more tolerant one.
Bill
I think the first step should always be discussing it with the players. Maybe the hypothetical woman player wants to play up oppression (I can think of a couple of reasons why). Maybe she's not so keen.
But that apart, I think it's very difficult to avoid some measure of seeing history through our own lens.
Quote from: George OrwellThe Gladiators [by Arthur Koestler] is in some ways an unsatisfactory book. It is about Spartacus, the Thracian gladiator who raised a slaves’ rebellion in Italy round about 65 BC, and any book on such a subject is handicapped by challenging comparison with Salammbô. In our own age it would not be possible to write a book like Salammbô even if one had the talent. The great thing about Salammbô, even more important than its physical detail, is its utter mercilessness. Flaubert could think himself into the stony cruelty of antiquity, because in the mid-nineteenth century one still had peace of mind. One had time to travel in the past. Nowadays the present and the future are too terrifying to be escaped from, and if one bothers with history it is in order to find modern meanings there.
I think that there are at least three reasons for running a historical game, and they parallel three reasons for writing historical fiction:
1. You want to evoke the atmosphere of another time; to give the audience the experience of being there. This is what Orwell says is impossible.
2. You want to use the symbolic properties of an era to make a point. This is what Orwell says we do in any case.
3. You just like swords and togas. Easy.
I played a terrific game of Cold Space set in Atlanta in the early 60s, where one of the player characters was black. He had to deal with the predjudice, the white backlash, the institutionalized idiocy of the era. it was some deep gaming, sometimes painful, but very cool as well.
-mice
As others have said, I think it depends very much on the players. But there are several takes on this...
...Is it really the case that there's nothing interesting for a female character to do in the given time period? I think that would come as quite a surprise to e.g. the viewers of many a Chinese or Korean serial costume drama...like the one that's on right now locally, Jewel in the Palace (http://english.tour2korea.com/02Culture/TVMiniseries/daejangguem.asp?kosm=m2_6&konum=1). It's a bit of a different thing to say that a female character doesn't fit into the types of activities that your campaign wants to focus on, or the types of activities or conflicts that are gameable in an interesting fashion, given the mechanics and scale of the system you want to use.
...Why, exactly, would a player want to play a female character in an historical adventure campaign such as you propose? I see two possibilities. Either the player just needs that as a way to identify with the character, or the player actually wants the gender of the character to be relevant to the action. The way the character interacts with the setting is what really matters. If there's an understanding that the character will be treated exactly the same as the male characters, then you've just got a dude with a female name is all. End of problem. The alternative entails either accommodating a shift in focus or easing up on historical verisimilitude. Or a little of both, as in the story of Mulan.
In short it's a question of focus. You can be true to history while accommodating characters whose background challenge the dominant assumptions of the period, but only by focusing on that challenge and making it a major theme of the campaign. If you really want to focus on something else, then something has to give.
For example, suppose you use the female-dressed-as-a-man solution. It avoids the problem of having NPCs constantly comment and react to the female PC's challenge to gender roles in the historical society. On the other hand, what is the player doing here? Do they want to face the challenge of hiding their identity--which means that it needs to come up one way or another, such as having a female NPC fall in love with them or whatever--or is it just something that's going to go on forever?
I think the problem is especially acute for ancient and medieval genres due to the fact that modern fantasy literature has brought a lot of people with very different interests and beliefs into the same room. People who are enthusiastic about, say, the American Civl War era are likely to consider the actual race/gender roles and issues of that period as essential to capturing its essence. They may incorporate them or confront them but they're unlikely to want to have their cake and eat it too by e.g. having a black female major at Antietam.
However someone whose idea of medieval fantasy is caught up with a desire to explore the world of Le Morte D'Artur (or more, The History of the Franks) is going to clash with someone whose entry to RPGs is via, oh, Thieves' World.
Quote from: RPGPunditTo me, if we're talking about a fantasy setting (even if its medieval fantasy) I generally prefer that said fantasy setting make allowances, that women tend to be treated with more equality than they ever were in our real world; though NOT necessarily with a 20th century earth level of equality, because then that just seems practically absurd.
I do not understand why the equality of women seems more difficult to believe in than dragons, orcs, magic fireballs, and so on.
Quote from: RPGPunditI think one of the most utterly disgustingly grotesque things about the Deadlands setting is... black people being not just emancipated but treated as absolute equals in a triumphant Confederacy, women being treated just like they were men in the entirety of america, etc etc. It seems so cheap and tawdry to me.
Whereas the zombies, magic rocks and so on didn't seem at all unrealistic?
This is like when spaghetti-armed gamer geek boys start babbling about female characters and how they should have strength stat modifiers. Magic? Instant healing? Monsters? No worries, who gives a damn about realism! When it comes to women being weak and inferior, suddenly the spaghetti-armed geek boy feels that "realism" is important.
Quote from: RPGPunditI think the one thing that trumps it is the actual comfort zone of your players.
That's the key thing, for the simple reason that players vote with their feet.
If you try to force players to play their characters a certain way, or in a game world they don't enjoy, they'll walk. Don't ask us what you should do, ask your players.
Quote from: JimBobOzI do not understand why the equality of women seems more difficult to believe in than dragons, orcs, magic fireballs, and so on.
Why dragons, orcs, and magic fireballs, instead of space monsters, hostile aliens, and ray guns? It's far easier to accommodate egalitarian ideals in SF than in fantasy. Not that it's impossible in fantasy, but many of the fundamental themes as well as surface details simply aren't consistent with modern ideals. While the issue for the group is a matter of finding something that everyone's happy with, I don't see anything wrong with thinking about your need for versimilitude in examining what you as an individual enjoy.
I'm mostly one of those historical sticklers as well for historical games. On the other hand, I mostly prefer my fantasy to not be just renamed medieval Europe. So, for example, having real magic changes society.
Note that prejudices apply to much more than just races and gender. There were often major class barriers -- i.e. peasants could sometimes be freely killed. In many societies rootless wanderers were treated with healthy suspicion and disdain. You couldn't simply walk into town and check into the inn.
However, these can usually be overcome by making the characters' qualities and connections strong enough. The characters should have circumstances which give them freedom. For example, I ran a long alternate-history vikings game in a future of the Icelandic Vinland colony. Most of the PCs were of a clan well-connected with their neighbors. They had wealth and a good reputation which gave them a degree of freedom. However, they still had to deal with things like weregeld for people they killed, and marriages arranged for them by their parents. I also had several female characters. One was Silksif, who was a widely respected gydja (prophetess). Being able to speak to the dead and such, her position of spiritual authority gave her power. Unlike most of the other PCs, she didn't have a marriage arranged for her, but rather had suitors come to her. She still had the basic limits of Icelandic law: she had no direct voice in politics or war, for example.
Quote from: JimBobOzI do not understand why the equality of women seems more difficult to believe in than dragons, orcs, magic fireballs, and so on.
Because those other things are fantasy elements cheaply imposed on the quasi-medieval society of generic fantasy world X.
Whereas absolute equality of the sexes would be something that would fundamentally transform the quasi-medieval society of generic fantasy world X into something that wasn't medieval at all.
It would be like an Arthurian movie that had a bubblegum pop soundtrack and a jive-talking black guy in it; and yet was trying to be serious. The effect would be ill-thought out utterly mood-warping schlock.
QuoteWhereas the zombies, magic rocks and so on didn't seem at all unrealistic?
See my point above. The fantastical unreal elements can be tacked onto the historical core BECAUSE they are fantastical and unreal. It becomes much harder to rationalize the kind of justifications that have to occur for non-fantastical changes to that same historical core.
In other words, the concept of zombies wandering around the Old South doesn't break suspension of disbelief specifically because Zombies don't exist, so we're willing to ignore the implications of their existing; but the idea of the Confederate States, caught up in a war that was at least significantly about their "right" to own slaves and treat a certain race as less than human beings, suddenly doing a full 180º switch and accepting the members of this race as absolute equals, letting them be sheriffs, not really being concerned with them marrying their white daughters anymore, etc etc. is far harder for us to simply handwave away with "its fantasy", because it changes the entire "Real" part of the premise of the setting. In other words, that's just not the Old South anymore.
Not to mention that it strikes me as actually being the more insulting of possible choices. Its covering your eyes and pretending that this racism never really happened, or sexism never really happened; its whitewashing history to ignore the mistreatment of these minorities for the sake of avoiding modern-day "white male guilt".
Its a cop-out on every level.
RPGPundit
I personally value authenticity in instances like this. It feels like a waste to gloss over the uglier parts of the past: they help set the period, and they're also a good source of conflict. If the players aren't interested or comfortable in exploring that part of the setting, they'll either tell me outright or indicate that to me by not engaging with it.
If a player really wanted to play a certain type of character and wanted to avoid historical obstacles, I'd either get rid of the obstacles or make his character a special case. More often, however, I find that players who'd be inclined to play such characters in the first place want that kind of adversity: how many books can you think of that are about someone trying to overcome the limits society places on him?
What makes for good fiction doesn't always make for good gaming, but my experience is that in this case it does.
I'd try to keep it accurate as possible, even if it bothered some players. I'm sick of history being rewritten to comform to political correctness and won't conbtribute to it being done in any way.
It's sad how history is being essentially rewritten, which means that the truth is being edited out of existance because some people find it offensive.
So, any time a lot of people don't like the the truth, it's the truth that is supposed to change? My god, they tried rewriting history to conform to modern political views in every fascist or totalitarian regime in history, now they're doing it in America.
Just proof that at it's heart, Political Correctness is nothing but the new face of fascism in America. Too bad it's being preached at some prominent game sites. Thank god this one doesn't submit to it yet.
Quote from: RPGPunditBecause those other things are fantasy elements cheaply imposed on the quasi-medieval society of generic fantasy world X.
Whereas absolute equality of the sexes would be something that would fundamentally transform the quasi-medieval society of generic fantasy world X into something that wasn't medieval at all.
So magical healing wouldn't fundamentally transform a world of plague and cholera? Magical fireballs wouldn't fundamentally transform castle design and sieges? The existence of monsters, real monsters, wouldn't fundamentally transform patterns of settlement of wilderness, organisation of town militias and so on?
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
All thes sorts of things have been the subject of many an rpg magazine article or forum post. The real effects of unreal things have been extensively discussed, and can be put into your fantasy game. What it boils down to is: if you want to, you can rationalise anything. Decide what sort of game world you want, and rationalise it afterwards. Rationalise why peasants are still starving in a world where agricultural magic exists, why people don't live to 120 in a world where healing magic exists, why people bother building thick castle walls but not thick castle roofs in a world where magical aerial attack exists, and why in two hundred years the dungeon just outside town hasn't been ransacked by the village, and/or spewed forth its monstrous inhabitants onto the village.
Gamers choose the game world they like, then rationalise it afterwards.
Quote from: RPGPunditSee my point above. The fantastical unreal elements can be tacked onto the historical core BECAUSE they are fantastical and unreal. It becomes much harder to rationalize the kind of justifications that have to occur for non-fantastical changes to that same historical core.
"I can believe in unreal things that never have happened and never could, but I cannot believe in real things that have happened and can." What the fuck? What's this now, "Currently smoking: crack"?
Quote from: rpgpunditIn other words, the concept of zombies wandering around the Old South doesn't break suspension of disbelief specifically because Zombies don't exist, so we're willing to ignore the implications of their existing; but the idea of the Confederate States... suddenly doing a full 180º switch and accepting the members of this race as absolute equals...
Riiight. Zombies are easier to accept than racial equality in the CSA. I'm no fan of the CSA, or the alternate history scenarios in story or rpg where they get to win, but even I don't consider zombies more reasonable and rational than racial equality.
Anyway, it's simply as I said - they're presenting a game for an audience. There's no use putting out a game no-one will want to play. Even Ron Edwards made sure he had a cult before he published
Sorcerer. A game where blacks get enslaved and whipped - no-one outside the Klan is going to want to play that.
Anyway, heaps of rpgs describe a warped reality, rather than wholesale fantasty.
Millenium's End had the Worldwide Islamic Jihad, as if all the terrorist groups would form a single organisation...!
James Bond 007 describes a world...
Twilight 2000...
Transhuman Space... all of these show a reality which is unlikely or impossible. Why?
Because it's a game.
Quote from: rpgpunditNot to mention that it strikes me as actually being the more insulting of possible choices. Its covering your eyes and pretending that this racism never really happened, or sexism never really happened; its whitewashing history to ignore the mistreatment of these minorities for the sake of avoiding modern-day "white male guilt".
No, it's attempting to write a game people will actually play. Feel free to write the alternate, a game in which the players take on the roles of oppressed groups. Maybe you could all roleplay some Pakistani woman being hung upside down while her husband cuts up her face for dissing him, or some poor black guy being whipped till he almost bleeds to death for running away, or perhaps we could all play
Auschwitz: the game of scrabbling for survival in a death camp.
Woohoo. Sounds like fun. I'm sure the Forgers would love it! "All roleplaying is group therapy," remember? Group therapy, education, same shit, different shovel.
People game for
fantasies. As well as having
characters better than we are, we like to have
game worlds better than our own.
"I can accept zombies, but not an egalitarian CSA." Time to go out and buy another eight-ball for your pipe, mate.
Quote from: Dominus NoxIt's sad how history is being essentially rewritten, which means that the truth is being edited out of existance because some people find it offensive.
So, any time a lot of people don't like the the truth, it's the truth that is supposed to change? My god, they tried rewriting history to conform to modern political views in every fascist or totalitarian regime in history, now they're doing it in America.
From your profile, I see you enjoy D&D. I look forward to seeing your historically accurate treatment of dragons, bugbears, gelationous cubes, Magic-Users, Clerics, Rangers and Paladins using D&D.
If people can't handle "the truth", then you'd better change it, or else you won't have any players.
So, tell us about your "historically accurate" D&D campaign?
Quote from: RPGPunditDo you think that if you're playing a game in a historical or semi-historical setting, you should try to adapt the setting's sentiments to make them more connected to modern feelings, regarding issues like minorities, sexuality, etc?
Or is authenticity more important than sensitivity?
I care more about authenticity, though in fact many settings are less prejudiced than people imagine. For example, racism towards black people isn't really appropriate in a pre-18th Century game as it hasn't yet developed as a concept. Independent women while rare were more common than is sometimes realised, particularly during the swashbuckling periods in which there were several notable women swashbucklers.
Quote from: RPGPunditDoes your answer change if there are members of said minority in your game?
If it were a real issue for them, I would run a different game.
Oh, I will gloss over some things. For example, in the vikings game I wouldn't particularly object if a player had their character committing atrocities on a raid, but I would gloss over it as I have no great desire to sit their and hear a detailed account.
In a fantasy world, well if it's historical fantasy I stick as close to history as possible. If it's more trad fantasy then whatever takes my mood but it's unlikely prejudice will be a big issue as that's not really part of the genre as a rule.
I once ran the Yogsothoth campaign for tsome friends from university and there's a bit where this rich NPC has been corrupted by this african priestess and you have to sit there and read out this speech talking about "crude negro cunning" and stuff like that.
At the time I didn't have the presence of mind to change it or cut it so I sat there and read it despite the fact that one of my players was black. Luckily he just pissed himself laughing throughout it but I didn't feel particularly good.
I'm not a big fan of attempting to recreate the moral climate of the era, but then again I'm not a big fan of historical settings as such since I typically run games set in fictional settings or fictional versions of historical settings (such as the West).
One thing that does set me off however is game designers who put forth settings where the world is going to hell in a handbasket (Shadowrun, Deadlands- The Wierd West, etc) but where for some reason there is perfect equality of race, sex, etc.
Snort.
Quote from: gleichmanOne thing that does set me off however is game designers who put forth settings where the world is going to hell in a handbasket (Shadowrun, Deadlands- The Wierd West, etc) but where for some reason there is perfect equality of race, sex, etc.
Snort.
Hmmm! I'd say it's because they identify perfect equality with the world going to hell in a handbasket. Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...
:D
-mice
Quote from: flyingmiceHmmm! I'd say it's because they identify perfect equality with the world going to hell in a handbasket. Of course, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...
:D
-mice
You make a interesting point there, but I don't think they're that smart.
More likely I think that they don't believe the world is actually going to hell, but rather is their own version of an Utopia with equality and respect for their pet peeves where all their own personal views are proven correct by the existence of what evil does exist- plus the option for adventure and self importance.
Or they're just plain chicken and worried about Political Correctness.
Or both.
Quote from: gleichmanI'm not a big fan of attempting to recreate the moral climate of the era, but then again I'm not a big fan of historical settings as such since I typically run games set in fictional settings or fictional versions of historical settings (such as the West).
One thing that does set me off however is game designers who put forth settings where the world is going to hell in a handbasket (Shadowrun, Deadlands- The Wierd West, etc) but where for some reason there is perfect equality of race, sex, etc.
Snort.
In
Shadowrun there was not "perfect equality of race."
It's just that "race" wasn't "black," "white," "asian," "arab," etc. anymore.
It was Ork, Troll, Elf, Dwarf...
Orks and Trolls were definitely the underdogs and severely discriminated against.
Quote from: VellorianIn Shadowrun there was not "perfect equality of race."
It's just that "race" wasn't "black," "white," "asian," "arab," etc. anymore.
It was Ork, Troll, Elf, Dwarf...
Orks and Trolls were definitely the underdogs and severely discriminated against.
Made up discrimination against made up races is hardly what I was talking about.
Even here however things are not what they should be IMO.
There is little indication of it in their modules or books. Orcs are CEOs of companies, in their fiction a Troll is one of the most respected Mages in the Shadows, etc.
They make noises in the background essaies, but in practice, Orc and Troll discrimination is backburner window dressing. Exceptions can be found, but they are exceptions.
Additonally the books make it clear that such discrimination is foolish and evil. Even ghouls are people too. This 'mythical' discrimination only seems to exist to strengthen their equality message.
Sad really.
Quote from: gleichmanOne thing that does set me off however is game designers who put forth settings where the world is going to hell in a handbasket (Shadowrun, Deadlands- The Wierd West, etc) but where for some reason there is perfect equality of race, sex, etc.
Shadowrun is a world of perfect equality? Are we reading the same books?
Quote from: JongWKShadowrun is a world of perfect equality? Are we reading the same books?
Just read the "Sprawl Survival Guide", it talks directly about issues of race (other than the mythical races), sex, sexual orientation, etc all being things of the past.
Quote from: gleichmanJust read the "Sprawl Survival Guide", it talks directly about issues of race (other than the mythical races), sex, sexual orientation, etc all being things of the past.
You know, I just realized that some of what we're "arguing" could be simply that our group had a different style of play than the "canon." We had discrimination on the bases of age, sex, skin color, race, cultural background, etc. as spices to the game. I can remember Johnsons who wouldn't speak to arabs in our group, or who talked down to women, or placed hits with a sneering jocularity on homosexual characters. Every Johnson had a flaw, and most of the time it was a discriminatory element.
So, I defer to you that the canon probably does try to wipe all that clean and, yes, that is a ludicrous thing to do to a setting.
My copy of the SSG is at home and I haven't read it in a while, so you'll have to excuse me for now. I have to say, though, that books like Loose Alliances or Shadows of Asia don't exactly describe paradises of equality.
My take? Some regions of Shadowrun's world made some progress, while other places are even worse than now. Metahumanity and magic have only added a new layer of complexity and problems to the situation.
For example, SR's Korea takes pride in being a meta-friendly country, but there's a rabidly ultranationalist, anti-Japanese stance. The Korean underworld also suffers from age and gender discrimination.
Quote from: JimBobOzFrom your profile, I see you enjoy D&D. I look forward to seeing your historically accurate treatment of dragons, bugbears, gelationous cubes, Magic-Users, Clerics, Rangers and Paladins using D&D.
Heh! :-) I mostly agree with JimBobOz here. I'm capable of suspending disbelief for it, but it's pretty ridiculous to have a world full of real magic, monsters, gods, and so forth -- and have absolutely no effects on society, culture, or customs.
For example, many games posit that there are ultra-powerful beings around: gods, demi-gods, and so forth. However, these are illogically prevented from having any effect on social/political structures. The gods appoint high priests but never kings. (Indeed, if you have a godlike being appoints the ruler, some gamers scream bloody murder. :-)
It's fine for people to have their subjective tastes, but I see vanishingly few claims to objective realism in medieval fantasy.
Quote from: gleichmanOne thing that does set me off however is game designers who put forth settings where the world is going to hell in a handbasket (Shadowrun, Deadlands- The Wierd West, etc) but where for some reason there is perfect equality of race, sex, etc.
Well, I'm not going to defend Shadowrun or Deadlands here because they're both pretty stupid. However, the world going to hell isn't inconsistent with equality. For example, 1940s Russia was pretty much the definition of "hell in a handbasket" -- but it also was one of the few times when women were equal within the military, holding both combat and leadership positions. Similarly, the times when you see racial differences tossed aside are often ones where there were far more pressing problems.
Quote from: jhkimWell, I'm not going to defend Shadowrun or Deadlands here because they're both pretty stupid. However, the world going to hell isn't inconsistent with equality. For example, 1940s Russia was pretty much the definition of "hell in a handbasket" -- but it also was one of the few times when women were equal within the military, holding both combat and leadership positions. Similarly, the times when you see racial differences tossed aside are often ones where there were far more pressing problems.
1940s Russia was facing an single outside threat and a single internal 'vision' that unified its nation.
SR represents the exact opposite.
Also 1940s Russia's experiment with such equality failed, and a setting working from that PoV should show the same problems undermining the attempt.
But I think we're going far afield now. Why is it that of all the people who state their opinion, I'm almost always the only one called to defend it?
I just don't think one player should be penalized or prevented from adventuring with the rest.
For example, you *could* play as escaping black slaves in the Civil War Era or just prior. I mean, you're all still adventurers, there are villains and allies (sometimes you can't tell which), etc. etc. *Or* you could play free slaves in collonial times, enjoying freedom, roleplaying racism, and occasionally having to fight off a press gang who want to revoke that freedom.
As for women, again, you'd be surprised how little society actually *cared* what poor people did. Furthermore, there are better time periods to play in than those with a stable society that can even afford to frown on such petty things. In the French Revolution, for example, I'd be up on the barricades shooting people I didn't happen to like very much and my wife would be right there with me. I have to admit she was the better shot! My kids would be on the field too... scouting for ammo and discarded weapons. War and societal instability make for wonderful equalizers.
And the Middle Ages? You do realize that one of the *original* paladins was a girl. A girl who constantly had to "rescue" her knight from the clutches of his evil sorcerous father. The thing about killing people is that if it needs getting done, people don't care who does it. And if you happen to be good at it, they're probably afraid to question your right to.
As for fantasy, when you've succumbed to raids by drow, orcs, mind flayers, and every other "slaving rapacious" monster (pretty much all of them) let's see how "afraid" you are of blacks. After you've watched your wife get eaten, your house burned, your children skinned, etc. etc. Hell, after you've seen the adventurers save the day with a freaking FIREBALL. Fantasy worlds are too fucking scary for people to really worry too much about skin color. Unless it happens to be green or purple or grey or what have you... then there's a whole new kind of racism for that level of resentment.
I was just thinking that a really great pulp trope is the broadchested adventurer to gets "stuck" with a damsel in distress. Throughout the game she takes care of herself, picks up the gun, fights off the monster, rescues that broadchested adventurer from his prison, organizes the attack and the adventurer comes to understand and respect her as an equal through the experience.
You couldn't tell that tale if they both started the game out as equals.
Quote from: VellorianI was just thinking that a really great pulp trope is the broadchested adventurer to gets "stuck" with a damsel in distress. Throughout the game she takes care of herself, picks up the gun, fights off the monster, rescues that broadchested adventurer from his prison, organizes the attack and the adventurer comes to understand and respect her as an equal through the experience.
You couldn't tell that tale if they both started the game out as equals.
It took all of two minutes for people to forget Leia was a girl.:D
Quote from: VellorianI was just thinking that a really great pulp trope is the broadchested adventurer to gets "stuck" with a damsel in distress. Throughout the game she takes care of herself, picks up the gun, fights off the monster, rescues that broadchested adventurer from his prison, organizes the attack and the adventurer comes to understand and respect her as an equal through the experience.
You couldn't tell that tale if they both started the game out as equals.
IMO...
There's a great deal of fun to be had playing to and off of stereotypes.
And there should be more in the way of the Hero than simple villains and combat.
It be fun.
Okay, some observations here. First, people are subtly shifting the goalposts to support their arguments: what started as a discussion focused mainly on historical gaming has slid down a slippery slope into whether a D&D world needs to have gender discrimination and castles without roofs. There are gradations in between, surely...and if I want to play Arthurian or pseudo-medieval fantasy due to an interest in the fundamental themes and trappings of the genre, then revisionism past a certain point are going to break the uniqueness of that genre and interfere with the desire to explore it. Again, I might as well be playing in an SF game. It's the gaming equivalent of the old pulp magazine trick of taking a Western genre story and recycling it with space instead of the lone prairie, a blasto gun instead of the six-shooter, and a rocket ship instead of the horse.
Second, I propose this is how a game pitch should go.
GM: "The setting for my game will be an ALIEN WORLD notable for its lack of indoor plumbing, arbitrary and unequal system of justice, and general exclusion of women from active participation in warfare and other aspects public life, which happen to be the primary focus of the game."
Player: "Sounds cool!" (proceed to character creation and play) or "Yar boo chiz chiz" (proceed to a counter-pitch or the GM coming up with a new idea)
Quote from: Elliot Wilen"Yar boo chiz chiz"
Can you translate that from Lower Elven into English? :)
Quote from: VellorianCan you translate that from Lower Elven into English? :)
"Suxx0rz!"
Quote from: Elliot Wilen"Suxx0rz!"
"English" is not "scum sucking, bottom dweller."
But, since I speak a little "scum sucking, bottom dweller," I got the translation. Thanks! ;)
But it is a translation in context. The people who would have said "Yar boo chiz chiz" in their world would today say (or write) "Suxx0rz!" in ours.
(A guide for the perplexed.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Molesworth)
Quote from: JimBobOzRiiight. Zombies are easier to accept than racial equality in the CSA. I'm no fan of the CSA, or the alternate history scenarios in story or rpg where they get to win, but even I don't consider zombies more reasonable and rational than racial equality.
As a matter of fact, I would say that there would have been considerable more probability of the dead rising and walking to fight for the south, than for southerners to go from OWNING blacks and fighting to the death for their right to OWN blacks, to suddenly letting them carry guns and badges, fuck their white daughters and arrest their white children in the span of 2 or 3 years for NO GOOD FUCKING REASON WHATSOEVER.
Yes, in comparison of those two scenarios, the dead rising from their graves strikes me as VASTLY more plausible.
QuoteAnyway, it's simply as I said - they're presenting a game for an audience. There's no use putting out a game no-one will want to play. Even Ron Edwards made sure he had a cult before he published Sorcerer. A game where blacks get enslaved and whipped - no-one outside the Klan is going to want to play that.
Except no one is saying that, no one is saying this game should have been "Racial holy war" or something like, or that it should GLORIFY slavery. I'm saying quite the opposite in fact, that Deadlands chose the cheap way out of letting gamers, a disproportionate number of which carry romantic wargamer notions of the "glory of the old south" and "what might have been" to get to play confederate soldiers and southern gentlemen while conveniently whitewashing away the reality of the fact that it was a slaveowning society and a culture that's entirely livelihood depended on the brutal oppresion of fellow human beings. It was a copout so the gamer fanboys could whoop the rebel yell and not get all full of white guilt.
Instead, they could have made the confederacy as slaveowning as ever, though perhaps with a growing movement toward abolition. After all, Robert E. Lee himself was of abolitionist sentiments, and in a scenario like the one Deadlands posits, where the civil war has dragged on even longer than it had in our world, the southerners might have felt very pressured to allow more blacks to fight for the south in exchange for their freedom, something which would have strengthened a push for abolition overall.
But that wouldn't have changed the fact that it would have sucked ass to be a black man in Dixie. Shit, in the 19th century it wasn't particularly fun to be a black man ANYWHERE, and that's a reality of that time that should be a part of the game, that gives opportunities for some serious gameplay.
Fortunately, the main setting of Deadlands isn't the CSA, its the "wierd west", and even in our own history many black men travelled out west for opportunities and to escape their downtrodden fates back east. There was a generally more tolerant atmosphere toward blacks in the west (not that it was egalitarian by any means, see my point above).
QuoteNo, it's attempting to write a game people will actually play. Feel free to write the alternate, a game in which the players take on the roles of oppressed groups. Maybe you could all roleplay some Pakistani woman being hung upside down while her husband cuts up her face for dissing him, or some poor black guy being whipped till he almost bleeds to death for running away, or perhaps we could all play Auschwitz: the game of scrabbling for survival in a death camp.
Nice straw men, but I'm not talking about any of those.
I'm talking about HBO's Deadwood, or HBO's Rome. Both of those portray stunningly accurate accounts of the cultural mores of the past, without pulling any punches for political correctness or whitewashing history to make it more palatable. And last time I checked, both of those programs were huge successes.
I'm talking about making historical RPGs like those. Shit, I've run the "Rome" campaign already. Someday I'll run a "Deadwood" campaign, which may or may not have zombies, but definitely will have racial, social and gender inequalities and all the opportunities for character development and plot development those entail.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditSomeday I'll run a "Deadwood" campaign, which may or may not have zombies, but definitely will have racial, social and gender inequalities and all the opportunities for character development and plot development those entail.
1) Can I vote "FOR" Zombies? :)
2) Can I play? :D
Quote from: BalbinusI care more about authenticity, though in fact many settings are less prejudiced than people imagine. For example, racism towards black people isn't really appropriate in a pre-18th Century game as it hasn't yet developed as a concept.
Yes, that's true. If you're going to do history with mores and values of the past in place, make sure you actually know what historical values were! Many people seem stunned when I tell them that Rome had a number of prominent political figures (and the catholic church a few religious figures) that were almost certainly black; and have a very hard time understanding how Roman sexual/gender identity values actually worked (because they're so totally different from how we tend to view these things).
So when in doubt, its important to read up before presenting "historical" truths in your campaigns.
QuoteIndependent women while rare were more common than is sometimes realised, particularly during the swashbuckling periods in which there were several notable women swashbucklers.
Um, well, yes. There were some. There were also some women gunslingers of note in the wild west (probably more than the number of women "swashbucklers"). But note that this sort of freedom was a freedom that women of the lower classes or "sullied" women had; it didn't mean that just anyone could run off and become a swashbuckler or a gunslinger; it was usually pretty desperate women from low birth and no options. Hell, in a lot of campaigns based on history any female character would have to make a difficult choice between being of high birth and having very strict limits to what she can and cannot do, or being freer to do something unconventional but having to be of lower class.
Not that being of high birth would mean you're screwed as far as gaming possibilities; consider that certain women in Rome, China, and throughout european history, wielded incredible amounts of power and influence. Look at Livia, for example.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditInstead, they could have made the confederacy as slaveowning as ever, though perhaps with a growing movement toward abolition.
I would have perferred that they let history unfold much as it did, and have the Weird West be something in the background rather than something in your face.
Or that they just set the thing in the Civil War period in the first place.
In fact the idea of African-Americans fighting on the side of the South isn't completely farfetched although the nature and extent of it is subject to controversy that's influenced by the sort of Southern-apologist sentiments the Pundit mentions. Link to Wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans#African_Americans_in_the_Confederate_Military)
Quote from: Vellorian1) Can I vote "FOR" Zombies? :)
2) Can I play? :D
If you come to live in Uruguay, I give you a GUARANTEE that not only will I run the campaign but that your spot in it will be reserved.
RPGPundit
Quote from: gleichmanI would have perferred that they let history unfold much as it did, and have the Weird West be something in the background rather than something in your face.
Or that they just set the thing in the Civil War period in the first place.
As would I, but, you know, the geek boys (and quite a few other people) cream their pants thinking about the confederate flag and all that, for some reason I've never quite been able to fathom.
Edit: I can fathom why some people, geekboys or otherwise, from the american south might have wet dreams about the Confederacy. I just don't grasp why geekboys in other parts of the US, or indeed Canada (which is specially wierd) would do so. I wonder if it extends Europe too.. here in south america it doesn't seem to occur. But good god, in Canada the number of gamers I knew that got absolute hardons at all things related to the Confederacy was positively fucking frightening.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPunditIf you come to live in Uruguay, I give you a GUARANTEE that not only will I run the campaign but that your spot in it will be reserved.
What's the cost of living like there? And the climate? Oh, and do they have lots of job openings for corporate wage-slaves who specialize in IT Project Management? :)
The IT sector is booming here. There are more job openings than available workers. I have a friend who's been tempting me to switch careers, even.
As for weather, see here. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Weather/weather_Uruguay.html)
Quote from: VellorianWhat's the cost of living like there? And the climate? Oh, and do they have lots of job openings for corporate wage-slaves who specialize in IT Project Management? :)
The cost of living is insanely cheap (I rent a two-bedroom apartment in a nice neighbourhood that's centrally located for $160 US a month).
The climate is very tolerable, getting as low as about 5 degrees celsius in the winter, and as high as 35 degrees celsius in the summer (Montevideo has a number of lovely beaches).
As for job openings, that one I wouldn't know anything about, but there are a number of multinational corporations based here in the free trade zones and that sort of thing, so you never know!
RPGPundit
Quote from: JimBobOzFrom your profile, I see you enjoy D&D. I look forward to seeing your historically accurate treatment of dragons, bugbears, gelationous cubes, Magic-Users, Clerics, Rangers and Paladins using D&D.
If people can't handle "the truth", then you'd better change it, or else you won't have any players.
So, tell us about your "historically accurate" D&D campaign?
Actually I don't like D&D, my profile reflects the fact I played it once, with a dick GM, and got into a SFPRG because I liked the idea but hated the genre.
it's also a slam on the infamous "Chick track".....
Now go choke on your own snarkiness.
Quote from: RPGPunditThe cost of living is insanely cheap (I rent a two-bedroom apartment in a nice neighbourhood that's centrally located for $160 US a month).
The climate is very tolerable, getting as low as about 5 degrees celsius in the winter, and as high as 35 degrees celsius in the summer (Montevideo has a number of lovely beaches).
As for job openings, that one I wouldn't know anything about, but there are a number of multinational corporations based here in the free trade zones and that sort of thing, so you never know!
Sounds a bit warm for my taste, but otherwise, not bad.
What language(s) do I need to speak to get by?
Quote from: VellorianSounds a bit warm for my taste, but otherwise, not bad.
What language(s) do I need to speak to get by?
Spanish is what's spoken here; but most gamers (and most of the educated sector of the rest of the population) also speak relatively good amounts of english.
RPGPundit
Quote from: JimBobOzRiiight. Zombies are easier to accept than racial equality in the CSA. I'm no fan of the CSA, or the alternate history scenarios in story or rpg where they get to win, but even I don't consider zombies more reasonable and rational than racial equality.
Anyway, it's simply as I said - they're presenting a game for an audience. There's no use putting out a game no-one will want to play. Even Ron Edwards made sure he had a cult before he published Sorcerer. A game where blacks get enslaved and whipped - no-one outside the Klan is going to want to play that.
(shameless plug, but zombies + slavery)
YotZ: Fleshmongers (http://www.ukg-publishing.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=61)
Hey! Every setting needs it's orks!
Edit: The point is that if you ignore the negative aspects of a setting (historical or otherwise), not only can it become unrealistic, but you also ignore opportunities for drama. Having NPCs that are so irredeemably evil that you can blow them away without a second thought is kind of refreshing
Quote from: RPGPunditUm, well, yes. There were some. There were also some women gunslingers of note in the wild west (probably more than the number of women "swashbucklers"). But note that this sort of freedom was a freedom that women of the lower classes or "sullied" women had; it didn't mean that just anyone could run off and become a swashbuckler or a gunslinger; it was usually pretty desperate women from low birth and no options. Hell, in a lot of campaigns based on history any female character would have to make a difficult choice between being of high birth and having very strict limits to what she can and cannot do, or being freer to do something unconventional but having to be of lower class.
Not that being of high birth would mean you're screwed as far as gaming possibilities; consider that certain women in Rome, China, and throughout european history, wielded incredible amounts of power and influence. Look at Livia, for example.
RPGPundit
In some settings upper class women had greater freedom, but generally I agree with your point.
Interestingly, last night this actually came up. We had a new player join without warning and she asked to play a female character in our vikings game. I said yes, as there hadn't really been much opportunity to discuss it in advance (I didn't know she was coming until shortly before the game) and I didn't want to veto a potential new player's fun, but it does now leave me with a deeply ahistorical character.
Given more time, I would simply have chosen another setting. In this one, I shall throw in some references to her unusual status but I don't plan to dwell on the point as I get the impression doing so would cause more damage than the anachronism.
However, and I don't yet know (as I haven't yet had time to ask) how the other players feel about the anachronism. Not ideal, handleable but with foresight I would have arranged things differently.
Anyway, I thought it relevant given that it actually came up in my game last night. You can now expel me from the historical gamers guild sadly...
Quote from: BalbinusAnyway, I thought it relevant given that it actually came up in my game last night. You can now expel me from the historical gamers guild sadly...
/me sadly breaks Max's sabre aross my knee, rips off his chevrons, then turns my back to him as the drums roll...
-mice
Quote from: BalbinusIn some settings upper class women had greater freedom, but generally I agree with your point.
Interestingly, last night this actually came up. We had a new player join without warning and she asked to play a female character in our vikings game. I said yes, as there hadn't really been much opportunity to discuss it in advance (I didn't know she was coming until shortly before the game) and I didn't want to veto a potential new player's fun, but it does now leave me with a deeply ahistorical character.
Given more time, I would simply have chosen another setting. In this one, I shall throw in some references to her unusual status but I don't plan to dwell on the point as I get the impression doing so would cause more damage than the anachronism.
However, and I don't yet know (as I haven't yet had time to ask) how the other players feel about the anachronism. Not ideal, handleable but with foresight I would have arranged things differently.
Anyway, I thought it relevant given that it actually came up in my game last night. You can now expel me from the historical gamers guild sadly...
She's a shield maiden. A devotee of Freya in her warrior goddess aspect dedicated to looting, rapine, and kicking ass just like the guys. :)
Quote from: mythusmageShe's a shield maiden. A devotee of Freya in her warrior goddess aspect dedicated to looting, rapine, and kicking ass just like the guys. :)
And if you want to make it truly more historical, she provides "favors" for a slice of other sailor's percentage of loot. ;)
It's been a while - like twenty years - since I read the saga, but didn't Freydis Eriksdottir - Lief's sister - lead an expedition to Vinland? I remember her baring her breast and slapping it with a sword, which scared off one bunch of skraelings. She also killed her partners and the 25 or so men who came with them, and took their stuff too, IIRC. That was one seriously scary woman.
-mice
Quote from: BalbinusInterestingly, last night this actually came up. We had a new player join without warning and she asked to play a female character in our vikings game. I said yes, as there hadn't really been much opportunity to discuss it in advance (I didn't know she was coming until shortly before the game) and I didn't want to veto a potential new player's fun, but it does now leave me with a deeply ahistorical character.
Given more time, I would simply have chosen another setting. In this one, I shall throw in some references to her unusual status but I don't plan to dwell on the point as I get the impression doing so would cause more damage than the anachronism.
Hm. I ran a long alternate-history vikings game which had several women PCs, the
Vinland Campaign (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/vinland/). You can browse the campaign information there, which lists the PCs and has session summaries.
As clash noted, there are a number of strong women characters in the sagas: the Vinland sagas (Freydis and Gudrid) and the Laxdaela saga in particular. Under Icelandic law of the sagas, women can own property and divorce their husbands. They have no direct voice within politics, they need men to represent them at the Allthing -- though that usually isn't central. It is frowned upon but not illegal for anyone to cross-dress. It is considered grounds for divorce. In the Laxdaela saga, a wife plotted to divorce her husband by getting him to wear a low-cut (i.e. low neckline) shirt. However, women in the sagas engaged in violence without undue censure (i.e. any more than men doing the same).
It was not uncommon for women like Freydis to join with the men for particular acts of violence. However, it would be unusual for one to continuously go with them -- at least, there are no examples in the sagas. I had one PC who did so at first by cross-dressing. Thorgerd's parents and younger brother had died in exile, and she returned disguised as her brother Thorfinn to righteously avenge her parents and restore their name. She stayed in disguise for over a year, and had already established herself as a respected soldier when her secret came out.
Thorgerd was still respected since her motives had been unimpeachable. She married a warrior whom she fought with, but continued to go out with the men to battle. (The pattern is not ahistorical, I would say. For example, Nadezhda Durova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadezhda_Durova) joined the military as a man but having made a name for herself retained her position as a woman.
When I started the campaign, my suggestion had been that female PCs should probably be either married (to an agreeable man) or widowed since that gave them the most freedom. However, in practice all the female characters started unmarried but instead had other reasons for freedom.
Thanks John,
the difficulty was really simply that the lack of warning (which I understand was unavoidable) meant no time to discuss in advance, hence no time to come up with a decent concept. If she is back next week (one never knows with new players) I might chat to her about it and suggest some of these ideas.
Quote from: BalbinusThanks John,
the difficulty was really simply that the lack of warning (which I understand was unavoidable) meant no time to discuss in advance, hence no time to come up with a decent concept. If she is back next week (one never knows with new players) I might chat to her about it and suggest some of these ideas.
Well, on the lack of warning -- I think it's a good idea at the start of a campaign to put a little thought into how to integrate PCs including female ones. Then again, I suppose it's natural for me to consider because my current main gaming group is mostly female (four women, two men). Was your gaming group all male prior to the new female player?
If her PC has already been established as a warrior alongside the others, you might add in a backstory like Thorgerd's as a cross-dressing warrior who already made a name for herself. The backstory could possibly include a now-dead past husband, too, if she'd go for that. As a widow, she'd be more independent of her parents, and would have less pressure to marry. (Then again, I'm not sure how much you're sticking with the Icelandic clan traditions. Are the unmarried male PCs being married off? If not, then perhaps better to ignore marital status for the female PC as well.)
Quote from: jhkimWell, on the lack of warning -- I think it's a good idea at the start of a campaign to put a little thought into how to integrate PCs including female ones. Then again, I suppose it's natural for me to consider because my current main gaming group is mostly female (four women, two men). Was your gaming group all male prior to the new female player?
If her PC has already been established as a warrior alongside the others, you might add in a backstory like Thorgerd's as a cross-dressing warrior who already made a name for herself. The backstory could possibly include a now-dead past husband, too, if she'd go for that. As a widow, she'd be more independent of her parents, and would have less pressure to marry. (Then again, I'm not sure how much you're sticking with the Icelandic clan traditions. Are the unmarried male PCs being married off? If not, then perhaps better to ignore marital status for the female PC as well.)
The group was all male, though we've had female players before so your advice is good I think all the same.
Unmarried male PCs will be married off, a widow is not a bad idea. Thanks for the help.