Quote from: deadDMwalking;1086998It'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?'.

I agree with this. No one in 9th century Wales is going to be "racist against Moors" - only a tiny number would have any idea what a Moor is. If you read the Song of Roland you'll see the Franks had barely any idea what a Moor was, and they were fighting them!

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1086998It'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?'.

Yep. Which is why the scene in the recent Game of Thrones episodes was so eye-rolling. The Northerners glare angrily at Misssandei and Grey Worm passing on the road. Why? They might gawp at seeing such (to them) exotic people. But why would they hate them? And why should they regard Missandei and Grey Worm any differently than the locals in the Summer Isles would regard a couple pasty riders from Northern Westeros?

Quote from: tenbones;1086993We'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.

I don't particularly care about rpgnet, and I'm not sure about your summary of other people's objections. But I think the core we agree on here is - realism can be fun gaming, and non-realism can also be fun gaming. There's no need to fight for one against the other.

My general attitude is that as far as gaming goes, it's fine for there to be a variety of different games. Realistic/unrealistic, liberal/conservative, etc.

Quote from: S'mon;1087011I agree with this. No one in 9th century Wales is going to be "racist against Moors" - only a tiny number would have any idea what a Moor is. If you read the Song of Roland you'll see the Franks had barely any idea what a Moor was, and they were fighting them!

Hmm. It might be not racism, but that doesn't mean they'd be happy about seeing them.

Firstly, there is pure xenophobia. I wonder how much of the "they're taking our jobs!" and "they're dirty and noisy!" actually is a rationalization of the real, underlying "they're too different". Exactly for not having ever seen a Moor before, the Moors might be seen as a threat.

Secondly, there is the small detail of religion. If the Moors just pass down the road, and make no hostile move, OK, they aren't staying for long enough. But if they stay for a week, it will be evident they pray every day at strange hours, and they won't come to Mass on Sunday. And they will refuse our good ale because their God forbids that! Back then, all of that would be enough of an unsettling factor for many; many of the less cultured ones (i.e., most of the people in a small village), and all of the religious ones (say the local priest).

Quote from: Michele;1087077Hmm. It might be not racism, but that doesn't mean they'd be happy about seeing them.

Really depends on a lot of factors. Smart visitors will present themselves to the local ruler, probably claim to be princes (or emissaries of their king), and give him some nice gifts from their faraway land. At that point they're under his protection and no one will mess with them.

There are no Inns in 9th century Wales, so you don't really get an "Aragorn at the Prancing Pony" setup. Certainly if the Moors just camp out in the woods, I can see people getting very suspicious.

Quote from: SHARK;1086566Geesus this constant sobbing about whaa! whaa! whaa! We have to go down the fucking checkbox and have at least one Asian, two Muslims, three Black Africans, etc, etc, etc. Fuck this stupid shit gets tiresome. Can't forget to include a fucking bloated, fat Purple Jabba to join the mix, too.

And that is often all it is. Reducing us to a check on a collection list. Nigger? check? Cripple? check. and so on. This is why the big push for "inclusion" at the gaming table and discussions of "how can we get more (insert race/whatever here) at the table?" get such ire from the people on the damn checklist. Or worse. It is just another damn marketing ploy.

Worse is that this obsession for making everything "diverse" is that it draws ire to works that were just diverse because thats what fit or thats what the writer is used to.

On the flip side we need to kill off these idiots who keep telling minorities or whatever that they arent welcome at whatever because its ALL WHITE MALES and dont you know they want it that way? Even when its obviously false. And more oft than not its... White people telling others this. Which makes those people mysteriously not show up. Gosh. Wonder why?

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").

Want to bet that "An Inner Darkness" isn't realistic?

Modern RPG writers present very cartoonish representation of historical racism. I think they do it to score virtue points and not because they are concerned with actual racism. But as a non-white member of the hobby, I view racism in this hobby differently than other folks.

Quote from: Haffrung;1087017Yep. Which is why the scene in the recent Game of Thrones episodes was so eye-rolling. The Northerners glare angrily at Misssandei and Grey Worm passing on the road. Why? They might gawp at seeing such (to them) exotic people. But why would they hate them? And why should they regard Missandei and Grey Worm any differently than the locals in the Summer Isles would regard a couple pasty riders from Northern Westeros?

I read it as... "Eddard and his son Robb were both beheaded in the South. Brandon Stark and his son were burned alive by the Dragon Queen's father. Her brother kidnapped and raped and murdered Eddard's sister. We JUST got free of all that and now the Dragon Queen shows up with an army saying we're her subjects. Fuck everyone from south of the Neck."

Quote from: Chris24601;1087109I read it as... "Eddard and his son Robb were both beheaded in the South. Brandon Stark and his son were burned alive by the Dragon Queen's father. Her brother kidnapped and raped and murdered Eddard's sister. We JUST got free of all that and now the Dragon Queen shows up with an army saying we're her subjects. Fuck everyone from south of the Neck."

But they only glare hate at Missandei and Grey Worm. It seemed pretty clear to me that the point of the scene was to show the backward racial bigotry by the Northerners. And if you read reviews of the episode, that's how TV critics and the media saw it too.

TV critics and the media are part of the same "looking to be offended" SJW crew that whine about cultural appropriation if a white man writes a game based on Middle Eastern culture or lack of diversity if he fails to incorporate Middle Eastern culture into his Irish/Celtic Mythology-based adventure setting. You can't win, they'll always be offended.

So, let's say you wanted to show that the North was just generally mistrustful of Dany's forces (basically mirroring Sansa and Arya's reactions to Dany and because Dany the Despot is ultimately going to go Fire & Blood on innocents so you want to foreshadow things).

Who from Dany's crew would YOU have shown them being squirrelly around that would make sense to be around the smallfolk that wouldn't have either been nonsensical (Jorah is a Northman who wears appropriate attire; Dany wouldn't be out with the smallfolk in the first place) or not obviously because of their connection to Dany (dirty looks at Tyrion could be because he's a Lannister)?

Kinda like writing the aforementioned historical Scottish Highlands setting. There's no winning because if you go what's actually been set up (by the Celtic myths or by previous events in GoT) there's no way to create it without offending the SJWs somehow. There weren't any Arabians in the Celtic myths and Dany's army is "brown" relative to the North.

Just like in The Game of Thrones (the in-universe version) the only way to win with the SJWs is to not play their game (Ned beat them ALL by not trying to use his nephew as a pawn in the game).

Quote from: jhkimBut 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: Lurtch;1087102Want to bet that "An Inner Darkness" isn't realistic?

Modern RPG writers present very cartoonish representation of historical racism. I think they do it to score virtue points and not because they are concerned with actual racism. But as a non-white member of the hobby, I view racism in this hobby differently than other folks.

I'm not arguing that realism is better. It seemed that "An Inner Darkness" was historical, and a number of posters here assumed that in their complaints about it. If it's not historical, though, that's OK too.

The complaint of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" is something that some outside people do - but it seems to me that posters here are doing it as well.

i.e. If I were to run a campaign set in the 1920s and have non-historical egalitarianism, then I'd get complaints that I'm being "politically correct".
But if I were to run a campaign set in the 1920s that has historical racism, then I'd get complaints that it's "misery tourism".
And I'm sure that if I were to run a campaign set in the 1920s that had non-historical cartoonish racism, then I'd also get complaints.

Quote from: tenbones;1086914What 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.

+100 this.

I've never seen - and there's Youtubers and podcaster who run CoC religiously - a Keeper address the very real & horrific aspects of being non-white AND/OR female during the 20's.

And it would be an excellent add to a game that has deep psychological horror at its base. Sure, cultists are trying to summon Cthulhu to bring about THE END, but, I got the Klan running through my yard killing my livestock and burning crosses on my yard. Or, my character's abusive, controlling husband gives her very little room to "breathe".

The horror is multidimensional, when a group is willing to invite that level of verisimilitude.  The cultural environ flavors PC decisions in regard to dealing with other people involved in countering the global threat.

At the other end, many players and Keepers are probably terrified to engage how the 20's "really was" - at least the sexist, racist aspects - for fear of alienating certain players.

This is why Delta Green is my soft go-to for horror gaming: it's hard to run Call of Cthulhu accurately without it being "Call of Cthulhu + Mississippi Burning".

Quote from: Theory of Games;1087187Or, my character's abusive, controlling husband gives her very little room to "breathe".

To the extent this was ever a societal issue (as opposed to some bad individual) in the USA, it was a feature of the 1950s not the 1920s. The 1950s saw a great increase in mobility as men moved across the country for work, taking their wives with them. At the same time, increasing wealth + a backlash against the 1940s + middle class values saw these women out of the labour market. The result was social isolation as the wife was expected to stay home all day, getting ready for their husband's return, with often no developed social circle. And labour saving devices had replaced servants for the middle class. A Golden Age for married men, but not so great for married women.

Edit: As for Mississippi Burning, unless you have black PCs in 1920s Mississippi or similar, I don't know why this would come up.

Walter Mosley, writer of "Devil in a Blue Dress" (starring Denzel Washington) and Easy Rawlins character fame, writes Raymond Chandler-esque mysteries. Those cold easily port over into CoC 1920s or 1950s with the complexity of period race relations, yet enough minority enclaves to let PCs breathe and investigate.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1087289Walter Mosley, writer of "Devil in a Blue Dress" (starring Denzel Washington) and Easy Rawlins character fame, writes Raymond Chandler-esque mysteries. Those cold easily port over into CoC 1920s or 1950s with the complexity of period race relations, yet enough minority enclaves to let PCs breathe and investigate.

I second that recommendation. I'd play in such a campaign, although I am not a horror fan.