There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

People are tribal, news at 11:00.  Some people react to the dominant culture by refusing to participate in certain aspects of it.  What's startling about games is not that it happens but that it took as long as it did for it to become even a thing to discuss.

That's all broad, general trends.  When looking at individuals, you are seeing things. 

For example, I'm far more conservative (in multiple senses) than most people here, with the exception of a strong classical liberal streak on a few key things such as free speech (but also not out of place here in that respect).  I tend towards old school play, but not nearly as strongly as the dominant view here.  I've played story games and even run a little.  I had fun with that, more or less, but decided it wasn't a good fit for me.  (Note, not that it was a bad way to play.  Just something that was different and not what I wanted to do.)  I'm hard line with the GM wears the Viking hat in principle, and it affects who I will game with, but in practice once someone meets the minimum threshold to game with me, I'm pretty flexible and loose.  I play with friends or people who are likely to shortly become friends. 

I've been "self-boycotting" people who hate me for decades.  I won't bother everyone with the list, but as a couple of examples, I'll never buy another Gillette product again (despite using them for most of my life) and I'll never go to Disney World again (even if grand children want to go and I'm the only one that can take them).  So not buying particular games is really not a huge sacrifice to me.
   

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

You make a good point Anon. I will say, for myself, like I'd never play Thirsty Sword Lesbians, I would likely have tried games by Black Hat....except when I realized they're a raging douchebag company I'll never buy/play anything from them.

Not for me.  However, there are so many different games now and so many players compared to when I started >45 years ago that I haven't a clue about the majority of players outside my circle.

Sure, wargamers trend more right-wing, storygamers trend more left-wing.

RPGers seem to have gone along with general sci-fi & fantasy nerd culture from being Libertarian in the 1970s to mostly Left-Liberal now. One big inflection point was WoTC acquiring TSR, the Seattle left-coast leftist culture helping drive the community. Then the Left in general went insane from around 2012.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

It wasn't this way in the past.  I've gamed with people of all political stripes for most of my life.  It's only in the last 10 years (and primarily post-Trump) that this hasn't been true.  And it's mainly because the left has become total narcissists and Marxists.  No exaggeration.  All of us (right or left) gamed in pretty much the same way.  Then the left went narcissistic and suddenly they couldn't play at a table that didn't "see" them, meaning that each of them had to be the center of attention all of the time.  And with an old school style referee, they can't guarantee that.  So story games and meta mechanics were invented to that every special snowflake pansexual genderfluid otherkin can make sure the spotlight gets shined on them all the time.  And the Marxism, well when you all believe in Critical Theory and that all relationships boil down to victims vs oppressors, no woke warrior worth their soy is going to allow some Dungeon Master (See!  Legacy of slavery...) victimize them (or remove the spotlight from them).  I never saw a political divide in RPGs until the left started screaming that "The personal is political!" and injecting woke nonsense into everything.  So, yeah, I see it, and it's totally the left's fault.  And we all know how good the left is at taking personal responsibility for their actions...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 19, 2023, 04:13:15 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
There was a time not too long ago where I would have dismissed such a notion as patently ridiculous. Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals. Then there's the RPGs which are specifically political to begin with, and the players concerned about their game choices endorsing or reflecting their values in some way. And while I appreciate how this forum is one of the few places such a discussion can even take place, it's still one where politics and playstyle are all but synonymous.

So am I seeing things here? Does anyone have any evidence for/against? What are the positives/negatives if true?

All of us (right or left) gamed in pretty much the same way. 

This. When I started out in the 70's it was a mix.  We had a leftwing professor running our game with right wing guys from a nearby military base and a female (OMG!) flower child type.  There was ZERO friction because all were playing the game in front of us.  Not "playing" at outside politics.  I too didn't see this happen until about 2011 when screechy libtards started pontificating at games.  I truly thought they were just a few borderline insane people unique to our little scene.  Online info told me it was getting widespread.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 19, 2023, 04:13:15 PM

It wasn't this way in the past.  I've gamed with people of all political stripes for most of my life.  It's only in the last 10 years (and primarily post-Trump) that this hasn't been true.  And it's mainly because the left has become total narcissists and Marxists.  No exaggeration.  All of us (right or left) gamed in pretty much the same way.  Then the left went narcissistic and suddenly they couldn't play at a table that didn't "see" them, meaning that each of them had to be the center of attention all of the time.  And with an old school style referee, they can't guarantee that.  So story games and meta mechanics were invented to that every special snowflake pansexual genderfluid otherkin can make sure the spotlight gets shined on them all the time.  And the Marxism, well when you all believe in Critical Theory and that all relationships boil down to victims vs oppressors, no woke warrior worth their soy is going to allow some Dungeon Master (See!  Legacy of slavery...) victimize them (or remove the spotlight from them).  I never saw a political divide in RPGs until the left started screaming that "The personal is political!" and injecting woke nonsense into everything.  So, yeah, I see it, and it's totally the left's fault.  And we all know how good the left is at taking personal responsibility for their actions...

I still play the same way I ever did.  I don't play only with people who agree with me politically, same as I did when I started.  If anything, my audience has broadened.  I just don't play with the types you so eloquently described above.  There are more of them now, so it comes up more.  However, if a radical libertarian or classical liberal or true moderate or even some of the more esoteric people showed up and could set that aside to game, I'd be happy to.  It's not as if we discuss politics in our game sessions even when all of thus there mostly agree.   

Or more broadly, I don't play with people who can't shut up about their cause:  So it's a rare leftist, vegan, or rabid golfer--to name a few examples--that would make the cut on that criteria.  However, there is actually a radical leftist I know who was invited to my games multiple times because she is one of the nicest people you'd ever meet and knows how to turn it off and focus on whatever people were doing.  I know of couple of conservatives that wouldn't make the cut on those grounds, too.  It's merely a much more rare combination.

I can tell you what the editor of my first comic book told me when I still was a wide eyed writer in training:

"Remember, a character is unavoidably 'political', as his choices reflect his world-view. However, this doesn't means that the comic book is political (or, even worse, 'partitical'). Batman doesn't kill. This is a political statement. However 'Batman' the comic book is not against the death penalty - and actually Batman brings to justice criminals that can very well end up on the chair."

...A little speech that reminded me of "Watchmen", a comic book whose characters reflect a wide spectrum of political thought - including some that for sure go against anything that Alan Moore holds holy. And yet every position can be defended (my favorite is Adrian Veidt - go figure).

I guess that the same can be said of RPGs. The creator imagines a world where LGBT+E=MC^2 characters got their rights? I have no problems with that. Does the creator try to shove the idea down your throat "or else'? Yep, I have A LOT of problems with that game.

The idea that Innsmouth's people were pacific and not dangerous and it was the US government the evil entity is, by itself, quite funny. It would make for an incredible twist in a CoC campaign. You start your Cthulhu game (or novel) with "Let's take back the Mythos from that racist antisemite Lovecraft!" ? From line one you are telling me that you have no clue about HPL, the Mythos, antisemitism (*) and what a good game is; you also are telling me that you are a moron.

One of my players in CoC is a transsexual prostitute who works in high places for clients with "certain tastes". I only checked if sex-change surgery was already available in the US in 1920 (it was). Many interesting situations came from this character - including a highway to the Silver Twilight Lodge but also being the obsessive target of the Dead Light, a creature of "darklight" who devours "deviations". It works both ways.

So, I like all kind of ideas, including some I disagree with, as long as my experimentation comes from the freedom of doing it - not "because!" You can play a gay, married PC? Maybe one day I'll try (I would still opt for a lesbian...) You HAVE to play such a PC? That's the moment when the game becomes political. Thanks, but no.

(*) Even funnier than "The Innsmoutians are pacifists" is that "Lovecraft Country" was attacked by the Israeli Times as antisemite. Full Total Karma.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 19, 2023, 05:02:50 PM
I still play the same way I ever did.  I don't play only with people who agree with me politically, same as I did when I started.  If anything, my audience has broadened.  I just don't play with the types you so eloquently described above.  There are more of them now, so it comes up more.  However, if a radical libertarian or classical liberal or true moderate or even some of the more esoteric people showed up and could set that aside to game, I'd be happy to.  It's not as if we discuss politics in our game sessions even when all of thus there mostly agree.   

Or more broadly, I don't play with people who can't shut up about their cause:  So it's a rare leftist, vegan, or rabid golfer--to name a few examples--that would make the cut on that criteria.  However, there is actually a radical leftist I know who was invited to my games multiple times because she is one of the nicest people you'd ever meet and knows how to turn it off and focus on whatever people were doing.  I know of couple of conservatives that wouldn't make the cut on those grounds, too.  It's merely a much more rare combination.

I'm similar. My actual gaming hasn't changed much at all, while RPG forum and social media has changed a lot.

I used to encounter a few troublesome players at my convention games -- and I don't think the rate has changed much, but now the troublesome players are more politically charged. These are generally left-leaning, though most of my players in general are left-leaning.

I agree with S'mon that story gamers tend left and wargamers tend right, but there are plenty of exceptions. I know a number of left-leaning OSR gamers in my circles. I'm less sure about 5E, but I had a conservative GM for my last convention 5E game. Traditional RPGs like Call of Cthulhu and Savage Worlds also seem split.

Regarding change in forums and social media -- I'd been on rec.games.frp.advocacy in the 1990s and The Forge in the early 2000s. Those were controversial at times, but they weren't political at all. In 2006, I joined theRPGsite, and at that time, there was controversy over the Blue Rose RPG which was political, but politics hadn't taken over most of gaming discussion. Since then the politics has steadily ramped up here, especially in 2016, and the same happened in RPG discussions in my other social media (mostly Facebook).

I don't play any expressly political games. I do have politics in almost all of my games, but those politics are intrinsic to the setting. My job as the GM is to express the cultures and sub-cultures of the setting in a way the accurately describes why the world is the way it is. This can happen in ways that are *totally* under the radar of the PC's and therefore the players - cultural idiosyncrasies that make up whole of cloth but enforce because of reasons known only to me, which may only get explained to the PC's via roleplaying.

In my modern games I might have modern politics crop up - but it's always contextual. My current Marvel game I'm running is set in 1990 for a reason, not the least of which being I want my players to play in a sane world. But it's also because my world's history is different (WWII didn't end as ours did, and Vietnam ended with a nuke on Hanoi in '68... sorry Jane Fonda) so the political landscape of my world is *vastly* different. This was my attempt of setting up a Marvel-heavy setting where there is actually less overt corruption not only in the U.S. but in the Soviet Republic - because metahumans are abundant and "officially" aren't supposed to cross international boundaries doing "super-human activity".

But I digress. The point being that politics in my games, even my dungeoncrawling games, is always a thing, because civilization demands politics, regardless of the sophistication of that civilization. And civilizational organization requires rules and humans inherently will always try to bend the rules to their favor. That friction is grist for the mill in my games.

I have zero interest in a game where the point of the game is to push an ideology as part of its mechanics or the expressions of its mechanics. I'm not saying I wouldn't run a game where the setting was inherently political one way or another - as long as I think it would be fun to make a game about fucking around with it. Having a game set in a 1984 dystopia where the PC's are fighting the authority of the state could be a lotta fun. If not for the current reality we live in...

But I will fully admit that creators that are hyper-political about ideas I detest, I will make it a purpose to avoid their products regardless of the product's content. Now if they're woke but they don't go on a social media bender and make a good product that is politically neutral - sure I'd consider it. The moment they start being activists - I'm out. And so goes my money with me.

There seems to be these days.  The left seems to have a very hard time separating fantasy from reality.  I guess that was always true but they've spiraled down hill a lot more.

I think age is a bigger factor, but age and political ideology may go hand in hand.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 19, 2023, 02:33:21 PM
Now I'm not so sure, as it really seems RPGs arbitrated by a single individual attract more conservatives while RPGs where results are determined through group discussion attract more liberals.

On this account? No. I am a strong conservative and I generally prefer games which operate through group discussion because inviting players into the creative process tends to improve the roleplay. I also tend to use an explicit social contract in lieu of safety tools.

All players, GMs, and game designers bring political ideologies to the table, and in most instances these ideologies introduce a flaw which actively harms your game. "No politics at the table" almost never means no politics; it means that politics are filtered through an expectation that they will improve the game and not harm the game. Political ideas which improve the game are welcome, political ideas which harm it are not.

I think the best example of this is the X-Card. The X-Card is simultaneously a fantastic tool and an abysmal one at the same time because it was a first generation tool. There's a reason the convention-circuit has gotten hung up on the X-Card and never moved on; the majority of players and GMs in these places are left-leaning, and even if they aren't, convention groups are almost invariably under the influence of left-leaning event coordinators. The left is generally organized around outrage activism and the X-Card happens to enable outrage activism.

The X-Card is a bad safety tool which these groups stick with because the players, GMs, and event coordinators have a philosophical flaw in their political ideologies.

Of course, the reverse is also true. I would finger quite a few posters here as throwing the baby out with the bath water by completely ignoring safety tool discussions at all, because if you abstract it it's just about not letting the content of the campaign meander into unproductive dead ends, and that includes the "unsafe" ends. So if you do implement them in a better way than an emergency brake designed to disrupt the game, you get a better game. The unwillingness to give an inch in the culture war becomes a shortsighted inability to take an inch by exploiting the philosophical weaknesses baked into outrage culture. To really exploit the weaknesses of the X-Card, you have to make a better version, which encapsulates the creative freedom of the correct side of the debate and the stagnation on the incorrect side.

I am so woke, I am the dawn!    j/k

But seriously though, tenbones is basically where I come down. For social animals politics is like breathing, inescapable. When you get higher up on the sentient, sapient, sophont, something-or-other scale the machinations and coordination only increase. It's integral.

The big thing for me is being able to separate art from the artist, reality from fiction, play from work, a disagreement from friendship, etc. Yet in this younger activist generational culture it's stridently polemical and uncompromising. (Which to be honest probably most of us when young were pushing back against our surrounds to define ourselves in some way too, but this is just laughably divorced from modus vivendi.) It is as if it never grew up from junior high and gestalt thinking, individualization never resulted in the quiet spaces away from school social pressure.

That might be a function of online everything forever. There's no play, or boredom, or grudging cooperation when in different social circles. Where adolescence might force you into contact with church, volunteer, neighborly, family, or whatever social events where you just had to grow up and cooperate, nowadays the idea of self-segregation is lauded as virtue purity. So those moments are not there where social groups who wouldn't mix in "public" in high school would find themselves being genial in "private" events where others won't typically find out.

There's no "non-public" space with the social media internet; it's a perpetual public show trial to justify your existence. It's pathological to think in terms of perpetual contagion, with in-groups & out-groups. You'll get besieged-mentality thinking, leading to a paranoiac purity cycle. Basically you'll end up behaving akin to Borderline Personality Disorder symptoms, forever depressed doubting your self-worth, splitting people into saints and sinners, going through elaborate boundary-crossing schemes to show your loyalty, forever looking out for wrong-think lest your world crashes down and they've all wronged you again.

That such insecurity plays itself out in other hobbies is unsurprising. But notice every social venue is dealing with this atomizing factional behavior, including sewing circles. Personally, a lot of this is people believing online people are always sincere, they got your back, and you can graduate into the higher realms of exalted unreality. Yet, reality is a quality all its own. As is agreeing to disagree and live and let live.

In the age of attention spans reduced to seconds, lack of maturity in behavior is unsurprising. That still does not excuse it.