I enjoyed this new video by Alexander Macris - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1__JyRN70k - for 'politicisation in gaming' the obvious answer is 'no politics at the table'; the main meat is his discussion of a typology of ways to approach morality in RPG worlds - Historicist (your PC has the morality appropriate to the setting), Presentist (your PC has the player's own morality, in a world where that may be very weird) and Bespoke (the world is tailored to the players' moral sensibilities). I think traditionally published RPGs tended to present a blend of the three, while modern WoTC and Paizo-style D&D leans very hard into Bespoke. I tend to vary it by setting; my 1e-era Forgotten Realms game has a typical 1980s style blended approach leaning towards Bepoke, my Wilderlands game is also blended, but leaning more Historicist (the Mycretians may agree with your Presentist morality, but they're a small minority), while my Dragonbane Xoth game leans hard into S&S morality, which is 'Historicist' if not actually 'Historical'. What's your preferred approach?

By that criteria, I suppose most of my games are mostly a Historicst/Bespoke mix--though not in ways that would seem so to many that currently politicize games. 

I would say it this way, to be more precise:  There's "no modern politics" in the sense that I don't emphasize any of that stuff.  Perhaps a better way to make it clear is by analogy to something like torture in the setting versus "on screen".  There's the full range of human behavior in my settings.  Torture happens in the setting.  I don't rub the players' face in it.  If one of them got captured by someone who was going to torture them, and didn't get rescued, the torture would still happen.  The players would have a really good idea of what happened.  But that scene is a fade to black.  In some ways, their imaginations are going to be more powerful, anyway. 

Same way with much of morality, politics, etc.  Much of it is either too banal/dreary, too idiotic, or both to spend a lot of "on screen" time upon.  Doesn't mean there aren't people in the setting with those beliefs, acting on them, and having an effect. 

My denizens are also not morons, for the most part, at least not anymore than normal.  Which means they also respond to the setting.  Which means that in a historical fantasy setting without access to all the myriad protections that allow certain kinds of modern personal political stupidity to happen with no consequences, such behavior is at a minimum.  Someone doesn't get the crops in, everyone starves.  It tends to concentrate the mind.

In some ways this doesn't apply to me because I tend to run modern campaigns rather than medievalist, but that's not always the case.

I almost never run pure historicist campaigns because players don't typically enjoy interacting with NPCs who believe time-appropriate things. It tends to get players heated rather than into roleplay because they don't know how to react when someone believes in the Divine Right of Kings or such. This is also why I tend to like using high fantasy / another world fantasy settings where you can have NPC moralities more at right angles to player sensibilities. That does tend to produce interesting roleplay, but again is player specific.

The other thing I'll do is let the players themselves determine what kind of NPC morality they want to engage with. I typically don't ask 'the quorum' so much as I ask a particular player about a particular NPC, or I have a player set the general tone of the setting and occasionally ask other players about specific NPCs. For example, if the general tone is in the historicist direction and a player says a character is a modern third-wave feminist, we'll probably put our heads together and come up with an effective form of punishment. Such a character would  probably wind up tarred and feathered, which is probably the least that would happen in history.

Would love to see what a Bespoke campaign on Gor looked like. Good luck anyone that tries.

The main issue with those delineations is they only really work for something pseudo-historical. The existence of literal gods who could manifest a block over from where you live and settle theological disputes, plus the ability to just planeshift to the afterlife and see it for yourself (and the ability to raise the dead) is going to skew any sort of traditional D&D campaign morality into something that looks nothing like any recognizable Earth-based moral system.

Hell, you can't even have "faith" in gods as we or even Medievals would understand it in such a world any more than we require faith that fire is hot... and I just realized that in D&D land the locals require more faith in a given fire being hot (because some magics look like fire, but are room temperature or even bitter cold) than they do in the existence of gods and their dogmas.

Trying to enforce a Medievalist mindset onto a typical D&D setting is ludicrous. Only the most low-magic settings could even remotely have such a mindset.

And that's just for traditional D&D settings. I mean, how can a "post-apocalypse of a science fantasy setting" even fall into the "historicist" category?

In short, its only a useful distinction for historical and pseudo-historical (i.e. ones where the supernatural is largely covert) based settings or campaigns.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 06, 2023, 08:13:40 AM
I almost never run pure historicist campaigns because players don't typically enjoy interacting with NPCs who believe time-appropriate things. It tends to get players heated rather than into roleplay because they don't know how to react when someone believes in the Divine Right of Kings or such.

Sounds like you need better players.

Don't we all...sigh...

 

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 06, 2023, 09:10:14 AM
The main issue with those delineations is they only really work for something pseudo-historical. The existence of literal gods who could manifest a block over from where you live and settle theological disputes, plus the ability to just planeshift to the afterlife and see it for yourself (and the ability to raise the dead) is going to skew any sort of traditional D&D campaign morality into something that looks nothing like any recognizable Earth-based moral system.

Hell, you can't even have "faith" in gods as we or even Medievals would understand it in such a world any more than we require faith that fire is hot... and I just realized that in D&D land the locals require more faith in a given fire being hot (because some magics look like fire, but are room temperature or even bitter cold) than they do in the existence of gods and their dogmas.

Trying to enforce a Medievalist mindset onto a typical D&D setting is ludicrous. Only the most low-magic settings could even remotely have such a mindset.

And that's just for traditional D&D settings. I mean, how can a "post-apocalypse of a science fantasy setting" even fall into the "historicist" category?

In short, its only a useful distinction for historical and pseudo-historical (i.e. ones where the supernatural is largely covert) based settings or campaigns.

My reading of the historicist category wasn't that it was meant to be a pure emulation of period morality, but that it was about grounding the PCs int he morality of the setting itself. For example, in Ravenloft fear and distrust of demi humans is the norm in most Domains, so if you were playing a native your character would likely share that distrust (though you could be an exception)

Quote from: Grognard GM on June 06, 2023, 09:36:36 AM
Sounds like you need better players.

This dude doesn't actually play RPGs, he merely posts about them as part of a thought experiment.

RE: preferred approach of morality in games, I try to treat it as reasonable as possible. If you're on the frontier, expect frontier justice. In towns/cities, you might get a trial. Whenever I run C&S (or now Lion & Dragon), social class is pretty much the most important factor for how much you can get away with. Any commoner who pisses off a knight, for instance, he getting his ass thrown in prison at best, or decapitated instantly at worst. Conversely, knights can do whatever they want to commoners, within reason. It's not entirely historically accurate, but fun. For D&D-esque games, I just use a somewhat more egalitarian model, but there are still nobility/kings/whatever that get a bit more respect. There are also going to be societies that practice slavery, cannibalism, incest, whatever. The PCs can handle this how they wish, but typically I assume this stuff is immoral and thus a paladin can go clean house as he sees fit. If we're playing Traveller, you might encounter all this stuff on a different planet, but again I think it's alright to treat it as "bad". Unless the PCs are evil, in which case it's bad and they enjoy it. Worrying about this stuff too much makes the game not a game anymore and definitely Not Fun. I set the expectations for the players by basically telling them what their characters would know about how the game world operates and they're free to act in it however they wish.

In any case, to paraphrase Kenny Powers, I play real RPGs, not trying to turn a gaming session into an ethics classroom.

I prefer historical, especially when playing historically authentic games but also with regular low fantasy and other genres.

I try to have NPCs think and act as people really did. Admittedly it's not easy and often drifts into "bespoke." People of the past really did believe some weird stuff.

Players tend to go along with it, obviously if we're playing a historically authentic game. But even in other games, NPC behavior encourages players to buy in. If you want to interact with NPCs you'll have more success if you speak their language.

I recently had an NPC who was a high ranking slave to a noble family. The PCs tried to goad him onto their side by promising him freedom. He was like um no, I got it pretty good, I own land, I will soon buy my freedom with my savings, etc. The players had to adjust to that.

Because I came into RPGs pretty much directly from Tolkien, I still prefer the grand "Good vs. Evil" backdrop with associated moralities.  Those are my favorite campaigns to write and play in.  More recently I've drifted into the "Law vs. Chaos" permutation, but the sensibilities are still the same.  Has never been an issue with the fairly limited circle of people I've gamed with.

Quote from: Brad on June 06, 2023, 10:22:38 AM
In any case, to paraphrase Kenny Powers, I play real RPGs, not trying to turn a gaming session into an ethics classroom.

Yep. I am unabashedly about dropping stuff in my RPGs because it's inspired by fiction, and I don't give two figs about the deeper repercussions of ethics or morality. I guess I'm like George Lucas that way.

Greetings!

Ahh, yeah! Excellent video!

I definitely run campaigns that are Historical--even though they are fantasy campaigns, they are firmly grounded in historical milieus. Certainly, a good number of new players have been rudely and brutally confronted with the weakness and futility of their pathetic, modernist philosophies and feminized attitudes. Meanwhile, more so I would say, especially arrogant and self-satisfied moderns that have stubbornly asserted their modernistic, progressive philosophies--despite my counsel and cautions against doing so--and paid a severe and crushing price for their arrogance.

I had one Player run his mouth in an insulting manner against a Norse barbarian warrior at a feast. The Norse barbarian warrior promptly challenged the Player Character to a duel to the death. The Player Character lasted about three rounds, before being run through by the Norseman's longsword, and then ruthlessly beheaded before the gathered crowd.

There was another Player Character that interfered with a Royal Watchman making an arrest of some nest of thieves and beggars. The Player Character proceeded to resist arrest, and assaulted the Royal Watchman. More Royal Watchmen subdued the Player Character. The Player Character was arrested, given a brief trial, and summarily executed by being hung up on the gibbet, where their body did the dance in their final moments as the huge crowd cheered and shrieked in joy, and threw fruit at them as they swung high.

Yet another Player Character--a stubborn woman, somewhat smug and quasi-feminist, chose to cast several spells against a High Witch Hunter interrogating a herbalist girl in the courtyard. They were in a powerful, prosperous fortress-city on the frontier. The High Witch Hunter subdued the Player Character, judged and condemned the Player Character as a Witch, and proceeded to burn her at the stake the next morning, just after dawn.

Another Player Character refused to obey her father, arrogantly declaring that she would continue to associate with her hedonist Elf girlfriends, and she would do what she wanted, and follow her heart a she saw fit, regardless of what he thought about it. Her older brother hinted to their father, musing what his sister might be doing with the handsome and enchanting elf knight, Vandathar. She literally cried when her father beat her, and had her locked up inside a tower, and imprisoned. Her father was a powerful Wizard, very old school and very traditional. It took her many months of game time to be released from the tower, and she had more than a few episodes of huge fights with her father--but in the end, she learned that when at home visiting her family, being around her father, she simply must learn to shut her mouth, and obey. She must always be respectful, and he is never in any way the equal to her father. She is a woman, and she is his daughter. End of story. That was a lot for her to deal with, though eventually, a I mentioned, she learned that she simply had to act entirely differently around her father, and carefully watch her mouth. Her father always expected her to behave a certain way, and to speak and conduct herself in a very particular way--no exceptions.

I frequently got a front-row seat to Player Characters engaging in long and passionate debates all about politics and morality--in the game. I have politics, religion, sex, morality, all over the place, constantly. Whores, slavery, brutal torture, super maddening class-structures, racism, and bigotry of every kind. One set of laws for the nobles, the elite and powerful--and a different law for everyone else, typically very much including the Player Characters. The girls all know that in smaller country towns, dressing up like a whore could get them arrested, and beaten, as well as fined, and harassed savagely by groups of local Goodwives. Any of them spewing nonsense about women's rights, or pathetic Feminist ideas can literally get them arrested and burned for Witchcraft. Or charged with something else, and condemned to slavery, and used as a play thing for the gladiators in the arena, before the upcoming games. Elves have to be careful, lest they get strung the fuck up. Dragonborn? Not happening. Tieflings? Not happening. If they somehow did, they need to have a very good disguise, full on cosplay as something else entirely--or they get burned at the stake. Snooty, smug mercenaries running their mouth against pompous, wealthy nobles? That can get them sentenced to slavery, or condemned to a new career as Gladiators, destined to fight and die in the sands of the arena. Kleptomaniac Rogues thinking they can rob innocent people with impunity? Think again. The LAW stretches forth its hand in righteous strength, and judgement comes swiftly.

Running a milieu that is Historical or Fantasy/Historical requires a lot more work for the GM. There can be frustrations for Players, for certain. However, ultimately, it serves as a forge, and hammer. Challenging the Players, forging them, to become stronger; to become better Roleplayers. For them to actually THINK about playing their character in a very different world. A world that is, as one of my old EN-World fans described by exclaiming, "SHARK! Your world is harsh, and brutal, and ruthless! A savage world that glorifies war, hatred, and conquest! It often strives for righteousness and honour, but does so by climbing over cities full of fire and blood!" *Laughing* I've been running Game of Thrones years before GRRM ever wrote his books. Some more modern gamer-critics have shrieked in horror and despair at such a world as I have depicted with Thandor. However, as many players in my campaigns have said, Honour, and righteousness, and virtue and glory, it is all there. It is just typically covered up under heaps of dung, and blood, corpses of the dead, and hordes of screaming slaves and helpless unwashed masses, laboring under the lash of the master, or the leering jaws of some villain, laughing in maniacal and savage glee. Mankind is savage, and harsh, and brutal. Things like righteousness, honour, glory, love, faith and truth need to be struggled for, and fought for, and built with strong, determined hands.

Likewise, when such righteousness and glory is achieved, even if just for a time--as you well know from this many years knowing me my friend, it is epic, and awesome, and fantastically mind-boggling, and perhaps a bit inspiring. I tend to view history and real life just like that. A constant struggle to build a shining city upon the hill, in the face of the oncoming tide. In history, nothing great, and glorious, and beautiful, has ever been achieved easily, or quickly, but always like crawling through glass and fire. Then, the top of the mountain is reached, and the light of the dawn shines forth in a majestic purity, and glory. No sooner has such righteousness been achieved, however, when the dark and evil hordes gibber in the shadows, whispering and scheming for their chance to march against the shining glory. That is the cycle of real world history, and I always gain a sense of inspiration from that truth. I think that a Historical milieu vastly increases the Players sense of immersion, and as I've been told, the game realism dynamics make them feel like they can feel the arena sands under their feet, and feel the scorching rays of the sun beating down on them. Players actually have wept during different episodes, while other sessions have stoked their hatred and rage against people or creatures in the game, that such is all they could think of all week until our next session.

I don't think running a 2023 Seattle game world where the Players get to be special snowflake superheroes would likely ever inspire that kind of emotion, passion, and loyalty.

I know what the Plyers are like. I know what their moral compasses are like. They are, of course, free to strive to bring some of their own modern moral sensibilities into the world--after all, various groups of nutjobs, or genuine philosophers in the past held some kind of similar sentiments, whether from Europe, India, or China, or elsewhere. All kinds of ideas and philosophies. So, players can strive for such. But they must do so carefully, and work hard, and fight. Mightily, with every bit of strength, honour, righteousness, and conviction that they can muster. It won't be easy, ever. I believe that Players ultimately enjoy being challenged. They love politics, and religion, and philosophy! It stretches their minds, and their souls. It makes them reflect on not just what is going on in the game, the game world history and all the drama, but also what was going on just like it in our own history. Jut a little bit, they always get to chew on some bit of real-world history, to think about, to compare, and to wonder, and enjoy.

It is better than any book, or at movie. I think running a Historical campaign makes the campaign stronger, deeper, and have more meaning, consistency, and realism, all the way around. The huge doses of historical realism makes the elements of fantasy and magic, in their own places, more fantastic and meaningful and enjoyable, instead of ho-hum yawning routine of a circus-like candy land found in so many modern game campaigns.

The Players, whether new or veterans, learn that different locations have different attitudes, different expectations, and different social rules. Rebels do not "Win the Day." Rebels and troublemakers get strung the fuck up, after being brutally tortured. Players learn that they must dress certain ways in certain countries, they can't wear this colour or that kind of outfit, and so on. They can't just run their mouth anyway they want--doing so can be fatal. Even in cases where they "win"--and kill the opponent--that just means more HELLFIRE and DAMNATION comes down on them, like a ton of bricks. So, they learn to speak with respect, and humility, and they learn when they need to grovel and scrape properly. Likewise, they learn when and where the exceptions and loopholes are, or when it is time for them to stand tall, and unyielding. They learn that they must choose carefully what hills to die on, and for whom, or against whom. The society, people's attitudes and philosophies, the religions, the politics, the social structures, are all considerably different from the modern world. Divine Right of KINGS is a real thing. The sacredness and huge authority of the priests is REAL. Patriarchy, and strong, fearless men, are real. There are also strong women, as well, though they often mask themselves very differently from what modern women think of as being appropriate. MAGIC is real, and makes people view everything very differently from the modern age.

Thandor is definitely not 2023 Seattle.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: rytrasmi on June 06, 2023, 10:33:52 AM
I try to have NPCs think and act as people really did. Admittedly it's not easy and often drifts into "bespoke." People of the past really did believe some weird stuff.

Well yeah, but that's not really different than now.  There are people now that believe that the moon landings were faked, that astrology works, and that Elvis lives. 

In many medieval settings, a character might believe that due to a blood imbalance, he tends to get angry a lot--"choleric".  If he acts on that anger, he's still responsible.  The modern equivalent believes that his psychology/mother/father/society/environment/brain/drugs/diet/etc makes him get angry a lot.  If he acts on it, that's his excuse.

People in my games can do anything they want, for whatever reason.  Their excuses don't tend to fly when they run up against someone responsible. That's not exactly politics or morality, but it cuts across both.

Quote from: David Johansen on June 06, 2023, 09:56:59 AM
Don't we all...sigh...

While a player who gets into the roleplaying of a character within the setting is very helpful (and enjoyable for me). I found a suitable working compromise is first person roleplaying.

Keep in mind except in specific circumstances most of the time people are being people in various time periods. Concerned about their occupations, family, and hobbies. Philosophical debates on the divine right of kings, the morality of serfdom/slavery, etc. Will come up as often as they do in real life. Which is to day they do but not that common.

The primary concern of most folks in a setting will be their immediate social circle. Even if it is some earth-shattering event their thought will be preoccupied with the impact on them and their immediate social circle/family.

Where period custom will show up will be in small ways. The commoner who immediately goes silent whenever a PC of noble background speaks up. The noble starts out friendly but grows cold and distant if a commoner PC acts too familiar. And so on.

Finally, I do a lot of coaching especially at the beginning of the campaign. I refrain from telling the players that what they are doing is wrong. I tersely explain the alternatives for their situations, and their consequences, answer any questions, and then it is up to them to apply what they learned.

Also, keep in mind that a setting even a fantastic one is a world every bit as diverse and varied as our own. There is usually a niche in most locales where the PCs can fit in.

It is not perfect but for players who just want to get on with the adventure it is sufficient with making the setting feel authentic to the time period without overwhelming them or forcing them into the drudgery of memorizing a new set of social customs. Instead, they learn a cliff notes version and with my help coaching figure how ways of avoiding it. Like not going into certain quarters of City-State unless they have to.