TheRPGSite

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...

  :D

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. :D

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. ;D

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.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 06, 2023, 10:58:03 AM

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.

My players can do what they please, as well. I just encourage them to explore the morality of the setting, which can be compelling and fun.

You're right that people today believe weird stuff, too. But the popularity of astrology today is quote different from the most learned minds of medicine believing that the planets governed human health.

Quote from: S'mon on June 06, 2023, 04:42:59 AMHistoricist (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 guess it's lucky that I am Catholic as are all my players (or, at least, they are Catholic friendly). So my Bespoke morality is very close to Historic morality. That's why this has never been an issue for me.

When I run games the players will encounter a world and NPCs with its own pseudo-historic outlook. I will have NPCs spout interesting opinions (one of my favorites is "the universe is an onion"), holding slaves, maiming thieves, and colonizing. As someone recently posted, there will be evil unredeemable bugbears. Depending on where they are there may be gender-specific expectations. There is no need for faith when gods make appearances. I can't think of any contemporary outlooks I might have reflected in a setting. But player "reformers" who try to warp the setting into a reflection of their own 21st century morals are going to get laughed out the door.

By luck at first and then by design (gatekeeping my table) I've never run with any issue regarding the morality of the game world, I'm on the fade to black lot's of stuff camp, or just plain don't say it happens:

Rape, it does happen but it's never explicitly said so much less described.
Torture, it happens but it's always fade to black, never described.
Slavery, it happens, it's described as a bad thing or as something normal for a culture of the game world,
Sex, it happens (of course) but it's always fade to black.

Those are my rules due to MY sensibilities, I don't subject others to stuff and in return I don't play in tables where those rules aren't followed, I'm at the table to game not to help someone get his rocks off.

Likewise, I sit at the table to get away from the real world, if ANYONE wants to inject current day issues, morals, etc in the game someone is leaving the table (It could be me if it's not MY table).

If someone can't play pretend in a world where the divine right of kings, gods/God exist, etc that someone isn't a good fit for my table and I'm not a good fit for theirs.

For example, my current PC (A wizard from an Empire where slavery is legal) is living in a Kingdom where slavery is banned (but they have serfs), ask me how many times NPCs have tried to convince him that those are totally different things and one is evil but the other isn't?

He's LG, so he follows the laws of the Kingdom, but the cultural shock has made him re-evaluate lots of things, so in a mission to destroy a slavers ring the PCs liberated the slaves and didn't kill them (another law from the Kingdom, both Slaver and slave are to be killed). Maybe because of his morals shifting (or maybe because it's a good economic decision) he treats his serfs a little better than some, having them dressed and fed, due to him comming from a Puritanical society, he had built private housing for the married ones, and is paying them a few coins.

BTW the DM was the one who rolled from where my PC came and his social status there, so I've to roll with that where it agrees with MY morals and where it doesn't.

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 06, 2023, 09:07:03 AM
Would love to see what a Bespoke campaign on Gor looked like. Good luck anyone that tries.

Bespoke means adjusting setting to players, so it could be anything from really playing up the Bondage/Domination/Submission stuff, to getting rid of slavery completely like some WoTC/Paizo thing.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on June 06, 2023, 10:10:25 AM
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.

Yes, that's right - 'historicist' as used by Macris could be anything different from Current Year morality, including ahistorical fantasies like Gor mentioned above.

Quote from: Baron on June 06, 2023, 01:00:01 PM
As someone recently posted, there will be evil unredeemable bugbears.

Yeah, that was me, and some no-longer-players.  ;D

Quote from: S'mon on June 06, 2023, 02:49:09 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 06, 2023, 09:07:03 AM
Would love to see what a Bespoke campaign on Gor looked like. Good luck anyone that tries.

Bespoke means adjusting setting to players, so it could be anything from really playing up the Bondage/Domination/Submission stuff, to getting rid of slavery completely like some WoTC/Paizo thing.

I haven't seen the video yet, but Bespoke sounds like it means adapting the existing world for the specific players. So if a given player wants slavery, then Bespoke would be adding slavery. If a given player doesn't want slavery, it means removing slavery. It sounds like group-generated background, like troupe-style play in Ars Magica or ground rules in Microscope or other story games.

That would mean that published settings by definition aren't Bespoke.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 04:59:56 PM

Quote from: S'mon on June 06, 2023, 02:49:09 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on June 06, 2023, 09:07:03 AM
Would love to see what a Bespoke campaign on Gor looked like. Good luck anyone that tries.

Bespoke means adjusting setting to players, so it could be anything from really playing up the Bondage/Domination/Submission stuff, to getting rid of slavery completely like some WoTC/Paizo thing.

I haven't seen the video yet, but Bespoke sounds like it means adapting the existing world for the specific players. So if a given player wants slavery, then Bespoke would be adding slavery. If a given player doesn't want slavery, it means removing slavery. It sounds like group-generated background, like troupe-style play in Ars Magica or ground rules in Microscope or other story games.

That would mean that published settings by definition aren't Bespoke.

Except no-one is threatening to boycott games unless they add slavery. Much like racial and sexual equality laws, what's on paper is nothing like what happens in practice.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 04:59:56 PM

QuoteBespoke means adjusting setting to players, so it could be anything from really playing up the Bondage/Domination/Submission stuff, to getting rid of slavery completely like some WoTC/Paizo thing.

I haven't seen the video yet, but Bespoke sounds like it means adapting the existing world for the specific players. So if a given player wants slavery, then Bespoke would be adding slavery. If a given player doesn't want slavery, it means removing slavery. It sounds like group-generated background, like troupe-style play in Ars Magica or ground rules in Microscope or other story games.

That would mean that published settings by definition aren't Bespoke.

Yes... as I said. But my point re WoTC/Paizo was just that WOTC/Paizo assume a certain POV, basically what they hear from Twitter/Reddit, and they tailor/bowdlerise their material to what they regard as Current Year morality.

Quote from: Grognard GM on June 06, 2023, 05:42:52 PM
Except no-one is threatening to boycott games unless they add slavery. Much like racial and sexual equality laws, what's on paper is nothing like what happens in practice.

I imagine the Gor RPG wouldn't have sold much if GrimJim had removed the slavery.  ;D Also, WoTC say they won't touch Dark Sun, one reason seems to be AFAICT that they won't do a setting with slavery, and it's seen as too central to the setting.

Even Macris' own Roman Empire with no slavery seems pretty odd to me, not sure if I'd want to play that.

Surely the obvious solution is just to replace any slaves with student athletes.

Quote from: Grognard GM on June 06, 2023, 09:36:36 AM

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.

I don't have an environment where I can mulligan players freely, and frankly I'm not sure I would on this account, even if I could. Every good player was bad at roleplay once upon a time, and it was probably the investment of time and effort a group of players and a GM made into them that made them better.

That, and I don't view myself as a particularly talented GM, either (and I have said as such in the past). I get the job done, but it's much more accurate to say that I'm cludgy at GMing and I have a bunch of weird coping mechanisms I've cooked up to make it somewhat less obvious that I'm not amazing at the GM side of the table. I don't judge my players for not being ideal because I don't want them to judge me for not being an ideal GM.


More on topic; I think slavery exists in a weird place where you really don't do historical periods justice if you don't include it at all. The problem I have with it is that the "slavery = bad" mantra was a dead horse before I was born, and yet people still dig it up and beat it all the time. This is a situation I actively try to avoid, but if I can't avoid dealing with Slavery, I do it like Song of the South. If you aren't familiar with the original or the blacklisted Disney adaptation, Uncle Remus is technically a slave, but most of the family views him as a member of the family, as well, and the slaves actually within the story aren't abused. The way I apply that is that unless the players actively search for scumbag NPCs, the people they actually run across will interpret slavery more towards indentured servitude.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 06, 2023, 06:42:53 PM
If I can't avoid dealing with Slavery, I do it like Song of the South. Uncle Remus is technically a slave, but most of the family views him as a member of the family, as well, and the slaves actually within the story aren't abused. The way I apply that is that unless the players actively search for scumbag NPCs, the people they actually run across will interpret slavery more towards indentured servitude.

I believe that slaves from conquered countries, that were not significantly less advanced then the victors, would've been treated as you describe. As in the Ancient World. When Babylon took Hebrew slaves they weren't treated like African slaves were in the Old South.

Quote from: Baron on June 06, 2023, 06:49:13 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on June 06, 2023, 06:42:53 PM
If I can't avoid dealing with Slavery, I do it like Song of the South. Uncle Remus is technically a slave, but most of the family views him as a member of the family, as well, and the slaves actually within the story aren't abused. The way I apply that is that unless the players actively search for scumbag NPCs, the people they actually run across will interpret slavery more towards indentured servitude.

I believe that slaves from conquered countries, that were not significantly less advanced then the victors, would've been treated as you describe. As in the Ancient World. When Babylon took Hebrew slaves they weren't treated like African slaves were in the Old South.

Historical Hebrews in Egypt might have been treated better than Africans in the Old South, but that doesn't mean they were beloved pseudo-family members like fictional Uncle Remus (especially the Disney version that doesn't even mention slavery).


In general, I feel like many posters are disparaging "Modernist" in favor of "Historical" -- but overwhelmingly, my experience is that RPGs set in historical or pseudo-historical eras almost always use much closer to modern morals than historical morals. That's been true ever since I started gaming in the 1970s - it's not a new woke thing. Actual medieval morals for almost all societies come across as extremely callous to modern players, and simply aren't fun to most players. There are a few history buffs who enjoy role-playing different morals, but they're uncommon.

In almost every age, popular historical fiction imposes modern morals on their subject. So 15th century Arthurian romances about 6th century King Arthur mostly reflect 15th century values -- not 6th century. Shakespeare's histories similarly reflected Elizabethan values. Likewise, Tolkien's pseudo-historical Middle Earth mostly reflects more his values in 1930s England more than any medieval values.

There's nothing wrong with that. But one should call it what it is. We're talking about how to engage in Modernism without it seeming too out of place. So slavery exists, but the PCs don't buy slaves to do work for them, for example.

I feel like there should maybe be a fourth category listed where instead of tailoring to player morality one tailors or is forced to tailor either to GM morality or to cultural trends within modern morality more generally. Maybe that would be two separate categories, IDK.

I prefer a vacation in my RPG playing, so I want to experience something new I cannot normally experience in my regular life. So according to that Historicist / Presentist / Bespoke framework, I would say I dislike playing and running Presentist the most. Both Historicist and Bespoke can be so alien and fantastic that I love the play like a tourist in a strange land.  8)

I dislike IRL politics/morality in games as a general rule, but it inevitably comes up from time to time. I've found the best way to handle it is just to gently redirect everyone's focus back to the game. You really have to be lacking in social skills after the nudge to not understand that we're not talking about that anymore. I think I've had 2 total awkward moments which happened even after the nudge in my 20 years as a GM. Combo this with fade to black for stuff like sex or whatever and it's not much of an issue. The biggest problem I think are issues like torture or interrogation, because even if you fade to black on the interrogation (as I do), you still have the question of what to do with the captive afterwards. I've seen parties come into serious conflict over this issue more than virtually any other moral issue. I don't see a clean solution to this kind of issue though. I just try to never have the captive come back to bite the party in the ass after they let them live, so long as they take reasonable precautions to prevent issues like escape or making too much noise or alerting their buddies that the party is coming, whatever.

Personally, as a player I'll either pick an interesting perspective (religion, faction, whatever) in a setting and try to fulfill it (I guess "historicism"). If I'm not drawn to anything specific, I'll usually invent my own weird philosophy or cult religion and work that out with the GM to make it fit (still I feel like it's "historicism" since it's adapted to the setting). If the setting isn't super well-defined or I'm unfamiliar with it or the GM isn't revealing much until we experience it first-hand in the campaign, then I'll usually just carry my own morality into the game and try to figure out how to integrate it into the setting or develop/deviate once I figure out how the world works. Again, feels to me like historicism.

As a GM, the only thing I ask of players is that they are always justifying, discussing, and thinking about issues from the perspective of their characters. I think it's potentially totally fine for somebody to drag in their modern morality as long as it's justifiable from the perspective of their character within the setting, without making reference to the real world (hard, then, to argue for enlightenment-era political revolution, but easier to make arguments for a lot of moral issues people care for). I think it's a little ridiculous and overly modern to say something like "what is good, what is evil?" in a setting where good and evil are literally manifested physically and you have personally seen their magic at work. You could imagine a similar or more-or-less-equivalent perspective rephrased a little that still communicates a sort of relativism.

If a player wants to play some kind of extremist or something, I'm going to expect that their form of extremism is amenable to the group as a whole. I don't want a pro-slavery character tossed into a party with a bunch of lawful good characters who hate slavery. I similarly don't want an anti-slavery character in a party of slavers (though that's way less common). I want to ensure that whatever morality a player is coming to the table with, it's appropriate for the setting and won't be disruptive to the game by either driving the party to start squabbling, or break the party apart. I care more about the long-term longevity of a campaign and its overall health than I care about a particular player's desire to roleplay something outside of the norm of the group. If I trust a player because they have a good track record, I'll let them deviate from the party as a spy or a character with mixed loyalties or whatever, but I also expect that to be relatively rare. "evil campaigns" virtually never last, and neither do edgelord/evil characters played by anyone without a lot of experience roleplaying.

Even though I no longer play with the classic alignments, I think this is probably the key strength of the alignment system. It clearly communicates where people stand on core issues and ensures the party is compatible with one another. It just ends up with a lot of people debating the exact boundaries of the alignments though, so I'm not sure it's a super great solution. Nowadays I just let people figure out how they feel about things without attaching a label, but I ensure that if there's some major theme in the setting or campaign that it's part of the premise of the campaign to build characters to work with the theme rather than spawn intra-party conflict.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 07:41:16 PM
In general, I feel like many posters are disparaging "Modernist" in favor of "Historical" -- but overwhelmingly, my experience is that RPGs set in historical or pseudo-historical eras almost always use much closer to modern morals than historical morals. That's been true ever since I started gaming in the 1970s - it's not a new woke thing. Actual medieval morals for almost all societies come across as extremely callous to modern players, and simply aren't fun to most players.

That's stronger than I would put it, but the actual morality of most people in most time periods is often so alien as to be hard to comprehend. An actual medieval worldview with the centrality of religion and questions of salvation is hard for moderns to grok, so we tend to get highly simplified forms like Game of Thrones that drop/downplay the odder-to-us stuff.  Re what counts as callous; I recall a Richmal Crompton 'Just William' story for children from the mid 20th century where William enters his dog in a rat-killing competition, slaughtering rats in a pen. In the 1980s the callousness to the rats felt a bit odd. In the 21st century the idea of a 12 year old out alone doing adult stuff at all seems strange!

I do think some time periods are less strange than others - reading Virgil & Ovid & Cicero in Latin, they feel far more familiar & modern to me than much more recent writers from the Dark Ages & Middle Ages. Even Justinian's Digest of Laws from the 6th century has a fairly modern outlook. The line about slavery being ius gentium not ius natura - law of the peoples/nations, but against natural law - stuck with me.

Quote from: S'mon on June 07, 2023, 03:13:28 AM

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 07:41:16 PM
In general, I feel like many posters are disparaging "Modernist" in favor of "Historical" -- but overwhelmingly, my experience is that RPGs set in historical or pseudo-historical eras almost always use much closer to modern morals than historical morals. That's been true ever since I started gaming in the 1970s - it's not a new woke thing. Actual medieval morals for almost all societies come across as extremely callous to modern players, and simply aren't fun to most players.

That's stronger than I would put it, but the actual morality of most people in most time periods is often so alien as to be hard to comprehend. An actual medieval worldview with the centrality of religion and questions of salvation is hard for moderns to grok, so we tend to get highly simplified forms like Game of Thrones that drop/downplay the odder-to-us stuff.  Re what counts as callous; I recall a Richmal Crompton 'Just William' story for children from the mid 20th century where William enters his dog in a rat-killing competition, slaughtering rats in a pen. In the 1980s the callousness to the rats felt a bit odd. In the 21st century the idea of a 12 year old out alone doing adult stuff at all seems strange!

I do think some time periods are less strange than others - reading Virgil & Ovid & Cicero in Latin, they feel far more familiar & modern to me than much more recent writers from the Dark Ages & Middle Ages. Even Justinian's Digest of Laws from the 6th century has a fairly modern outlook. The line about slavery being ius gentium not ius natura - law of the peoples/nations, but against natural law - stuck with me.

Greetings!

Oh yeah, S'mon! I love that. "The Code of Justinian." I've always been fascinated by how, for example, in the Scriptures, Solomon talks about "There being nothing new under the sun." Throughout the ancient world, while it I true that they largely embraced a world view very different from the modern age, there re still examples of very modern thinking and philosophies popping up here and there, in ancient Greece, in Rome, in the Persian Empire, as well as with Emperor Ashoka, of the Chandragupta Empire in India, and also over in South-East Asia, and up in China.

Emperor Ashoka declared that animals have rights, and dictated in official laws how animals were to be treated, killed, and eaten. The world's first veterinary hospitals were instituted in India, for example, back in the 2nd or 3rd centuries A.D.

At my university, I remember discussing ancient India with my mentor and professor, Dr. Kaminsky. He talked about how for centuries in ancient India--lie back to 1,000 B.C. and such, all the way through history, there were all kinds of scholars and monks in India, promoting and writing about different philosophies, morals, and how mankind should live, think, and behave, how we relate to the divine heavens, how we relate to animals, sexual morals, political morals, rights and duties, all of this kind of stuff. He said anything and everything going on with philosophers in ancient Greece and Rome, was also being discussed passionately throughout ancient India. (Understandably, he, Dr. Kaminsky, had something of a friendly rivalry with my other mentor, and professor, Dr. Hood. Dr. Hood was my professor of Ancient Greece and Rome, while Dr. Kaminsky was professor of Ancient India and East Asian Studies. Their respective debates and arguments were always amusing! Each would argue through me, back and forth, with "What did Dr. Hood say again? No, no. This is what was really going on. Tell him I said that, too!" And so on. They largely agreed on the bigger picture of history, but, you now, "The Devil is in the details!" Dr. Kaminsky routinely charged Dr. Hood with being a Romanophile, while Dr. Hood smirked and would state that Dr. Kaminsky was an Indiaphile! *Laughing*

I of course think that modern morality and sensibilities have *some* role in our gaming, after all, embracing ancient world thinking for everything can also become kind of alien and disconcerting. I like Historical based culture, not merely for immersion, but also as a narrative thingy for Players to leave modern thinking behind, and put on some ancient thinking, as a way for fun, and also learning a few things about ancient history along the way! ;D

Under no circumstances do I let modern sensitivities and thinking become the dominant or default position though. I exercise a strong hand definitely towards keeping most modern politic and such out, definitely. Politics *IN WORlD* though, is very much a source of discussion and debate.

I remember watching frequent outbursts amongst my payers about the human empire, the Vallorean Empire, encroaching upon and muscling in on lands belonging to the Elves of Rhaethillien. The Elven players and the Vallorean players--OMG, right? Their debates were furious! They were not typically directly involved, but their cultures, and their governments were definitely engaged in some kind of friction. The Elves of Rhaethillien resented being politically side-lined by the Valloreans, who viewed themselves as the "Guardians of the West"--and so all the little kingdoms needed to get with the "Vallorean program". Oh, the *Howling* involved! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

For the vast majority of my campaigns there is no one morality standard. What is considered morally acceptable varies depending on regional culture. A typical fantasy city ruled by humans that promotes law & order would have different moral standards compared to a faraway land inhabited by savage warring tribes. It is these kinds of clashes in moral values that provide great roleplaying opportunities. If the entire game world followed a set of identical values, then conflict and opportunities for interesting roleplay would be diminished.

Shark:

"Vallorean" Guardians of the West vs the Belgariad's "Mallorean?"  ;)

I've often contemplated using the nations of the Belgariad. The national stereotypes are so much fun!

Quote from: Baron on June 07, 2023, 10:50:48 AM
Shark:

"Vallorean" Guardians of the West vs the Belgariad's "Mallorean?"  ;)

I've often contemplated using the nations of the Belgariad. The national stereotypes are so much fun!

Greetings!

Hah, my friend! Sure! I suppose the Valloreans view themselves as such from being ruling a vast domain that backs up to the great sea in the west, so their "it" so to speak. They are definitely a stand-in for a Roman Empire. They act very much like Romans. *Laughing* They offer many nations status as being "Friends of Vallorea." Being friends with Vallorea has many, many benefits!

The perhaps ironic thing is that the Valloreans do not view such political relationships as being weak, empty diplomacy and "Useless Talk and Promises"--They actually have become somewhat infamous for backing it up in full. They bring in a Vallorean military administration, huge merchant caravans bring vast quantities of Vallorean trade goods into the country, a fully sponsored diplomatic embassy, and a large, ferocious Vallorean army.

Of course, as that kind of presence naturally requires spiritual and religious support, right? RIGHT! So, the Valloreans also sponsor the establishment of numerous Vallorean temples, as well as Vallorean priests and missionaries.

Gradually, sooner rather than later, it becomes expedient and reasonable to honorably retire whatever native, indigenous political leadership that might exist, and install a fully-fledged Vallorean political structure and administration. Or, by then, the indigenous political leadership fully embraces the Vallorean culture, and becomes a client state. They are thus on the road to becoming an official province of the Vallorean Empire. Yes, the Vallorean Peace. ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 07:41:16 PM
Historical Hebrews in Egypt might have been treated better than Africans in the Old South, but that doesn't mean they were beloved pseudo-family members like fictional Uncle Remus (especially the Disney version that doesn't even mention slavery).

Uncle Remus wasn't a slave in the stories or film. They're set in the Reconstruction.

I generally see one of three broad domains.  Either the player has buy-in to explore a character with a foreign morality, or you make exceptions for bespoke morality, or you get used to players embracing the Fundamental Moral Value.

In one campaign I'm in, I'm playing a World of Darkness Changeling.  My morality is specific not just to the specific world, but my specific character.  My character is (and needed to be, in order to escape his Keeper) utterly opposed to slavery, confinement, bondage, and all of that, and would never ever inflict that on another sentient being and even gets tetchy around leashed dogs...and also is, by human standards, extremely murderous, because if you can't use imprisonment and you can't involve the police in any disputes, and you know that if a dispute gets escalated it is very likely that the police get involved and someone gets locked up, then you either stick with polite requests or you shoot, shovel, and shut up, and his fey magic makes him very good at both.

In another superhero game I'm running, I had a player who had connections to the Yakuza as part of their backstory, and as an ongoing game element.  So I introduced a faction of the Yakuza called the Kaze that splintered off in the 80s and had been feuding with them ever since, and pushed off all the human-trafficky and similar misdeeds onto them, leaving the Yakuza-proper weaker, poorer, and with cleaner (albeit not actually clean) hands, which made them appropriate for PC involvement without the need for a "Fuck it, burn it all down." from the players.

And conversely, in an Eberron campaign, I once tossed my PC group of elite mercenaries into the goblin nation of Darguun, which was basically Fantasy Fucking Afganistan.  The players spent some time making a deep effort to understand the cultures of the various goblin troops, and once they'd gotten what they felt was a fair understanding, and then spent their time kicking over the nation and setting it up for it to be conquered by Droaam or worse before skedaddling.

The fundamental rule of morality is power.  Genghis Khan has the power to conquer nations and slaughter hundreds of thousands, and did just that.  But individual PCs have the power to find out which parts of the Mongol empire are most crucial to their rule, go there, dress up as partisans of that nation, slaughter a Mongol messenger, then skedaddle and watch as the Mongols cleanse a crucial part of their imperial infrastructure, and then repeat, until a critical mass of nations in the Empire are at the "Well, the penalty for having one of my co-ethnics commit a crime against the Khan is genocide, the penalty for rebellion is also genocide, and someone's already gotten the Mongols genociding four other areas at the moment, so..." stage.

I guess the point is that you need to consider not just morality, but engagement.  When it's established as a setting rule that in City X, women are subservient to men and this is enforced with strictures A, B, and C, then you don't need players to accept the morality of City X, but you do need them to be prepared to deal with A, B, and C if they want to make a point of it.  But once you've done that, then you get "Oh, please, come quickly! An assassin has stabbed my beloved father and run off! Alas, I, as a weak, foolish woman, could do nothing to stop him and was frozen in fear the entire time!"  And, in so doing, you are respecting the actual morality of the time, by engaging with the public morals of the time instead of insisting that your character can do anything without consequence.

I prefer my fantasy setting(s) have the same "morality system" as the real world and 99.9% of all fictional settings everywhere:

Might Makes Right.

What did Michael Corleone say? "Power wears out those who do not have it."  ;)

Good vid.

With fantasy morals, it's all relative to the type of game you want to play. Hopefully, you play with people who can easily separate fact from fiction and realize that it is not in any way representative of ones 'real-life' morals - Unless you're some kind of retard or schizo who can't.

Fact is any moral ideology can be justified in fiction, and the problem isn't that everything is political, but that some people believe everything is endorsement/advocacy.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 01:25:16 PM
By luck at first and then by design (gatekeeping my table) I've never run with any issue regarding the morality of the game world, I'm on the fade to black lot's of stuff camp, or just plain don't say it happens:

Rape, it does happen but it's never explicitly said so much less described.
Torture, it happens but it's always fade to black, never described.
Slavery, it happens, it's described as a bad thing or as something normal for a culture of the game world,
Sex, it happens (of course) but it's always fade to black.

Those are my rules due to MY sensibilities, I don't subject others to stuff and in return I don't play in tables where those rules aren't followed, I'm at the table to game not to help someone get his rocks off.

Likewise, I sit at the table to get away from the real world, if ANYONE wants to inject current day issues, morals, etc in the game someone is leaving the table (It could be me if it's not MY table).

I see you endorse safety tools like lines and veils.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 04:59:56 PM
I haven't seen the video yet,

Doesn't take much effort to do so before commenting you know.

You don't have to endorse X-cards to not want to roleplay a torture scene. Not everyone thinks the Saw franchise is the pinnacle of cinema.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on June 09, 2023, 07:50:10 AM
Fact is any moral ideology can be justified in fiction, and the problem isn't that everything is political, but that some people believe everything is endorsement/advocacy.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 01:25:16 PM
By luck at first and then by design (gatekeeping my table) I've never run with any issue regarding the morality of the game world, I'm on the fade to black lot's of stuff camp, or just plain don't say it happens:

Rape, it does happen but it's never explicitly said so much less described.
Torture, it happens but it's always fade to black, never described.
Slavery, it happens, it's described as a bad thing or as something normal for a culture of the game world,
Sex, it happens (of course) but it's always fade to black.

Those are my rules due to MY sensibilities, I don't subject others to stuff and in return I don't play in tables where those rules aren't followed, I'm at the table to game not to help someone get his rocks off.

Likewise, I sit at the table to get away from the real world, if ANYONE wants to inject current day issues, morals, etc in the game someone is leaving the table (It could be me if it's not MY table).

I see you endorse safety tools like lines and veils.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 04:59:56 PM
I haven't seen the video yet,

Doesn't take much effort to do so before commenting you know.

I see you like to lie about other people.

My assertion about you is true, yours about me isn't:

It's not about "safety" it's about shit I don't want to see/hear/imagine in my entertainment, the same reason I don't watch gore movies.

I run games almost always in a border region between cultures or nations.  As many as possible if the setting allows for it.  This way I can have different value systems at play.  I give the players a basic rundown of the different peoples and how they see the world.  After that, the game kind of runs itself.  Also, I never run games where the player are at god-like levels compared to the local military forces.  Badasses, yes, gods, no.

One game I ran, the PCs were from a culture that had a well developed justice system with courts and prisons.  They had gone across the border for some work and caught a thief.  One character was insistent that they needed to turn the thief into the town guard for trial.  The town guard asked if they had proof, evaluated the proof, and promptly beheaded the the thief.  The player was shocked.  He got it, and it turned into a great moment they talked about for months.

I ran a Star Wars Game a few years ago with the WEG D6 system.  The players were a group of bounty hunters/mercenaries.  One PC was a former Imperial soldier that still held a mostly positive view of the Empire.  (He felt screwed by his coc, so he left.)  I slowly exposed the PC to more and more atrocities being committed by the Empire and true to his character, the player played it all the way through.  First, it was "that's not good but.." to "ok, the Empire is doing bad things," and finally "I'm going to stop those storm troopers from killing civilians."  This was actually one of my favorite morality arcs to run.  He kept it true to the PC's own value system and viewpoint and it made for a great game.

Quote from: Corolinth on June 09, 2023, 12:23:18 PM
You don't have to endorse X-cards to not want to roleplay a torture scene.

Who's endorsing X-Cards?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 09, 2023, 01:04:46 PM
It's not about "safety" it's about shit I don't want to see/hear/imagine in my entertainment,

Gather round kids, cause I got a hot take you'll all want to hear...

...that's always been the case.

Regardless of what you call them all these procedures do is filter the content you don't want in your games. And you folks are just as picky about things as your leftist counterparts, only you use different names for things because politics. They do too, and it's rather hard to heal the schism when we don't even share the same language.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on June 13, 2023, 08:35:52 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on June 09, 2023, 12:23:18 PM
You don't have to endorse X-cards to not want to roleplay a torture scene.

Who's endorsing X-Cards?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 09, 2023, 01:04:46 PM
It's not about "safety" it's about shit I don't want to see/hear/imagine in my entertainment,

Gather round kids, cause I got a hot take you'll all want to hear...

...that's always been the case.

Regardless of what you call them all these procedures do is filter the content you don't want in your games. And you folks are just as picky about things as your leftist counterparts, only you use different names for things because politics. They do too, and it's rather hard to heal the schism when we don't even share the same language.

There's one significant difference here, however. The Right, if you will, tend to state beforehand what they do and don't want in their games. Whereas the Left try and impose a blanket of 'their way' on 'your' gaming as a whole. Therefore this is an attempt to censor games even before they are played, and their scope moves far beyond that of their own tables.

As an old-school left-wing guy, I thoroughly rebuke the freaky American 'Leftists' who try to control the way others think and play in their own elf-games.
They can all suck my dick!

It's a matter of degree.

Most people don't want to have a fully fleshed out rape scene at the table. There is a certain set of people, who conspicuously share the same political views, who can't allow the r-word to be mentioned at the table because it might be triggering to some players, and if a character gets r-worded during the game, that makes the GM literally worse than Funny Mustache Austrian Man.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on June 13, 2023, 09:38:36 AM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on June 13, 2023, 08:35:52 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on June 09, 2023, 12:23:18 PM
You don't have to endorse X-cards to not want to roleplay a torture scene.

Who's endorsing X-Cards?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 09, 2023, 01:04:46 PM
It's not about "safety" it's about shit I don't want to see/hear/imagine in my entertainment,

Gather round kids, cause I got a hot take you'll all want to hear...

...that's always been the case.

Regardless of what you call them all these procedures do is filter the content you don't want in your games. And you folks are just as picky about things as your leftist counterparts, only you use different names for things because politics. They do too, and it's rather hard to heal the schism when we don't even share the same language.

There's one significant difference here, however. The Right, if you will, tend to state beforehand what they do and don't want in their games. Whereas the Left try and impose a blanket of 'their way' on 'your' gaming as a whole. Therefore this is an attempt to censor games even before they are played, and their scope moves far beyond that of their own tables.

As an old-school left-wing guy, I thoroughly rebuke the freaky American 'Leftists' who try to control the way others think and play in their own elf-games.
They can all suck my dick!

Hear, hear! So, here you have qa self admited leftist and Atheist (Rob) and a self proclaimed Christian and right winger both telling you that it's not the same thing to refuse to play in certain types of games to trying to force others not to play in those games, so now what?

Furthermore, I don't claim that anyone by playing their degenerate games is putting me at risk (safety tools), I've only stated I won't play in those and will not GM those either. It's a matter of taste (since I wouldn't have played those same games when I was still an edgy Atheist) versus a matter of exercizing power over others.

The leftists that want to impose on my can suck Rob's dick, also the Religious puritanical authoritarians can join on sucking Rob's dick, I will not comply and I will speak against both.

Meanwhile you Anon are busy creating a whatabaoutism.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 04:20:41 PM
It's a matter of taste (since I wouldn't have played those same games when I was still an edgy Atheist) versus a matter of exercizing power over others.

That's it, man. What the American Leftists propose in gaming is simply ludicrous, and if you're not 'with them' you're against them and thus against the 'good of society' as a whole (and a 'waaaycist too!) LOL

It's childish drivel and doesn't stand up to any critical thinking. Basically, their 'imposition of will' is cancerous to free thought (and in turn, to gaming). Everyone is and was welcome in gaming, but if you listen to those muppets you'd swear that there was some vast conspiracy of white dudes trying to gatekeep everyone that wasn't white or male lool. Pure nonsense! Sure, there are 'some' bad actors, but you get that in ANY hobby.

This is why, I tend to have more in common with conservative gamers (not including the Puritans of course) than I do with those freaky American leftists. The old-school European left wing was always reasonable (and inclusive in a good way). Sure, you might disagree with folks but you'd try and win your position with reason and logic. And then with political votes.

It's also a matter of principle. I don't play very edgy games myself. Horror and dark fantasy are my main jam. But I will always defend others (and have done) who want to play want they want. No one gets to dictate what you can and can't have in your own games as consenting adults.

And I certainly don't want any box-ticking in my games just for the sake of it. That's the whole point of RPGs, you make the game you want to play.

Facts over feelings and freedom over comfort.

The funny thing about wrangling over the morals of a campaign world is that like the quest for "realism", people are rather selective about what it means. For example, in a swords & sorcery campaign, dueling might be perfectly acceptable because duels were fairly common until the early 1800s. That seems like a welcome addition to the typical D&D campaign -even for Good PCs.

Other common features of pre-modern societies, while authentic, would be in very poor taste and I'd never feature them in my campaigns unless as a description of what the Forces of Evil are doing -and even then, I'm not about to describe them in detail. Since I don't game with fucktards, I don't need to elaborate on what happens when a village gets sacked by brigands or ogres.

These include:

Rape
Slave trading/owning
Mass murder of non-combatants
Torture

People who get off on lurid depictions of that kind of thing can fuck right off.

TBH now that I think about it - generally speaking for reality of game Historicist and Bespoke are basically the same - it's just difference between some setting existing beforehand, and one being tailor-made for given campaign for specific players.

It's Presentist that's odd egg in basket.

Meh.

I'm not sure these categories even make sense without zeroing in on particular issues.

Should there be slavery in the game? Okay. I can see where someone might come up with these three categories to sort different players into.

But as general principles? I think there's a problem in that to the extent we're playing in fictional worlds, the moralities are part of that fiction that is created, and they are tailored according to the players--at least to what is comprehensible and even entertaining to the players. And as to modern vs historical morality, I don't really think there's much new under the sun. Whenever I've done a deep dive on the history of a particular school of thought or even economic systems, I find they go a lot further back in time than is generally known.

I just don't know that there are enough big picture differences to justify these categories. There's a handful of sensitive issues, and that's pretty much the beginning and end of it. I don't know there's anything deeper than that to think about here.

I tend to go very Historicist in my settings because exploring opposing morality is one of my things, as is the idea there is no strict good guy.

For example, the overworld is very into has abundant food, free healthcare, and magic that serves most of the needs of the people. Farmers tend to be ignorant in the ignorance is bliss way... they also are an feudal theocracy where too much wrong think is punishable by torture and death, the concept of vertical mobility is so alien to them, they'd think you're discussing ladders, and the average peasant lifespan is in their 50s because the number one killer of common folk is "eaten by monster" because most fantasy settings are actually horrifying death worlds.

The underworld is a food starved slave state built on human misery... but their dedication to freedom is absolute. If you're a slave who murders your master? You're the master now and noone will disagree. Sure, they'll try and kill you and take your stuff, but it's not because you're a filthy slave betrayer - you're clearly more competent than your idiot master had been - no. They just want to gank you and steal your shit before you can secure your power base because they smell weakness. Rule of the jungle, baby. Nothin' personal.

Take the tropes, play them straight, explore the consequences.

Quote from: Elfdart on June 14, 2023, 12:21:33 AM
Rape

I tend to run that one as normally distasteful and an example of the brutality of the monsterous races and one of the reasons they're seen as monsters. You can use it as long as you play if disgustingly (and that's the key word, with intent to disgust) straight.

Don't Flanderize your Orcs.

QuoteSlave trading/owning

I make it a very morally complex issue, one that I expect the players to struggle with. First step is to completely divorce yourself from American Racial Chattel slavery, lean much harder on the classical type, and generally use it to raise moral challenges for the players and their characters.

QuoteMass murder of non-combatants

And I raise you "But they're only goblins..."

QuoteTorture

Noooooooooooo one expects the holy inquisition!

The issue with these is to challenge people I find. But don't play them up as a positive.

Honestly, most of these things? Great place to introduce horror elements.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 04:20:41 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on June 13, 2023, 09:38:36 AM
There's one significant difference here, however. The Right, if you will, tend to state beforehand what they do and don't want in their games. Whereas the Left try and impose a blanket of 'their way' on 'your' gaming as a whole. Therefore this is an attempt to censor games even before they are played, and their scope moves far beyond that of their own tables.

Hear, hear! So, here you have qa self admited leftist and Atheist (Rob) and a self proclaimed Christian and right winger both telling you that it's not the same thing to refuse to play in certain types of games to trying to force others not to play in those games, so now what?

Furthermore, I don't claim that anyone by playing their degenerate games is putting me at risk (safety tools), I've only stated I won't play in those and will not GM those either. It's a matter of taste (since I wouldn't have played those same games when I was still an edgy Atheist) versus a matter of exercizing power over others.

Hate to break it to you, but 'SJWs' can't do anything to prevent you from playing what you want at your table. Sure they can brigade to get you banned from social media, and campaign to get works removed from distribution, but that has nothing to do with #SafetyTools. And even the #XCard requires the consent of everyone at the table to implement.

This is about the dissonance of adopting the same procedures as one's ideological opposition, and both 'sides' use Lines and Veils in exactly the same manner. And ultimately there is at least one individual with the power to determine what the game will and will not be about. Whether that's GM fiat or group consensus is immaterial.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 07, 2023, 05:42:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 04:20:41 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on June 13, 2023, 09:38:36 AM
There's one significant difference here, however. The Right, if you will, tend to state beforehand what they do and don't want in their games. Whereas the Left try and impose a blanket of 'their way' on 'your' gaming as a whole. Therefore this is an attempt to censor games even before they are played, and their scope moves far beyond that of their own tables.

Hear, hear! So, here you have qa self admited leftist and Atheist (Rob) and a self proclaimed Christian and right winger both telling you that it's not the same thing to refuse to play in certain types of games to trying to force others not to play in those games, so now what?

Furthermore, I don't claim that anyone by playing their degenerate games is putting me at risk (safety tools), I've only stated I won't play in those and will not GM those either. It's a matter of taste (since I wouldn't have played those same games when I was still an edgy Atheist) versus a matter of exercizing power over others.

Hate to break it to you, but 'SJWs' can't do anything to prevent you from playing what you want at your table. Sure they can brigade to get you banned from social media, and campaign to get works removed from distribution, but that has nothing to do with #SafetyTools. And even the #XCard requires the consent of everyone at the table to implement.

This is about the dissonance of adopting the same procedures as one's ideological opposition, and both 'sides' use Lines and Veils in exactly the same manner. And ultimately there is at least one individual with the power to determine what the game will and will not be about. Whether that's GM fiat or group consensus is immaterial.

Me > Explains how it's not the same thing.

You > "Here, let me explain how it's not the same thing while still saying it is"

Are you really this retarded?

This is why I think of Super Hero games as the best introduction to RPGs.  Explaining how the world works ought to be an afterthought. 

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 08, 2023, 07:11:12 PM
This is why I think of Super Hero games as the best introduction to RPGs.  Explaining how the world works ought to be an afterthought.

Hm. I've had fun with that genre, eg my 6 year Loudwater 4e D&D campaign. But I think the passive/reactive nature of the superhero genre is maybe not good as a 'training' aid? I want players who are confident in being proactive.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 07, 2023, 08:05:33 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 07, 2023, 05:42:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 04:20:41 PM

Hear, hear! So, here you have qa self admited leftist and Atheist (Rob) and a self proclaimed Christian and right winger both telling you that it's not the same thing to refuse to play in certain types of games to trying to force others not to play in those games, so now what?

Furthermore, I don't claim that anyone by playing their degenerate games is putting me at risk (safety tools), I've only stated I won't play in those and will not GM those either. It's a matter of taste (since I wouldn't have played those same games when I was still an edgy Atheist) versus a matter of exercizing power over others.

Hate to break it to you, but 'SJWs' can't do anything to prevent you from playing what you want at your table. Sure they can brigade to get you banned from social media, and campaign to get works removed from distribution, but that has nothing to do with #SafetyTools. And even the #XCard requires the consent of everyone at the table to implement.

This is about the dissonance of adopting the same procedures as one's ideological opposition, and both 'sides' use Lines and Veils in exactly the same manner. And ultimately there is at least one individual with the power to determine what the game will and will not be about. Whether that's GM fiat or group consensus is immaterial.

Me > Explains how it's not the same thing.

You > "Here, let me explain how it's not the same thing while still saying it is"

Are you really this retarded?

Maybe ease off on the insults - whether I look at it from an American English or British English slant, the sentence

Quote
both telling you that it's not the same thing to refuse to play in certain types of games to trying to force others not to play in those games

is sufficiently ungrammatical that I couldn't make heads or tales of it, and I'm not surprised if other readers couldn't either. A lot of your writing on here seems hurried, it's hard to parse.

(American vs British English: there are a lot of places where UK speakers use "to" where Americans would use a different preposition, often but not exclusively "from": different from vs different to. Prepositions are a fraught part of English and trip up native speakers even before we get into dialect & idiom.)

Quote from: Naburimannu on July 10, 2023, 04:17:33 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 07, 2023, 08:05:33 PM

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on July 07, 2023, 05:42:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 13, 2023, 04:20:41 PM

Hear, hear! So, here you have qa self admited leftist and Atheist (Rob) and a self proclaimed Christian and right winger both telling you that it's not the same thing to refuse to play in certain types of games to trying to force others not to play in those games, so now what?

Furthermore, I don't claim that anyone by playing their degenerate games is putting me at risk (safety tools), I've only stated I won't play in those and will not GM those either. It's a matter of taste (since I wouldn't have played those same games when I was still an edgy Atheist) versus a matter of exercizing power over others.

Hate to break it to you, but 'SJWs' can't do anything to prevent you from playing what you want at your table. Sure they can brigade to get you banned from social media, and campaign to get works removed from distribution, but that has nothing to do with #SafetyTools. And even the #XCard requires the consent of everyone at the table to implement.

This is about the dissonance of adopting the same procedures as one's ideological opposition, and both 'sides' use Lines and Veils in exactly the same manner. And ultimately there is at least one individual with the power to determine what the game will and will not be about. Whether that's GM fiat or group consensus is immaterial.

Me > Explains how it's not the same thing.

You > "Here, let me explain how it's not the same thing while still saying it is"

Are you really this retarded?

Maybe ease off on the insults - whether I look at it from an American English or British English slant, the sentence

Quote
both telling you that it's not the same thing to refuse to play in certain types of games to trying to force others not to play in those games

is sufficiently ungrammatical that I couldn't make heads or tales of it, and I'm not surprised if other readers couldn't either. A lot of your writing on here seems hurried, it's hard to parse.

(American vs British English: there are a lot of places where UK speakers use "to" where Americans would use a different preposition, often but not exclusively "from": different from vs different to. Prepositions are a fraught part of English and trip up native speakers even before we get into dialect & idiom.)

No, I will use as many insults as I damn well please.

Oh, sorry, did my incorrect grammar offend you? I would worry if you were approaching this in a good faith way. English isn't my mother tongue. Furthermore, when you don't understand what someone is saying the correct thing to do is to ask not to run with whatever you like to strawman the other.

But both your "points" are moot, AnnonAnderlan knows exactly what I'm talking about and so do you, but you thought being pedantic would somehow make you look better.