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.)