Pseudo?

 You're over-analyzing shit WAY too much.

 HHmm... as goofy as it sounds here is another example of a Yay!! Humanity setting :

 The cheezy Buck Rogers TV show version of the future. The late '70s Buck Rogers show  with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray.
imagine setting a role playing game campaiign against that backdrop - they had Miss Galaxy contests, casinos, slavegirls, "space Vampires" (of a kind), and the Earth Defense force seemed to have its act together .

- Ed C.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou had thoughts?

Not ones he thought about too much, though.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's not subtle, or smart, or a "reasonable justification" we're seeing here. Just "LOOK AT ME, I'M A REBEL, YEAH YEAH YEAH. And fuck your thread, bitch."

My campaigns in general, I try to make them all about people. k3w1pw0rz I find distract from that. That's not rational or reasonable, it's just what I like. It parallels my politics, but it isn't my politics. Part of saying "yay! humanity!" is not flopping your politics out there like a limp dick. Just you know, talking to people.

You're kind of doing it again, this time with Black Flag. Flag has talked about gaming, but you again call into question as to if (he's?) here for that. Are you really here to talk about gaming? I see you may think about politics in relation to it so, I'd like to tell you you're gaming wrong...

Also, it's not surprising that your politics inform your likes. You don't reflect on it much, but my guess is that playing an obvious facist or a monarchist that was actively trying to quash democracy might not suit you. And you'd just say, "I don't like that." but it's because one informs another. Just because you don't acknowledge it, doesn't mean it's there. Of course, I just painted a random scenerio; I really have no clue how complicated, concious, rational, or cohesive your polticial views are. The closer those are to the center of your thought-process, the more they'll emerge in your day to day life.

Quote from: jeff37923No, it was actually me getting pissed off at your condescending manner of posting and flaming you. Nothing more significant than that. If you want to believe that you just won a victory for "the role of thought and analysis in relation to RPGs" then you can, but its just ego-stroking.

Hah, you fucking loony. I flamed you first. And yes, degrading anti-intellectual shitbricks like you _is_ a victory for thought. It's not a large one, but it's satisfying nonetheless.

Quote from: KoltarPseudo?
You're over-analyzing shit WAY too much.

In one ear, out the other. Koltar, I know you're a vile sycophant and thus prone to mindless repetition of the viewpoints of others, but do try to read the thread.

You know I've been going through this back and forth and it occured to me that for any game to be "Yay Humanity" a certain amount of politics needs to be involved.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou know I've been going through this back and forth and it occured to me that for any game to be "Yay Humanity" a certain amount of politics needs to be involved.

Regards,
David R

You're spot on there. Even determining what is "Pro-human" and what isn't is political. For example, in the OP, it's determined that "sticking up for the average guy" is pro-human, while supporting elites who rise above the average person by birth isn't. That's more "egalitarian" than "pro-human" but somehow the two terms have become synoyms here.

Quote from: David RYou know I've been going through this back and forth and it occured to me that for any game to be "Yay Humanity" a certain amount of politics needs to be involved.

Regards,
David R

I think that's part of how we ended up here, boss. By which I mean that I agree with what you're saying.

Politics isn't the only thing, and it may not be the core thing, but I don't think you can get rid of it.

Quote from: KoltarHHmm... as goofy as it sounds here is another example of a Yay!! Humanity setting :

 The cheezy Buck Rogers TV show version of the future. The late '70s Buck Rogers show  with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray.
imagine setting a role playing game campaiign against that backdrop - they had Miss Galaxy contests, casinos, slavegirls, "space Vampires" (of a kind), and the Earth Defense force seemed to have its act together .

That sounds like a rockin' good time!

Quote from: jrientsThat sounds like a rockin' good time!

 SEE??
 No Politics ! - Silly Cheezy Sci-Fi fun for everyone.

- Ed C.

Typically, the more a show (book, game, whatever) reinforces your own view of the world, the less likely you are to notice the assumptions on which it is built.

There are very definite political assumptions, for instance, in assuming that casinos or Miss Galaxy contests will continue to exist in the 25th century. You're just not noticing them (or ignoring them, but I think in this case that's unlikely).

Mercenaries, Spies & Private Eyes allows normal Joes and Janes to kick butt all over the place with the Combat Adds and the Pugilism skill and weird Martial Arts skills.

Quote from: KoltarHHmm... as goofy as it sounds here is another example of a Yay!! Humanity setting :

 The cheezy Buck Rogers TV show version of the future. The late '70s Buck Rogers show  with Gil Gerard and Erin Gray.
imagine setting a role playing game campaiign against that backdrop - they had Miss Galaxy contests, casinos, slavegirls, "space Vampires" (of a kind), and the Earth Defense force seemed to have its act together .

- Ed C.

I was going to suggest somebody run an Encounter Critical PBP, and I would have posted THIS as my character concept:



The humanity!

Quote from: David RYou know I've been going through this back and forth and it occured to me that for any game to be "Yay Humanity" a certain amount of politics needs to be involved.

Agreed. It's tied into the question of who falls under the category "humanity" and whether some get to be treated as "more human than others."

Of course, there's no need to supply a ready-made answer for the players, since having them decide what is pro-human is a large part of the fun. I ran an extended prelude for an Exalted PC a while back, a 3-4 session adventure that led up to and included her Exaltation, meaning that much of the action occurred while the PC was a mortal. It was set in the Hundred Kingdoms (an intentionally vague part of the official setting where GMs can insert any number of small, disparate nations). The PC was a high-ranking diplomat/spy from an sinsular, chauvinistic culture with rigid social castes and a slavish adherence to tradition and ritual, which was ruled by a council of matriarchs from the four noble families, along with a rotating "monarch" who served as a stand-in for their patron goddess. This nation had expansionist goals and was looking to take advantage of their neighbors, a small, peaceful, and cosmopolitan city-state that was a major trade hub ruled by an elected senate made up of members of the top merchant class. The latter were looking to sign a treaty of mutual defense with their old enemies, since they were in danger of being invaded by a third nation that was rapidly expanding and threatened them both.

This third power was a former kindom that had been transformed by a charismatic mercenary-turned-dictator who had assassinated the old king, enslaved the former nobility (dividing their possessions among his followers), and was set out to "liberate" his neighbors from their oppressive regimes. The warlord in question was overseeing the siege of the aforementioned city-state himself, giving the PC the chance to meet him and hear his ideology first-hand. He wanted to redistribute the wealth, abolish slavery (except for the captured nobles and loyalists, who would be sold to the Guild in exchange for arms and supplies), and establish a world in which common people need bow to no king or cult (the PC saw the remains of a crucified Immaculate monk in the camp). Sort of like Conan meets Pol Pot. And though there were rumors that he was Anathema, etc., he was just a very audacious mortal.

The warlord was convinced that the common people of the city wanted him to "free" them. Of course, he never asked them himself, relying instead on intelligence derived from a conspiracy within the city whose motives turned out to be quite different (being a Yozi cult led by the god-blood son of a fisherwoman who wanted to claim his "rightful place" as ruler of the city once the senate fell and the dust settled). The senate, on the other hand, wanted to preserve their way of life and preferably the independence of their city, although their own factionalism prevented them from reaching any sort of consensus without outside intervention. The rulership of the PC's home country, on the other hand, ordered her to convince the senate to make their city a vassal state in exchange for protection, and she was also to arrange for the assassination of the warlord once he entered the city. There's a lot more to it, but this isn't Actual Play, so I'm only hitting the relevant parts.

So, you see there were several possible options of whom to side with, and none none of them was especially appealing or obviously "correct" (since that wouldn't be any fun). The Yozi cult was the most obviously "wrong" answer from the point of view of the people's wellbeing (although I would have gone with anything), and the senate was portrayed as probably being too weak to survive in its current state without some compromise with one of the other two factions. But I was perfectly willing to run with any outcome, including some unforeseen one. Even then, what the player did still surprised me... But that's another story.

Confronted with various "wrong" answers, the PC had to come up with a "right" one, or at least choose a path that aimed at the greater good in the long run. Then she had to convince a sufficient number of people of the rightness of that path, since no one person can do it all alone. And all the while the human cost of those decisions was evident all around (a besieged city was particularly good for that, including traveling merchants who were trapped there despite having nothing to do with the political conflict). The question of whether divine heritage, tradition, wealth, charisma or military power gives one the right to determine the fates of "the common man" was of a big question throughout. There was also a beast-man merchant from the Eastern forests trapped in the city whom the PC convinced to come to the city's aid, despite not being seen as "human" by most of the populace. In the end, she was proved herself to be more "human" than the cultists or the warlord or the matriarchs, all of whom had lost touch with their humanity in the pursuit of some greater goal.

Quote from: Thanatos02Not ones he thought about too much, though.

And another one enjoys the sound of one hand clapping. You guys should get a band together.

Black flag.... as much as that is far from my style in terms of gaming, your enthusiasm is contagious. I'd be interested in reading more in actual play if you'd be willing to post.

As regards this thread: It's been said, but I have to echo that DnD is the quintessencial humanistic pursuit. Except when a couple of players (myself included) get their hands on it and go for the most absurd character options available. It then gets pro-robot-cowboys. For serious.

As regards the tangent on tastes being arbitrary or having justifications... it gave me an idea that might merit another thread entirely. Who knows.