Quote from: KoltarHumans given the gift of intersteller travel - as long as they teach another race whar humans have done RIGHT  compared to them.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Thanatos02It might be odd in the context of the thread but, not to put words in Black Flag's mouth, this particular issue seems to be one of personal preferance and not (specifically) if the game is humanocentric or not.

Question for the general populace: is it better for a game to be humanocentric then not? Is it bad for it to not be humanocentric? Is there anything inherantly good about humans? Or, is the degree a game is or is not preoccupied with humanocentrism ethically and morally neutral?

Yeah, Mr 2nd Death has it right. I agree that "old Mage" probably does fit the criteria; I just choose to believe it never existed, so it's not part of my paradigm.

As far as the question goes, it's really a non-issue. All games deal with human concerns from a human perspective, since they're written by humans, and all fantasy races are really aspects of humanity. Even games in which humans are powerless weaklings lorded over by supernatural beings are really about the all-too-human desire for power, etc. Games that have humans as the default protagonists are just being more upfront about dealing with human issues and avoid couching them in terms of "elves" or "vampires." On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with exploring humanity via the medium of elves, etc. And part of the fun of fantasy is trying to wrap your mind around alien cultures and ways of thinking, which can't be a bad thing.

What concerns me is not whether the game is "humanocentric" but rather what sorts of power structures it presents and how critical it is of those structures. I can't relate to games that are fundamentally monarchist, for example, or that depict other sorts of elitism as "good" or "natural." A setting based on medieval Romance (i.e. ruling-class propaganda literature) often portrays a "good" king whose rule, with the help of his valiant knights, stabilizes the land and results in peace, prosperity, and happy peasants. The PCs might step in to avert a threat to the king's rule, or at most depose a "bad" king in order to replace him with a "good" one. Monarchism is assumed insofar as the "good" king isn't portrayed as a dictator supported by a group of armed thugs (as in real life).

This is anti-humanist in the sense that humanity as a whole is assumed to be a herd of sheep who require a (possibly divinely-appointed) lord to rule over them and guide them to prosperity. It's based in turn on medieval Christianity and the concept of "divine right," following from the belief in cosmic monarchy. It's true to medieval literary sources and to right-wing reactionaries like Tolkein, but it's impossible for me to swallow unless it's being subverted somehow, which WFRP for example does admirably by obviously showing the propaganda for what it is. In fact, WFRP is a prime example of how to present a medieval setting without endorsing medieval values.

In short, the more a game takes medieval propaganda seriously, the more anti-humanist it's bound to be. Humanism was, after all, a reaction against medieval values as embodied in feudalism and contemporary Christianity.

Quote from: Black FlagWhat concerns me is not whether the game is "humanocentric" but rather what sorts of power structures it presents and how critical it is of those structures.

...

Let me guess - second year Arts?

As you get older, you learn that not quite everything is political. You can just have fun with games and other entertainment, and save the political passion for things that actually matter. You are not going to change the world by roleplaying in your version of utopia, while avoiding roleplaying in your version of dystopias. Also, without setting aside your politics, by roleplaying in other sorts of worlds, and doing your best as a GM to present them as reasonable and "natural", or as a player to live in them as "natural", you come to understand how people could live that way - you as a political person then come to "know your enemy", which is required to be able to defeat him. You cannot change anything for the better - whatever your version of "the better" - without understanding it.  

In this way, you come to understand humanity better. To me, that's one of the fun things about roleplaying. It's not my main reason for doing it, but it's a small part of it, exploring human experiences in different cultures and environments. "What would I do?" and "What would this guy do?" That's an interesting and fun thing. Part of that experience will be playing as a member of a culture whose values I don't always agree with.

QuoteAs you get older, you learn that not quite everything is political.

I don't know if this is a criticism or a suggested amendment to the phrasing, but I would say the critical insight is more that being political is not the same as being politically important. It isn't that you can't find politics in everything from pottery to pronouns. You certainly can, but finding the politics in such things is nowhere near as politically effective as voting, protesting (sometimes, sometimes that's about as effective as praying for a change of policy) or networking directly with those in power. Finding the politics in the seemingly apolitical can be a very interesting (academic) exercise, but that in itself isn't effective politics.

As to the suggestion that exploring a fantasy world that doesn't jibe with one's politics can be fun and enlightening, that I would agree with, definitely. But if BF can't relate to monarchy, then so be it. No, the world won't be changed because of some pro-humanizerating-anti-monarcho-fantasarian manifesto, but it makes as much sense as any aesthetic preference.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!EDIT: Pundit, yeah, you won the argument.  Whee!  Go you, or something.  The fact that my time's better wasted on other stuff need not tarnish your trophy.

No Doc you won the intellegence test and just gave up and said "whatever".  Thus proving you realized that trying to talk rationally to the Mirror-Ron is a lost cause.

You know what ?

 Being "Pro-humanity" isn't a political thing.
Its a self-prservation and helping your fellow man(woman) thing too.

 Black Flag, lighten up a little - and about 60% of what JimBob said too

- Ed Charlton

Quote from: peteramthorNo Doc you won the intellegence test and just gave up and said "whatever".  Thus proving you realized that trying to talk rationally to the Mirror-Ron is a lost cause.

I'm glad I'm not alone in this sentiment.

Quote from: Black FlagYeah, Mr 2nd Death has it right. I agree that "old Mage" probably does fit the criteria; I just choose to believe it never existed, so it's not part of my paradigm.

As far as the question goes, it's really a non-issue. All games deal with human concerns from a human perspective, since they're written by humans, and all fantasy races are really aspects of humanity. Even games in which humans are powerless weaklings lorded over by supernatural beings are really about the all-too-human desire for power, etc. Games that have humans as the default protagonists are just being more upfront about dealing with human issues and avoid couching them in terms of "elves" or "vampires." On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with exploring humanity via the medium of elves, etc. And part of the fun of fantasy is trying to wrap your mind around alien cultures and ways of thinking, which can't be a bad thing.

What concerns me is not whether the game is "humanocentric" but rather what sorts of power structures it presents and how critical it is of those structures. I can't relate to games that are fundamentally monarchist, for example, or that depict other sorts of elitism as "good" or "natural." A setting based on medieval Romance (i.e. ruling-class propaganda literature) often portrays a "good" king whose rule, with the help of his valiant knights, stabilizes the land and results in peace, prosperity, and happy peasants. The PCs might step in to avert a threat to the king's rule, or at most depose a "bad" king in order to replace him with a "good" one. Monarchism is assumed insofar as the "good" king isn't portrayed as a dictator supported by a group of armed thugs (as in real life).

This is anti-humanist in the sense that humanity as a whole is assumed to be a herd of sheep who require a (possibly divinely-appointed) lord to rule over them and guide them to prosperity. It's based in turn on medieval Christianity and the concept of "divine right," following from the belief in cosmic monarchy. It's true to medieval literary sources and to right-wing reactionaries like Tolkein, but it's impossible for me to swallow unless it's being subverted somehow, which WFRP for example does admirably by obviously showing the propaganda for what it is. In fact, WFRP is a prime example of how to present a medieval setting without endorsing medieval values.

In short, the more a game takes medieval propaganda seriously, the more anti-humanist it's bound to be. Humanism was, after all, a reaction against medieval values as embodied in feudalism and contemporary Christianity.

You're thinking too much about this. Take a break. Play for a bit, kill something and take its stuff. Get back in touch with the fun of gaming.

I completely agree that playing in a dystopian setting makes for a good game. If anything, it ought to make for a much better game than one set in a utopia (if such a thing can even be imagined), since conflict is a prerequisite for any good story. And for the record, I'm happy to play and run games in which monarchy is commonplace (along with a host of other unfavorable social structures). But that's not at all what I was talking about.

I was referring to a particular type of whitewashed pseudo-medievalism that derives from unquestioningly mimicking a particular literary genre whose agenda was essentially anti-humanist. It's one thing to be upfront about the anti-humanist bias inherent in one's literary sources--such as in Call of Cthulhu and Pendragon, for example, which are both closely based on their particular literary genres. WFRP, as I mentioned, brilliantly subverts its source material through satire and hyperbole (?). But to altogether avoid mentioning the elephant in the corner is asking too much, and my suspension of disbelief only stretches so far (which necessarily correlates to my enjoyment). And that's what I was talking about.

I don't recall saying anything about "changing the world through roleplaying" or any other such nonsense. But yes, politics is an inextricable part of this discussion. Fantasy worlds have political assumptions built into them, and those impact the applicability of the humanist/anti-humanist labels. The "lighten up, it's just a game" criticism can just as easily be leveled at this whole thread. After all, what does it matter if a game is pro-humanity or not, as long as it's fun? But I do think it's valuable and interesting to examine things often taken for granted, so here I am.

And JimBob, you say a lot of good things, but just because somebody holds radically different views from you, it doesn't automatically make them ignorant, naive, or uninformed. There are crusty, old radicals out there, too! :cool:

NO it doesn't .

 Just wanted to talk about "PRO-Humanity" settings . Sci-Fi or otherwise.

 Thats not nessecarily political.

 Never has to be.

 And so far , Rotwang has one of the best posts on here.

- Ed C.

It's a good rule of thumb that if someone holds the opinion that thinking about something makes it less fun, they're usually a fucking idiot.

Blackflag> JimBob is on the right track here. Openness is a virtue. Being able to understand another world through critical sympathy is the basis of all relations unconditioned by violence. RPGs can, amongst other things, provide us with a kind of practice at doing that - playing characters in historical periods or other worlds is one simple way of learning to attune one's self to another set of meanings.

As for politics, it's important to remember that the personal is political. Engaging with the politics of a game doesn't mean just criticising the political and religious institutions it has within it, but thinking through the totality of relations that go on in it. Just because your characters in D&D work for the "commune" instead of the "king" doesn't mean the game is any less about killing things and taking their stuff to accumulate superhuman powers.

Quote from: jeff37923You're thinking too much about this. Take a break. Play for a bit, kill something and take its stuff. Get back in touch with the fun of gaming.

I appreciate your sentiment, but did you consider that maybe thinking about these things is a source of fun for me? I know this is probably heresy around here, but I don't see fantasy games as purely escapist, as just a way to veg out and turn the brain off. I see it rather as a stimulating activity that allows me to explore ideas and let my imagination roam without the barriers of realism to tie it down. But fantasy worlds have their own rules, and so naturally I'm interested in the structure of those worlds and their rules and how to relate to them. I'm interested in how characters act when given a certain set of circumstances (which might be very different from ours in the real world). I don't give a fig about gaming theory, so I'm not sure how to describe it. But it definitely is about fun. Just maybe not the same sort as yours.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!

Part of the reason that Dr. Rotwang has one of the best posts.
Women. Smiling , Cheerfulness...infectious goofiness.

 Loo, RPG settings aren't ONLY the "fantasy" kind of thing.  "BABYLON 5", "STAR TREK", The Asimov FOUNDATION books, the "Verse of "Firefly"/SERENITY can all be good RPG background settings.

 One of the best lines over the course of the BABYLON 5 TV series was when Delenn said something about humans creating communities wherever they go . Apparently that made them a bit different or unique among the many races portrayed on the show.

 Are there any pure written-for RPG setting that also have that unbridled cheerfulness optimism for Humans as good guys or better than they realize that they are?


- Ed C.

Quote from: Black FlagI appreciate your sentiment, but did you consider that maybe thinking about these things is a source of fun for me? I know this is probably heresy around here, but I don't see fantasy games as purely escapist, as just a way to veg out and turn the brain off. I see it rather as a stimulating activity that allows me to explore ideas and let my imagination roam without the barriers of realism to tie it down. But fantasy worlds have their own rules, and so naturally I'm interested in the structure of those worlds and their rules and how to relate to them. I'm interested in how characters act when given a certain set of circumstances (which might be very different from ours in the real world). I don't give a fig about gaming theory, so I'm not sure how to describe it. But it definitely is about fun. Just maybe not the same sort as yours.

Tell me if I'm grokking where you're coming from. The fun you derive from gaming lies in examining the structure of the game universe and how the rules interact with that structure and also in how the characters interact with the structure as it plays out. Am I correct? If so, it looks like the thing you enjoy most about a RPG is observing and understanding the process of one being played more than playing one.

I jump on this thread a bit late, but I think that most games that I know are very pro - humanity. Even some oWoD products, and obviously the current WoD line which is targeted to play with normal people. I don't see where does Koltar get the anti - humanity feeling from the WoD stuff (note: not Vampire or Werewolf stuff, I mean WoD stuff, the blue books).

I've never perceived that these type of games were a minority. On the contrary.

And, to put a good example, take RQ Vikings. There is nothing more human tha human raiders raiding another human people, and kicking the supernatural butt all along Europe.