We don't talk about current politics in my gaming groups. However, similar situations can arise in games with historical settings. Examples include Call of Cthulhu in the 1920s and a game I'm in that's set in the U.S. during the Civil War. I always play non-Americans in such games and adopt the outlook of my character's culture, because I want to be steeped as much as possible in the historical time period in question. Needless to say, the political/social viewpoints are then often quite different from 21st century America. Even a liberal from the 1920s would be quite different from a liberal today. This is something that Chaosium gets completely wrong nowadays. 

I find a lot of responses here surprising. Most of my gaming is done in public at game stores, conventions, or bars. I have no problem with discussing politics at the game table because as GM I make sure that my Players are adults who can read the room and understand when some subjects are appropriate or not to talk about. If I get a Player who either doesn't get the hint or just insists on being a jackass, if they don't straighten up after talking to them, I just eject them from the game. Don't most of you do the same?

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 04, 2024, 04:13:45 AMI find a lot of responses here surprising. Most of my gaming is done in public at game stores, conventions, or bars. I have no problem with discussing politics at the game table because as GM I make sure that my Players are adults who can read the room and understand when some subjects are appropriate or not to talk about. If I get a Player who either doesn't get the hint or just insists on being a jackass, if they don't straighten up after talking to them, I just eject them from the game. Don't most of you do the same?

I make a distinction between a person who is willfully obtuse or even a jackass when it comes to reading the room, versus some who try but are simply not very good at it. I often have the latter in my games. Over the years, I've gotten pretty darn good at sussing out the difference, too. So it is better for us to allow some discussion outside of the game itself, but keep it limited. The nice ones get a little practice they need, but it doesn't get out of control.

Mainly, though, it's just about not derailing the game. There's enough ways to derail it with people talking about work, family, and other perfectly acceptable topics without introducing anything more contentious. 

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 04, 2024, 04:13:45 AMI find a lot of responses here surprising. Most of my gaming is done in public at game stores, conventions, or bars. I have no problem with discussing politics at the game table because as GM I make sure that my Players are adults who can read the room and understand when some subjects are appropriate or not to talk about. If I get a Player who either doesn't get the hint or just insists on being a jackass, if they don't straighten up after talking to them, I just eject them from the game. Don't most of you do the same?

No I don't impose my politics on strangers, or say what is ok politics & what is not.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on December 03, 2024, 02:09:56 PMLast I read, she married herself in a ceremony, white dress and all.  I hope her and her right index finger are very happy together.

Such a waste, she was a solid 4-5, she could have found a man to take care of her and raise children, but she choose the crazy cat lady path.  Can't wait to hear her rants when she's in her 60's, gray hair, shawl and covered in cat hair.

Apparently, it was just a wedding themed birthday.  She didnt get married.  Yeah, she is a solid 4-5, maybe even a 6 but her behavior really is a turn off.

Quote from: Venka on December 03, 2024, 03:22:42 PMAnita is not important anymore, no.  But there have been shitbirds doing 'the personal is political' for quite some time now, and while this a (possibly top-down) rollback of this compared to 2020, this rollback wasn't fought for or pushed back against by society- it wasn't a grassroots thing.  And as such, we'll see these types of division things again, and simply put, your table has to not tolerate people who simply MUST have their non-democratic way.  If your table is a bunch of politically activated social activists and you, you're not gonna have a good time.  If you have one or two people with extreme lefty politics that can be fine as long as they don't push their politics at the table too much, or engage in the "your politics is evil, my politics ISN'T EVEN POLITICS, it's called BEING A GOOD PERSON" monkeybrained bullshit.

I don't know the various politics of the players in my groups (except one person) and I find that if you cut politics off before they even start it's just better for the game and the group.   

They are free to talk about politics outside of the game?  Sure, feel free.  I hate discussing politics and I refuse to discuss it in and out of gaming.   I think there are a few people that would be considered liberal in my group and they are fun to game with.

I think the only time politics belong at the game table is if the politics have to do with what is going on in the game (Such as how a king rules his domain, etc).   Real life politics doesn't belong and I will never allow it at my table.  If I am playing a game and politics become too much, I leave.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 03, 2024, 11:57:27 PMDoes it matter if the game includes politics as part of the setting as something the PCs can meaningfully interact with? For example, the Battletech setting might feature mercenary PCs that have to consider the politics of the setting--and which can parallel real life politics to varying degrees. Another example is the Star Wars setting where "Young Senatorial" (or something like it) has been a heroic archetype since the beginning. Either of these can certainly invite in-character political discussions that would never come up in a game about dungeon crawling.

If it's politics related to the game, like your example Battletech or how a King rules his kingdom (game based politics) then it's fine.   I am talking about real life politics which I feel doesn't belong at the game table.

Quote from: GhostNinja on December 04, 2024, 09:02:25 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 03, 2024, 11:57:27 PMDoes it matter if the game includes politics as part of the setting as something the PCs can meaningfully interact with? For example, the Battletech setting might feature mercenary PCs that have to consider the politics of the setting--and which can parallel real life politics to varying degrees. Another example is the Star Wars setting where "Young Senatorial" (or something like it) has been a heroic archetype since the beginning. Either of these can certainly invite in-character political discussions that would never come up in a game about dungeon crawling.

If it's politics related to the game, like your example Battletech or how a King rules his kingdom (game based politics) then it's fine.   I am talking about real life politics which I feel doesn't belong at the game table.

It can be a tough balance to find if in-game issues closely parallel real life though (even if the names of factions and leaders differ). For example, in Battletech, situations like the Russian invasion of Ukraine might happen every-other Tuesday.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 04, 2024, 10:44:11 AMIt can be a tough balance to find if in-game issues closely parallel real life though (even if the names of factions and leaders differ). For example, in Battletech, situations like the Russian invasion of Ukraine might happen every-other Tuesday.

I guess I am lucky.  People at my games (both playing and running) don't talk about politics and the in-game politics don't cause problems. 

Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2024, 04:03:27 PM

Quote from: blackstone on November 27, 2024, 08:21:29 AMIt not only a matter of respecting other people's opinions and beliefs, but to refer to the OP: why bring up either politics (or religion for that matter) at the gaming table? It has no bearing on the game.

Quote from: Bedrockbrendan on November 28, 2024, 10:18:27 AMI think this sort of thing varies from group to group. I used to have a weekly game with friends I went to high school with and we often talked and debated politics, but it never got ugly and usually happened after the game (and there were always a range of views present). I think that is harder to do with people you know less well or who aren't similarly aged peers. Most groups I am in politics are hardly mentioned. If and when they are I try to keep everything as friendly as possible.

Like Brendan, I tend to play with friendly groups where we are casual. We'll typically chat about various topics during breaks in play, or as we're waiting for people to arrive.

So for us, it's normal to sometimes talk about non-gaming stuff like each other's lives, stuff we've heard or things that are important to us - job, friends, family, news, etc. For example, one of my friends in my current gaming group is an architect and I've been interested in her opinions on housing policy and its effect on development. It would feel weird to zero chit-chat for five hours and then leave.

Other groups are different, I know. In different groups over the years, I've seen varying amounts of out-of-game chit-chat. But zero chit-chat has seemed like an extreme.

I think you missed the point. We're not talking about idle banter around the table. It's about taking political beliefs and injecting into the game itself or taking a political discussion to the point to where it disrupts the game.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 04, 2024, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: GhostNinja on December 04, 2024, 09:02:25 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 03, 2024, 11:57:27 PMDoes it matter if the game includes politics as part of the setting as something the PCs can meaningfully interact with? For example, the Battletech setting might feature mercenary PCs that have to consider the politics of the setting--and which can parallel real life politics to varying degrees. Another example is the Star Wars setting where "Young Senatorial" (or something like it) has been a heroic archetype since the beginning. Either of these can certainly invite in-character political discussions that would never come up in a game about dungeon crawling.

If it's politics related to the game, like your example Battletech or how a King rules his kingdom (game based politics) then it's fine.  I am talking about real life politics which I feel doesn't belong at the game table.

It can be a tough balance to find if in-game issues closely parallel real life though (even if the names of factions and leaders differ). For example, in Battletech, situations like the Russian invasion of Ukraine might happen every-other Tuesday.

Except the invasion of a planet controlled by neo-feudal warriors by other neo-feudal warriors has exactly nothing to do with Russia invading Ukraine.  There's a difference between the motivations of the NPCs in a game (which should reflect the internal politics of the setting) and references to real-world politics (i.e. there's no circumstance where "inclusive" pronouns and trans-anything would fit the internal logic of the Battletech setting... unless you are talking about mech trans-missions).  House Kurita isn't going to respect your gender identity.

You know this.  Either you are purposely conflating extra-setting modern politics and the motivations of NPCs in setting, or you are so dense you could dethrone neutronium as the densest substance in the universe...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2024, 08:04:44 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 04, 2024, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: GhostNinja on December 04, 2024, 09:02:25 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 03, 2024, 11:57:27 PMDoes it matter if the game includes politics as part of the setting as something the PCs can meaningfully interact with? For example, the Battletech setting might feature mercenary PCs that have to consider the politics of the setting--and which can parallel real life politics to varying degrees. Another example is the Star Wars setting where "Young Senatorial" (or something like it) has been a heroic archetype since the beginning. Either of these can certainly invite in-character political discussions that would never come up in a game about dungeon crawling.

If it's politics related to the game, like your example Battletech or how a King rules his kingdom (game based politics) then it's fine.  I am talking about real life politics which I feel doesn't belong at the game table.

It can be a tough balance to find if in-game issues closely parallel real life though (even if the names of factions and leaders differ). For example, in Battletech, situations like the Russian invasion of Ukraine might happen every-other Tuesday.

Except the invasion of a planet controlled by neo-feudal warriors by other neo-feudal warriors has exactly nothing to do with Russia invading Ukraine.  There's a difference between the motivations of the NPCs in a game (which should reflect the internal politics of the setting) and references to real-world politics (i.e. there's no circumstance where "inclusive" pronouns and trans-anything would fit the internal logic of the Battletech setting... unless you are talking about mech trans-missions).  House Kurita isn't going to respect your gender identity.

You know this.  Either you are purposely conflating extra-setting modern politics and the motivations of NPCs in setting, or you are so dense you could dethrone neutronium as the densest substance in the universe...

I'm talking about the casual acceptance of wars of aggression in (for example) the Battletech universe and how it can reflect back on views of territorial disputes IRL. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is simply the current IRL example, and the neo-feudalism of Battletech doesn't really impact that all too much except that it shows both the positive and negative impacts of non-democratic societies (which, in the Battletech universe are almost all of them).

Your pronouns & gender identity strawman is totally not what I'm talking about and you know it.

Quote from: honeydipperdavid on December 03, 2024, 02:09:56 PMSuch a waste, she was a solid 4-5,

Not even close. Sarkesian is the posterchild for Charisma stat. Looks good, but blows it with her smugness, amirking and overall wretched personality. No sane man would touch her.

Quote from: Omega on December 04, 2024, 11:11:16 PMNo sane man would touch her.

All men suffer from temporary insanity from time to time, often with alcohol in the mix.

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 04, 2024, 10:42:10 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 04, 2024, 08:04:44 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 04, 2024, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: GhostNinja on December 04, 2024, 09:02:25 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on December 03, 2024, 11:57:27 PMDoes it matter if the game includes politics as part of the setting as something the PCs can meaningfully interact with? For example, the Battletech setting might feature mercenary PCs that have to consider the politics of the setting--and which can parallel real life politics to varying degrees. Another example is the Star Wars setting where "Young Senatorial" (or something like it) has been a heroic archetype since the beginning. Either of these can certainly invite in-character political discussions that would never come up in a game about dungeon crawling.

If it's politics related to the game, like your example Battletech or how a King rules his kingdom (game based politics) then it's fine.  I am talking about real life politics which I feel doesn't belong at the game table.

It can be a tough balance to find if in-game issues closely parallel real life though (even if the names of factions and leaders differ). For example, in Battletech, situations like the Russian invasion of Ukraine might happen every-other Tuesday.

Except the invasion of a planet controlled by neo-feudal warriors by other neo-feudal warriors has exactly nothing to do with Russia invading Ukraine.  There's a difference between the motivations of the NPCs in a game (which should reflect the internal politics of the setting) and references to real-world politics (i.e. there's no circumstance where "inclusive" pronouns and trans-anything would fit the internal logic of the Battletech setting... unless you are talking about mech trans-missions).  House Kurita isn't going to respect your gender identity.

You know this.  Either you are purposely conflating extra-setting modern politics and the motivations of NPCs in setting, or you are so dense you could dethrone neutronium as the densest substance in the universe...

I'm talking about the casual acceptance of wars of aggression in (for example) the Battletech universe and how it can reflect back on views of territorial disputes IRL. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is simply the current IRL example, and the neo-feudalism of Battletech doesn't really impact that all too much except that it shows both the positive and negative impacts of non-democratic societies (which, in the Battletech universe are almost all of them).

Your pronouns & gender identity strawman is totally not what I'm talking about and you know it.

Non sequitur.  How does "casual acceptance of wars of aggression" equal modern politics?  It could just as likely reflect history (where such wars and acceptance were both more prevalent).  No one reads a fantasy story about war and suddenly says, "Wait, this is invoking the Russia-Ukraine war!"  Just like I said, you are attempting to conflate in-setting motivation with promoting current day political concerns.  The fact you (pretend) to not know the difference is telling.  How about you give an example of modern politics reflected in a game in an immersive way, since that is what the topic of this thread asserts is the problem?

I want to see your example of modern politics that is on the line of acceptable and make it a "tough balance."  If House Kurita invades a Davion world, no one other than the terminally woke would respond at the table with, "Man, we need to consider the Russia-Ukraine war in the context of this game."  There's no tough balance needed.  You are asserting a problem that doesn't seem to exist.