Official ICE Forums
Gamer's Corner => General Discussion => Topic started by: EltonJ on December 20, 2021, 09:59:43 PM
-
Are people not understanding the fantasy in Fantasy Roleplaying any more?
I looked at the Dark Elf thread, and I understand it was locked. What I mean is it's okay to have a race of villains in your own campaign setting. It's a fantasy, something people make up. When did someone's fantasies become political? I think people are confusing politics with fantasy.
-
Don't know what you're referring to specifically, but I know what you're talking about in general. And you are right, in recent years people are dragging politics into fiction, often on the topic of racism, and assigning intent where there is none... or at least no way to legitimately say they know for sure there was. Unfortunately that is the nature of the pendulum that swings back and forth over time. Any one of line of thinking becomes dominant you will often see an opposing faction rise up to push back against it to a degree that matches or surpasses the others extremism.
It's been done to Tolkien's work and, while I can't say I've dug into the topic extensively, what I have seen of that topic was doing something similar. They claimed that because Tolkien used a certain real world race to represent a fantasy race that he was politically commenting on the real world race. I've seen no real evidence of that. I've seen Tolkien say that he DID use a real world race to represent a fantasy one, but I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe it was with ill intent. It's extremely common for writers to base their fantasy races on real world ones. Or, more accurately, I should say real world cultures or ethnicity. 'Race' simply isn't correct (and actually kind of annoys me that we still use it when discussing racism).
-
As long as
- you know what you're doing and the boundaries you have to maintain
- you don't try to preach your ideas as gospel
It's up to individual sensibilities. I mean, I can see why some people could be offended by how some fantasy species are depicted based on the colour of their skin, for instance - yes, it *is* fantasy, but the players are living in a world where those things happen in a bad way. You can have the same issue trying to introduce other sensitive topics (drug use, sexual abuse, blatant gender bias, child exploitation, you name it). Most "fantasy" cultural content is based on real world history one way or another (or reaction to it).
It's not what you talk about, it's how you talk about it and who you talk about it with that counts.
In a gaming group, you can have a quick preliminary session to set boundaries so that everyone is comfortable.
On an open forum, less so. Which means that you have to walk on eggshells.
-
Fantasy is informed by our beliefs about people. Tolkien even said: "I am historically minded. Middle-earth is not an imaginary world . . . The theatre of my tale is this earth, the one in which we now live, but the historical period is imaginary. The essentials of that abiding place are all there (at any rate for inhabitants of N.W. Europe), so naturally it feels familiar, even if a little glorified by the enchantment of distance in time."
I thought this was a pretty good literary/historical discussion about race concepts in Tolkien's work: http://dimitrafimi.com/2018/12/02/revisiting-race-in-tolkiens-legendarium-constructing-cultures-and-ideologies-in-an-imaginary-world/ (http://dimitrafimi.com/2018/12/02/revisiting-race-in-tolkiens-legendarium-constructing-cultures-and-ideologies-in-an-imaginary-world/)
In any case, if you want to understand the perspectives that are at work right now, which are having an impact in how newer RPG material is being written, rather than simply railing against their conclusions, I would recommend reading some of those perspectives. I found this blog to be very helpful in that regard: https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror (https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror) and if you start with that one be sure to continue into the followup https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/6/30/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-ii-theyre-not-human (https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/6/30/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-ii-theyre-not-human) because it fills in some gaps that I, at least, thought were important.
And here's a good case in point from the creator of Frosthaven about how these perspectives were prompting some rethinking in their game: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/frosthaven/frosthaven/posts/3185807 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/frosthaven/frosthaven/posts/3185807) (And he links the source I linked above.)
I don't feel a need to start a debate about it here, but understanding other perspectives should be a thing that roleplayers are good at. Different people will make different decisions based on that knowledge, which is fine, but I think it's better if those decisions are informed and not just kneejerk reactions.
-
Would it be bad on ICE's part to make up a fantasy Africa?
-
I don't think people have a problem with being inspired by our own world, or making a fantasy Africa. Where some people have problems are when a race or culture that is clearly inspired by their own (or by racist tropes about their own) is described as inherently evil or corrupt. Orcs and Drow in particular have for example been given physical feature which, when linked with the concept of inherent evil, seem to perpetuate racist stereotypes.
I understand that, and I agree that the stereotypes need to be addressed. What I don't like is the further measure Wizards of the Coast has adopted lately, namely, of entirely decoupling character race from stat bonuses. In the revised DnD rules, a Halfling can start the game with a greater racial Strength bonus than a Minotaur. Note I mean here not just a greater Strength bonus, but a greater racial strength bonus. That makes no sense to me.
-
I don't think people have a problem with being inspired by our own world, or making a fantasy Africa. Where some people have problems are when a race or culture that is clearly inspired by their own (or by racist tropes about their own) is described as inherently evil or corrupt. Orcs and Drow in particular have for example been given physical feature which, when linked with their inherent evil, seem to perpetuate racist stereotypes.
I understand that and agree that the stereotypes need to be addressed. What I don't like is Wizards of the Coast's latest measures of decoupling character races from things like stat bonuses. In the revised DnD rules, a Halfling can start the game with a greater Strength bonus than a Minotaur. That makes no sense to me.
It doesn't make any sense to me, either. And I'm going to buy the D&D brand.
-
I understand that, and I agree that the stereotypes need to be addressed. What I don't like is the further measure Wizards of the Coast has adopted lately, namely, of entirely decoupling character race from stat bonuses. In the revised DnD rules, a Halfling can start the game with a greater racial Strength bonus than a Minotaur. Note I mean here not just a greater Strength bonus, but a greater racial strength bonus. That makes no sense to me.
This is one example of a good idea (cultural heritage) gone bad because other factors come into play. The cultural prevalence is OK when all races/species/ethnic groups have a similar morphological base. So it *might* be OK with various human ethnic groups, and half-elves, and half-orcs (and maybe even elves and orcs if you stretch it a bit). But minotaurs and halflings are not in the same morphological base and that should be taken into account - but then, it makes the character creation a bit more complex (new parameter, to be balanced with something else).
I was always interested in the old D&D Dragonlance Taladas minotaurs - strong and tough as minotaurs are because of their morphology, yet not stunted in other attributes because they had developed a complex, structured and organised culture, the kind of species you cannot balance easily, but that makes perfect sense : physical advantage because of morphology, mental advantage because of culture.
You can easily solve the problem by throwing balance out the window - give credit where credit's due, nothing more and nothing less. Don't try to artifically balance species just because of gameplay issues. Yes, Laan and Loari/Linaeri are dominant species when compared to Shay folk [Shadow World reference here] - that's written in the world description, why try to cancel it technically ? Just make sure the players know what they are doing and why, and understand the in-world consequences of their choices. If everyone wants to play a high elf, why not ? Sure, you get the high stat modifiers. You also get the reputation, the peer pressure, the cultural drive to excel at any cost, the appearance that makes you stick like a sore thumb in most environments, and the family feuds.
And once in a while, an all-Shay party, just country boys and girls who barely escaped the razing of their hamlet by your run-of-the-mill hill gark raid, will put the high-elf view in perspective.
But that kind of psychological balancing is not easy to do for generic systems.
-
I would probably never blanket label an entire humanoid race as evil (it's kinda overdone regardless of if I think there's a social meaning behind it), but I would be separating the idea of True Evil (as an inherent property) from the interpretation of groups that consider each other enemies.
But on the topic of the Drow, I don't associate that with a race. I associate it with the darkness and light as an universal concept throughout history, even back to times when no one even knew about other races. Darkness has always been the boogeyman and it has nothing to do with skin color. It has to do with the historical fear of darkness. In darkness it's easier for things to sneak up on you. No one ever says 'He was thrown into a well lit dungeon!' or 'We ventured into the musty and bright cave.' When the moon blots out the sun ancient cultures would freak out. When it's night time is often colder. I'm sure I can come up with more, but I'm sure I've made my point.
Are there people who want to label it negatively? Sure. But just like when I was a kid the gangs didn't own or change the meaning of the colors blue and red. They were still just blue and red to the vast majority of the world. Rational people didn't think anyone wearing blue or red was a gang member.
-
jdale, thank you for your links, though I knew and read at least the articles by James Mendez Hodes.
I think the main problem with modern fantasy is that it has foremost its roots in Tolkien's works. And, well, as much as Tolkien may not have intended to be racist, he was a product of his society. When a white man who is part of a white colonial empire creates a world where the Holy Land (Valinor) is in the West, where the beings closest to the gods are tall, fair-skinned and with blond hair, whereas the "always evil" races allied with the incarnation of Satan, clearly named "Easterlings", are from the East, and are diminutive, black or with Asian traits, it's… hard not to wonder whether he was just "innocently" racist without realising it (as in "he didn't see such a POV as being racist"), rather than intentionally…
-
Maybe Scottish people don't like being portrayed as grumpy 'little people' that are often pre-occupied with rocks and precious metals. I mean, it's pretty much the norm in fantasy that they have a Scottish accent.
If we're to assume that any association to any ethnicity has social commentary implications then we pretty much have to tell the creative world it's not allowed. At all. They'll have have to come up with their own, unique cultures. Nothing throughout actual human history is acceptable. Is that really where we need to go? I don't think so.
It's largely small vocal groups that are making these things an issue and the media is latching on to it because it's one of the latest tabloid level topics that will get them ratings. People love to watch a good fight unfortunately. (And to clarify that, because some might need it, I'm not referring to the overarching problem of racism, I'm talking about taking the push back against it to a silly level).
-
Maybe Scottish people don't like being portrayed as grumpy 'little people' that are often pre-occupied with rocks and precious metals. I mean, it's pretty much the norm in fantasy that they have a Scottish accent.
I think there's a huge difference between being portrayed as "grumpy 'little people' that are often pre-occupied with rocks and precious metals" and "always evil barbaric people that may be assimilated to 'monsters' and, as such, may perfectly be killed"… I mean, a dozen orcs killed a few humans? How horrible! Let's eradicate the whole orc race! A few humans killed whole orc villages? Oh, they're such heroes!
As I said, it's IMO more about people, and even more writers, being byproducts of their environment, times… and audience. If I were a white man living in South Africa during the Apartheid and created a world around it, would I be racist whilst most of my peers, thus the public audience for whom I write, don't see anything wrong with it, least it to be "racist"? Would I even realise or even wonder about it?
I think the issue is more about realising the time period when Fantasy tropes were created, and adapting them to the modern world. For instance, not making orcs an "always evil" or "barbaric" race but show it a as merely a difference culture, with people equally able of good and evil, of arts, poetry and war, and, in truth, absolutely not different as people as the high elves.
-
I'm not entirely sure why I've grown up not giving a damn about what race someone is. Partially my parents or upbringing, partially my friends, partially my environments growing up. I find this topic interesting but often super frustrating because my rational brain tells me no human is inherently good, evil, dumb, smart, etc. There are simply differing situations, experiences and cultures that shape that person... but I also understand that as a result of those things people can develop certain ignorance's or blind spots which they don't have as much control as we would like. Making them unreasonable about those thing, but not in an intentional way.
In RM I've separated the Adolescence skills (which I call culture) from the Races because it seems dumb that an Elf raised by Dwarves wouldn't pick up... let's say blacksmithing rather than, let's say, archery. I leave the stat modifiers alone, but I let players take pick one race and take another races background skills.
think there's a huge difference between being portrayed as "grumpy 'little people' that are often pre-occupied with rocks and precious metals" and "always evil barbaric people that may be assimilated to 'monsters' and, as such, may perfectly to be killed"
The basic concept or the nature of the idea and degree to which it's taken? We're talking about blanket labeling/stereotyping. Is there an 'acceptable' level of that? Is it only bad if the fantasy race kills people or is 'evil'? The writer of the article jdale links specifically comments that good stereotypes can be just as bad as bad ones. If you ask society to put a line in the sand there will be a bunch of lines, not just one.
In regarding the article jdale links I pondered it a bit before replying regarding is specifically...
"So orcs are degenerate corruptions of the OG elves…"
He mentions this in passing, and really doesn't again, which leaves me thinking some of his own biased is bleeding into the very topic he's trying to address.
"...kinda like how Mongoloids, Negroids, and other people of color are corrupt, degenerate versions of the noble white Caucasoids whom they resent."
Yes. Like that. He creates an unflattering version of both, not just one.
Now that description of orcs which starts this piece, which comes from Tolkien’s Letter #210, makes more sense. When he writes “Mongol-types,” he straight-up tells us he made the Mongol terror and the Mongoloid stereotype into an entire species.
Does he? Or is this just the writers own biased assigning that belief?
Now, Tolkien creates a corrupted version of something, then gave it physical attributes of 'mongol-types'. Do we know Tolkien was racist? Are there people who know him well that can say that's true? Are there people who he displayed such behavior towards? Do we have any writings where he admits any of this? I don't think there are or is.
The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types.
The only part of this quote that I, personally, feel is a bit questionable is the 'least lovely' part. What does he mean by that? I don't really know and neither does anyone who he didn't tell if he had a dislike for them or not.
We know that people are a culmination of their knowledge and that knowledge is shaped by their teachers and their own experiences. So it is possible Tolkien was using his own knowledge based on his upbringing and experiences and making an biased choice. But it's also possible he just needed a baseline source to work from.
I know someone that I never considered racist, who was held at gunpoint when their store was robbed by a black man. That person admitted after that they they are now a little afraid of black people as a result of this incident (and that this bothers them). I've never asked it, but I'm curious what the answer would be if I asked that person; "If a white person had held you up, would you be afraid of white people?". I would guess (possibly incorrectly) the answer would likely be 'no' weather they realize it or not. So... are they racist? Kinda hard to answer in a way without being in their own head. Pretty sure a psychiatrist would just say it's a primal reaction... like if you eat something right before you throw up you tend to have a hard time eating that thing again. Heck, maybe they'd just be afraid all the time because they're surround by white people all the time.
Tolkien creates a corrupted version of something, then gave it physical attributes of 'mongol-types'. Is that racist? At it's core, I don't think so. Is the 'least lovely' comment racist? The general belief might be, but we don't know that that is his personal belief.
So... like I asked before. Do we just tell the world no fantasy race can be based on a real world race? That seems pretty unrealistic.
-
So... like I asked before. Do we just tell the world no fantasy race can be based on a real world race? That seems pretty unrealistic.
Oh, it's not that. It's just that
- you don't create actual stereotypes
- you don't create absolutes
And then you're fine.
All orcs are not bloodthirsty raiders who revel in pillage, rape, and slaughter (in that order). This is the opinion of the human farmers who live uncomfortably close to the orc clans that raid their settlements, and *some* orcs have engaged in pillage, rape and slaughter (more pillage than rape and slaughter). And then, you find a reason why those orcs would raid the settlements : religion ? lack of resources ? old grudge that degenerated into interspecies hatred ? the human farmers have come a couple of centuries ago to colonise new lands and, in the process, defile ancient grounds where the orcs were laying their deceased to rest ? the orcs are being controlled by someone who wants the human farmers to leave the lands (one way or another) for some personal reason ? one of the orc chiefs is deluded and believes the only way orcs can become a real power is by taking human slaves and begetting halfbreeds that will have the best traits of both races ? orcs are themselves being pushed by other raiders ?
Instead of having a stereotype (orcs are evil), you create a viewpoint, and then you work out the chains of causality.
-
Personally, I think it is more that people are having trouble with reality.
I've always been opposed to the idea that because *some* people are different that makes it somehow wrong to define a class, race, ethnicity, or musical tastes as a "defined group", and that "group" do not then share the same similar attitudes and "interests"... for me it's simply statistics. The real "Problem" starts when people start believing that a possible minority actually reflects the majority... and that impacts on the attitude that it's an impossibility to have a view/attitude that is "different" from a perceived norm.
Therefore it might be ok, to say that "Santa is old, male, overweight, bearded, pale skinned...and says Ho, ho ho!" since that's the generally accepted view and one held by the majority of a specific population who believe of the existence of said being. But not OK to deny that it's a possibility to accept that Santa, is actually just a figment of the imagination, only brought into the consciousness of the majority for purposes of crass consumerism and that, for some strange reason, seems to be female, young, attractive, with the perchant for singing "All I want is Christmas.." .
-
Be more WOKE :)
To be honest though if the skin colour of your evil race offends you or your players so much just change the skin colour. If the cultural/racial trait can be assigned to a cultural stereotype and is obviously based on a real-world example linked to that, then its poor writing and as a GM you should ditch it and rework the ideas.
-
Be more WOKE :)
To be honest though if the skin colour of your evil race offends you or your players so much just change the skin colour.
Shadow World already kind of does this by making the 'Dark' part of its elves refer to their penchant for evil rather than their skin color.
-
Be more WOKE :)
To be honest though if the skin colour of your evil race offends you or your players so much just change the skin colour.
Shadow World already kind of does this by making the 'Dark' part of its elves refer to their penchant for evil rather than their skin color.
Yeah, but even then, it errs by forgetting to indicate how it is that Dyari are "dark" while the Loari, for instance, are not. It's as if some species were assigned "darkness" just because. If I assign the culture of, say, Skystone or Plasidar as being immoral and more than a bit sadistic on the average, I'd like to have a reason for it beyond "I need clear-cut opponents that my PCs can hack at without moral quandaries".
Especially since it is so easy to do - for Plasidar, the pirate lords basically define the rules of play, so ruthlessness is an easy path to power and recognition and pleasing the pirate princes is much better for one's continued health than trying to lecture them about morals; and Skystone is both an isolated and recluse culture, with more than a bit of paranoia versus all foreigners and a cultural superiority complex, plus the official cults do not preach tolerance and the benefit of the masses as virtues - once again, the cultural bias flows from the top. It still gives the "Dyari are bastards" vibe, but you now have the controls to determine how it manifests, what the deviations are likely to be, how prevalent it is, and how it can influence other peoples' opinion of the Dyari (Skystone being basically off-the-map and only having contact with Ton-Bor, their actions are unlikely to define how Dyari are perceived in the surrounding region. On the other hand, Plasidar Dyari are very active pirates and slavers, and reviled for it. As such, most people in the Melurian Straits will assimilate Dyari with ruthless pirates ready to enslave anyone weak enough to be capture).
As I said above, it's not the what that counts, it's the why.
-
So right off the bat, the thread is based off a Strawman. Not sure if it it intentional or not, but the premise that "people having trouble with Fantasy" is just false. It is clearly not the issue people are having. As Grinnen Baeritt pointed out, it is more likely that the opposite is true. people are denying real world effects of popular culture because they can't handle the implications.
Next, the problem some people are having is the conflating a culture or even a person with a race. This reification is at the heart of stereotyping. It is also a narrative perpetuated by various racists. This is the concept of Race is Destiny or Genetic Essentialism. The idea that you know most or all about a person if you know their race is essentially at the heart of endemic structuralized racism. Even if you apply "positive" traits to a race it still is reductionist, and dehumanizing. And it is reinforcing a false narrative that is easily used for very nefarious purposes.
In other words, ascribing personality traits to all members of a face - fantasy or not - is putting forth a really bad idea as unquestionable truth about people. Don't do it.
-
Be more WOKE :)
To be honest though if the skin colour of your evil race offends you or your players so much just change the skin colour.
Shadow World already kind of does this by making the 'Dark' part of its elves refer to their penchant for evil rather than their skin color.
Yeah, but even then, it errs by forgetting to indicate how it is that Dyari are "dark" while the Loari, for instance, are not. It's as if some species were assigned "darkness" just because. If I assign the culture of, say, Skystone or Plasidar as being immoral and more than a bit sadistic on the average, I'd like to have a reason for it beyond "I need clear-cut opponents that my PCs can hack at without moral quandaries".
This is unfortunately the trope of fantasy novels and it should be said the cause of many a war (just or not). Depending on the style of game/players gives you an idea of how erm nuanced (that's not a verb but it is now) your ascribing traits should be.
Terry Pratchett has much to say on the subject
It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone’s fault. If it was Us, what did that make Me? After all, I’m one of Us. I must be. I’ve certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We’re always one of Us. It’s Them that do the bad things. - Jingo
-
As I said above, it's not the what that counts, it's the why.
Pretty much that, yeah.
At worst, create a reason so that people don't assign meaning where there was none.
At best, give your dang world a proper background.
-
Maybe Scottish people don't like being portrayed as grumpy 'little people' that are often pre-occupied with rocks and precious metals. I mean, it's pretty much the norm in fantasy that they have a Scottish accent.
If we're to assume that any association to any ethnicity has social commentary implications then we pretty much have to tell the creative world it's not allowed. At all. They'll have have to come up with their own, unique cultures. Nothing throughout actual human history is acceptable. Is that really where we need to go? I don't think so.
Coming up with our own, unique cultures is, ultimately, better worldbuilding. Just cribbing off the real world with a heavy dose of stereotypes (including those about Scots) is lazy and skips over the steps of thinking why a culture is the way it is, and tends to jumble those cribbed cultures all into poorly thought out proximity. That short cut is serviceable if you can't devote the time to worldbuilding, but at this point there is so much material written for so many fictional worlds, I don't think we need to rely on it anymore.
Outside of RM, I help run a LARP which has been going for 25 years. It started with a very simple world and more and more depth has been filled in as we went. There is a lot of those kind of parallels to real-world cultures. For the most part we did it respectfully but it's also very selective (we didn't copy the entire world) and some people feel the absence of things we left out (e.g. if you want to use the game to explore your French or Japanese heritage, it's there, but not so much sub-Saharan Africa). Our campaign ends at the end of 2022 with the next starting the following season and we've been looking hard at that question of how can we make something that is really uniquely ours, building on the depth of play that spanned centuries. I think the result is much more interesting. We also made some changes to how we handle races, for example decoupling what is a racial benefit and what is your personal background, including racial backgrounds so the race has a palette of options instead of all fitting one stereotype. (And we also tossed the word "race" in favor of "folk" which is another matter.) So all in all, thinking about these things has pushed us not just to think about people's sensitivities but also to create something which is objectively better; it turns out those goals are complementary rather than conflicting.
-
You can easily solve the problem by throwing balance out the window - give credit where credit's due, nothing more and nothing less. Don't try to artifically balance species just because of gameplay issues. Yes, Laan and Loari/Linaeri are dominant species when compared to Shay folk [Shadow World reference here] - that's written in the world description, why try to cancel it technically ? Just make sure the players know what they are doing and why, and understand the in-world consequences of their choices. If everyone wants to play a high elf, why not ? Sure, you get the high stat modifiers. You also get the reputation, the peer pressure, the cultural drive to excel at any cost, the appearance that makes you stick like a sore thumb in most environments, and the family feuds.
And once in a while, an all-Shay party, just country boys and girls who barely escaped the razing of their hamlet by your run-of-the-mill hill gark raid, will put the high-elf view in perspective.
But that kind of psychological balancing is not easy to do for generic systems.
D&D in particular has a very strong culture of maximizing stats. Witness hundreds of guides to how to build the optimal wizard/ranger/archer/whatever. Using psychology as a balancing factor puts a lot of work on the GM to make up for imbalances in the mechanics. That's going to be fine for some GMs and some parties but I don't think it's going to hold up for a system like D&D with its existing culture.
On the other hand there is a growing crop of simplified narrative-focused games in which the idea of stat modifiers doesn't have anywhere to fit and is easily left behind.
-
As I said above, it's not the what that counts, it's the why.
Pretty much that, yeah.
At worst, create a reason so that people don't assign meaning where there was none.
At best, give your dang world a proper background.
I felt different about orcs after playing World of Warcraft (yes, I played the Horde). The orcs in WoW reclaimed their "orcity" by defeating the demons that corrupted them. When Skyrim came along (I played Morrowind and Oblivion before), they tried to work the orcs out by giving them "orcity". Orcs didn't have to be violent. And they certainly weren't in Skyrim or WoW, unless they were forced to. Both the worlds of the Elder Scrolls and WoW broke the stereotype created by Tolkien and D&D.
The thing is, E. Gary Gygax could have done something different with his orcs in the Monster Manual and regular D&D. But he didn't, he based his orcs off of what Tolkien wrote. Now people are complaining about the stereotype. When in the Elder Scrolls universe and the WoW universe, the orcs had "orcity." I think the Elder Scrolls universe and the WoW universe are a breath of fresh air for orcs. When I'm going to codify my Elemental World, I'm taking inspiration from WoW and the Elder Scrolls in how orcs are treated. And that's my own decision. I tend to think, "if orcs were real, how would they act?"
-
D&D in particular has a very strong culture of maximizing stats. Witness hundreds of guides to how to build the optimal wizard/ranger/archer/whatever. Using psychology as a balancing factor puts a lot of work on the GM to make up for imbalances in the mechanics. That's going to be fine for some GMs and some parties but I don't think it's going to hold up for a system like D&D with its existing culture.
On the other hand there is a growing crop of simplified narrative-focused games in which the idea of stat modifiers doesn't have anywhere to fit and is easily left behind.
D&D roots are in wargaming, and you get what you pay for, in a way (the only 'psychological balancing' in wargames is the unit cohesion and morale). I'm still surprised by how many people still play TTRPGs as if they were tactical wargames - especially now that we have computer games that do it better.
I don't think rules are *that much* of a hindrance if you know what you want and if the players are onboard with it. As I said, balancing does not need to be explicit or computed (that's why I removed most of the talents in my RM games, and the very concept of background options - I simply don't need them). And D&D5 really missed the point with their background concept - this was *the* part where they could have expanded the nontechnical aspects, adding social benefits and obligations, and basically inserting characters into the setting instead of keeping them as perpetual rootless wanderers. But I guess the dungeon crawling reflexes were too strong to ignore :)
-
I don't think rules are *that much* of a hindrance if you know what you want and if the players are onboard with it. As I said, balancing does not need to be explicit or computed (that's why I removed most of the talents in my RM games, and the very concept of background options - I simply don't need them). And D&D5 really missed the point with their background concept - this was *the* part where they could have expanded the nontechnical aspects, adding social benefits and obligations, and basically inserting characters into the setting instead of keeping them as perpetual rootless wanderers. But I guess the dungeon crawling reflexes were too strong to ignore :)
Yeah, D&D 5 really jumped the shark as far as roleplaying opportunities are concerned.
-
but arent we just talking in circles here ?
Yes ... the "Narrative Trope" gave us the "Session Zero" and a copious amount of "Safety Tools"
to arrange that everyone on the table is happy and agreed with the theme and tone of the game.
But then take me to an (extreme but synomymous) example.
Lets pretend:
- the theme and tone is Gritty in a Dungeon-Crawl
- you have a player that wants to play a non-binary female-to-male trans half-orc druid in a wheel-chair
the only answer i (as a gm) can give is:
"please change your character concept to the agreed theme and tone, or you are not gonna playing at my table".
as i could be considered a "old white male man" (by people that really dont know me),
how could i avoid being dragged into a discrimination discussion,
even if the only objection i actually have is the wheel-chair ?
-
but arent we just talking in circles here ?
Yes ... the "Narrative Trope" gave us the "Session Zero" and a copious amount of "Safety Tools"
to arrange that everyone on the table is happy and agreed with the theme and tone of the game.
But then take me to an (extreme but synomymous) example.
Lets pretend:
- the theme and tone is Gritty in a Dungeon-Crawl
- you have a player that wants to play a non-binary female-to-male trans half-orc druid in a wheel-chair
the only answer i (as a gm) can give is:
"please change your character concept to the agreed theme and tone, or you are not gonna playing at my table".
as i could be considered a "old white male man" (by people that really dont know me),
how could i avoid being dragged into a discrimination discussion,
even if the only objection i actually have is the wheel-chair ?
If your only issue is the wheelchair, you can explain *why* there is a problem with that - if it is a fear that the character's disability will actually be crippling for the whole group in the campaign, then a group discussion would likely allow to reach a compromise - a disability is possible as long as it is not crippling and that the character is not an undue burden on the others (in other words, if the other players are OK with it and come up with solutions on how this could play out). If no compromise can be reached, then I guess you are short one player.
And this is OK - as a GM, you can restrict the type of characters that are allowed in game because of the setting ("sorry, I want this campaign to play in human-only lands, so non-human races are off the table"), to avoid group disintegration ("I want to avoid internal fights and backstabs, so no evil alignments or purely mercenary moralities are allowed - the worst you can do is a Han Solo-type"), or simply because they walk on *your* - or another player's - toes ("sorry, I'm not comfortable with a character being an repeated sexual offender, you'll have to think of something else").
If a player refuses the restrictions despite the GM explaining *why* those restrictions are in place, then there's no contract established and the player can't join the group - and there's nothing wrong with that. The issue is when there is a restriction but either there is no reason at all behind it, or when the reason is a social problem in itself ("you can't play a female character - women's place is at home, not on adventures" - note that there is no mention of setting social restrictions here, only a blank real-life related statement ). And even then, the player would not join the group - the only thing is, at least in my opinion, they might be *right* not joining :)
All in all, the point is less to ensure games are all politically correct (if a group on the other side of the world wants to play a bunch of rapists, how can I, or anyone for that matter, stop them ?) and more to ensure that people who *do* play will have an enjoyable experience. If orcs are stereotyped as brown-skinned illiterate heathens that need to be cut down mercilessly for the greater good, that's sad, but as long as everyone at the table is OK with it, that's not really preventable. Games are great to improve societal awareness, but players (and the GM) have to accept being educated. Thus, the social contract.
Now, the point is slightly different in game design - the design team does not engage in a social contract with the potential buyers, and in addition, they actually plan to *publish* something. They do have a responsibility to avoid the kind of language and descriptions that would bring undue legal attention for, say, apology of racism; and they also have a responsibility not to alienate what they consider their core audience with a product that part of said audience would consider opposite to their social values. That they also want to educate their readers is a nice bonus, but it is a personal goal, not an intrinsic part of being a game designer.
And thus, the wider the core audience, the more "generic" the product - you don't want to alienate religious players, but neither do you want to anger the agnosticists and atheists, so you talk about religions in very generic terms and certainly don't go into any significant details about worship. You don't want to antagonise pro-choice nor pro-life people, so you gloss over contraception issues in the game setting. You don't want to sound sexist but don't want to appear as a feminist either, so you don't make any mention about gender-specific conditions or restrictions (remember when AD&D had Strength limitations for female characters ?). And so on, until you get D&D basically - monsters are basically HP cans on legs with arms attached to hit back, and everything else is as bland as possible, leaving all the characterisation in the hands of the GM so that they can please *their* group of players.
-
the major problem that i see is that the general direction (as propagated by WotC and others)
seams to be changed with focus about maximum inclusiveness and political correctness
rather that overall enjoyment.
if the game is not wheel-chair conformant, play the discrimination card.
i just hope that the wheel-chair accessible dungeon does not become mainstream.
https://www.polygon.com/2021/1/12/22225381/dungeons-dragons-candlekeep-mysteries-wheelchair-accessible
IMHO that is a really misguided way of representing the general idea of fantasy.
but than again, i just might be an "european old white male".
-
My issues with the link you provide are twofold
- first, the "accessibility" content is not an in-setting property : it does not take an issue in the game world and provide a convincing rationale for the resolution, rather take our modern-world problem and slap the solution onto a fantasy world without even asking "why". I mean, instead of using wheelchairs, it would be much easier to actually heal the injured people of their crippling disabilities when you have the magic for it. Or, hell, ask artificers to provide either floating thrones, magical exoskeletons, or magical prosthetics. Same core problem (disabilities), in-world solutions.
- second is the basic assumption provided by Jennifer Kretchmer. I quote "I wanted people to have the opportunity to see themselves represented in-game". And I think this is a serious twisting of what RPGs are - you are not supposed to be yourself in a fantasy world (that's a delusion, not a game), rather supposed to *play someone else* in a fantasy world. In my opinion, the basic premise is flawed.
Now is it important to have games where disabled people can be viable characters ? Certainly, as part of the 'awareness' factor I was talking about (personal goal). But you design the setting and the game for it - in high fantasy worlds you can have magical substitutes, in high tech worlds you can have technological substitutes (or complete body resleeving a la Eclipse Phase) or you can play a ghost in the matrix or a rigger in a Cyberpunk or Shadowrun game, or you have those wonderful little indie games that take one specific issue (american indian protesters in the 70s, asylum inmates...) and make a game focused on that specific issue. All of those are interesting and viable solutions because they respect the setting.
But D&D never respected its setting (especially the generic ones). They want to have their cake (have a generic medieval fantasy world) and eat it (slap modern-world solutions on any perceived problem without ever thinking about how the problem is perceived in the setting). Which fits their carefree idea of adventuring : characters are not supposed to have roots in the setting, they are supposed to go from place to place and be the fantasy equivalent of troubleshooters-for-hire, because it's easier to publish material for that kind of party. As a result, any problems the characters have (such as disabilities) are not rooted in the setting - rather, you slap whatever solution the author feels is right and dictate it is good enough.
That's not a problem of being politically correct, that's a problem of both trying too much (educate the players) and not trying enough (build a game world before/instead of writing scenarios).
-
Doing a lot of LARP, I suppose I have a different view of people seeing themselves in a fantasy setting. People LARP within their own physical constraints. Sometimes that means they can't do everything, but we still want to make it enjoyable. Tabletop is imagination so in principle you can play anything, but for example most people prefer to play a character of their own gender. You could say a rule that, for example, women have lower strength (as appeared in early D&D) does not discriminate against female players, because they could play a male character. But that forces a choice between playing a character less like themself (a man) or one that is less effective (a female fighter) or one that is constrained in classes (fighters are for men and women are supposed to be healers anyway, right?). That doesn't make the game better for anyone.
I think the wheelchair accessible dungeon is really a bit of a strawman though. It's one scenario in a book of 17. The other 16 scenarios are not wheelchair accessible. Clearly it is not part of a campaign to transform every feature of gaming. If it allows a certain set of players the opportunity to indulge in a personal fantasy, that's great. Good for them, and it's good for gaming because it invites people in. Is it how I would handle giving mobility to a disabled character? No, but that's ok. Not everything is written for me personally. Different people want different things out of gaming and the vast array of options available lets them find what they need. We shouldn't be trying to drive them out for needing or wanting different things than we do.
-
You could say a rule that, for example, women have lower strength (as appeared in early D&D) does not discriminate against female players, because they could play a male character.
There's a problem with using that premise in this discussion. If we're trying to represent real life, the average male is stronger than the average female in the majority of cases in our world (not talking just humans). There do exist species where this is not at all true (spiders for example), which ironically tangentially relates to the D&D Drow topic in a way. If we're talking humans there are also obviously women that are stronger than men (and systems should have a mechanic for that), but we're talking baseline species attributes and 'real life' tells us there are differences between human men and women.
However, if we're talking about a fantasy world (which we are), there's no reason to hold to that and I see no reason to make one stronger. It's a fun/balance thing (see my tagline Fun>Balance>Realism). Which means I see also no reason to assign meaning to other aspects of racial differences that are being claimed as discriminatory... because we aren't representing real life.
If someone wants to argue something should be removed from a game because it doesn't accurately represent real life they don't get to cherry pick when to apply it and retain the higher moral ground. Either we're trying to represent real life or not... and I don't think we are.
One of the the biggest problems with many of societies issues today is that you're often hearing from the most extreme and vocal individuals, on both sides of an issue. If you look at the USA's political parties they are two starving people arguing over how to divide up an apple while it rots in front of their very eyes. The only reason one side needs to say NO is that the other side said YES. They don't actually represent the average American. They are vocal minorities. Most the population agrees on most topics. It's like 80%. The average member of a group that someone claims is being marginalized typically doesn't feel as strongly, or sometimes even at all, about the topic. Bowing to the vocal minority often doesn't promote cooperation between groups, it often breaks it down.
-
Which means I see also no reason to assign meaning to other aspects of racial differences that are being claimed as discriminatory... because we aren't representing real life.
I don't think the issue was that parts of any game were discriminatory. The issue was that They were, sometimes, insensitive and, in that sense, heavily depends on who the reader is.
Either you don't care (and assume the readers have a tough enough hide), or you do and try to do something about it.
You can also claim ignorance ("I never meant anything with that"), but only once. Once someone indicated that it was insensitive to them, you can only claim that you don't care (or at least, don't care enough to change it). It's all a question of perception (how the reader perceives what you've written, how you perceive their claim, and how the public at large perceives your reaction to it).
-
I think the Fantasy should be defined by the Author or GM. The GM defines the world, and then invites the players to play. If the fantasy is medieval (Surprise, surprise everyone!). Then I don't see the wheelchair character being a trope. I could see that in Shadowrun (Wheelchair hacker or technomancer), but I don't see it in medieval Fantasy.
The thing is, D&D and Rolemaster should be generic, allowing the GM to define the world. But there is a lot of people bending over backwards to make sure they don't offend anybody. The problem with Wizards is that they are trying to expand their audience. I think it's a marketing move as to what they are doing.
However, I think they need to define new worlds though. If they want more black people to buy D&D for an example, then they have a whole new opportunity to define a new world for them. We have enough knowledge of Africa that we can make an African themed world. Atlas Games did just this for Nyambe. However, they want to change the game to avoid stereotypes.
I think an Africa themed world might be just the ticket. A GM just needs to do his research.
-
As with many things, wheelchairs show up thousands of years ago in China but are post-medieval in Europe. So if you are doing a historical European setting it doesn't quite fit, but it's plausible in a fictional world. Technology in D&D and Pathfinder is all over the board, with spring-loaded gauntlets, repeating crossbows (also China-only), telescoping poles, spring-loaded bear traps (1700s), etc, so it's especially plausible there.
Rolemaster has had animated prosthetics since forever, so in that sense it's more inclusive than D&D has been (unless you want to count the hand and eye of Vecna, which maybe is not sending the desired message).
-
My issues with the link you provide are twofold
- first, the "accessibility" content is not an in-setting property : it does not take an issue in the game world and provide a convincing rationale for the resolution, rather take our modern-world problem and slap the solution onto a fantasy world without even asking "why". I mean, instead of using wheelchairs, it would be much easier to actually heal the injured people of their crippling disabilities when you have the magic for it. Or, hell, ask artificers to provide either floating thrones, magical exoskeletons, or magical prosthetics. Same core problem (disabilities), in-world solutions.
- second is the basic assumption provided by Jennifer Kretchmer. I quote "I wanted people to have the opportunity to see themselves represented in-game". And I think this is a serious twisting of what RPGs are - you are not supposed to be yourself in a fantasy world (that's a delusion, not a game), rather supposed to *play someone else* in a fantasy world. In my opinion, the basic premise is flawed.
Now is it important to have games where disabled people can be viable characters ? Certainly, as part of the 'awareness' factor I was talking about (personal goal). But you design the setting and the game for it - in high fantasy worlds you can have magical substitutes, in high tech worlds you can have technological substitutes (or complete body resleeving a la Eclipse Phase) or you can play a ghost in the matrix or a rigger in a Cyberpunk or Shadowrun game, or you have those wonderful little indie games that take one specific issue (american indian protesters in the 70s, asylum inmates...) and make a game focused on that specific issue. All of those are interesting and viable solutions because they respect the setting.
But D&D never respected its setting (especially the generic ones). They want to have their cake (have a generic medieval fantasy world) and eat it (slap modern-world solutions on any perceived problem without ever thinking about how the problem is perceived in the setting). Which fits their carefree idea of adventuring : characters are not supposed to have roots in the setting, they are supposed to go from place to place and be the fantasy equivalent of troubleshooters-for-hire, because it's easier to publish material for that kind of party. As a result, any problems the characters have (such as disabilities) are not rooted in the setting - rather, you slap whatever solution the author feels is right and dictate it is good enough.
That's not a problem of being politically correct, that's a problem of both trying too much (educate the players) and not trying enough (build a game world before/instead of writing scenarios).
I think her attempt at being compassionate has defeated the purpose of roleplaying. I'm currently a mage in a Shadowrun game I'm playing. Instead of making me, I made him to be a card shark combat mage from New Orleans.
-
...heavily depends on who the reader is.
(and)
Once someone indicated that it was insensitive to them...
People can be very creative about coming up with things they think are insensitive to them (and then try to apply that logic to a larger group).
-
the major problem that i see is that the general direction (as propagated by WotC and others)
seams to be changed with focus about maximum inclusiveness and political correctness
rather that overall enjoyment.
if the game is not wheel-chair conformant, play the discrimination card.
i just hope that the wheel-chair accessible dungeon does not become mainstream.
https://www.polygon.com/2021/1/12/22225381/dungeons-dragons-candlekeep-mysteries-wheelchair-accessible
IMHO that is a really misguided way of representing the general idea of fantasy.
but than again, i just might be an "european old white male".
So your complaint is that the fantastical element the designer chose is too fantastical? And therefore they can't discern fantasy from reality?
-
Since I retired, I haven't been keeping up with the new games on the market but my GM calls me regularly to keep me up to date with our mutual friends and gaming trends. One of the trends is the number of games that have been simplified (dumbed-down...) for today's gamers.
Fred has a massive game collection dating from the 1970s. Games by defunct companies like SPI and TSR and hundreds of small independents. Fred likes to refer the latest RPGs as designed "for people who don't know what role playing is." Unfortunately, some of these people have temporarily joined my games and they never bothered to read the Rolemaster material available, or learn how the rules worked. RM is not D&D or Pathfinder. These players drop in Rolemaster like flies. I give everybody a chance to learn but some players want somebody to hold their hand and spoon feed them answers. I couldn't play a simple Call of Cthulu game with these people because none of them were interested in solving the mysteries, and they were more interested in arming up to fight. It's as if none of them heard of HP Lovecraft...
As far as Fantasy is concerned, during the 1970s while everybody was gushing over The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, I was reading the Conan and Kane series (a major departure from my usual historical literature and Greek classics). Most of the people nowadays learn about fantasy through movies (usually dumbed down for Americans...) and stories pushed by political ideologues in the publishing companies (also dumbed down). That's my theory...
-
Since I retired, I haven't been keeping up with the new games on the market but my GM calls me regularly to keep me up to date with our mutual friends and gaming trends. One of the trends is the number of games that have been simplified (dumbed-down...) for today's gamers.
Fred has a massive game collection dating from the 1970s. Games by defunct companies like SPI and TSR and hundreds of small independents. Fred likes to refer the latest RPGs as designed "for people who don't know what role playing is." Unfortunately, some of these people have temporarily joined my games and they never bothered to read the Rolemaster material available, or learn how the rules worked. RM is not D&D or Pathfinder. These players drop in Rolemaster like flies. I give everybody a chance to learn but some players want somebody to hold their hand and spoon feed them answers. I couldn't play a simple Call of Cthulu game with these people because none of them were interested in solving the mysteries, and they were more interested in arming up to fight. It's as if none of them heard of HP Lovecraft...
As far as Fantasy is concerned, during the 1970s while everybody was gushing over The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, I was reading the Conan and Kane series (a major departure from my usual historical literature and Greek classics). Most of the people nowadays learn about fantasy through movies (usually dumbed down for Americans...) and stories pushed by political ideologues in the publishing companies (also dumbed down). That's my theory...
The theory could be right. I have a large collection myself. And I find vintage D&D to be more roleplaying focused. The D&D Gazetteers are full of fluff and adventure hooks. However newer stuff just doesn't have the RP magic anymore. Shadowrun 2nd edition encouraged RP, and 4th edition still had the RP in it. Shadowrun Anarchy is in a different direction. Rolemaster is written for a more creative audience. I have a copy of HarnMaster, but I prefer Rolemaster to HarnMaster.
-
I had a friend on Steam recently message me concerning a game he's playing, Warframe, a FPS he likes. I'm HORRIBLE at these games so I had to decline. I have neuropathy in my hands, feet and eyes (retinopathy) where the nerves are deteriorating. I retired because my job was document intensive and since I could no longer touch type, my ability to produce pages of material was severely reduced. In FPS games, having to look down at my keyboard slowed my ability to keep up with other players, so I prefer to play more casual games that don't require furious keystrokes.
The above being said, I'm guessing that video game culture has also had an effect on gamers. In a computer RPG, a player is given a menu of options to choose from, so in any question, the answers are multiple-choice and sometimes there is no choice. The games tend to be quest driven, with simple goals, like killing something or fetching something...a few have puzzles to solve and often a walkthrough is readily available for those who don't want to devote time into thinking.
A tabletop RPG is not a video game but I've had players treat it like one. Some players wonder why they don't kill with one shot or get big payoff treasure. I've had a party member ready to fight a whole town because somebody killed the party's horses and he didn't bother to look at the evidence or clues. The he started to badger the party members, calling them cowards for allowing the town to kill the horses and doing nothing, then wanted to attack random people... While fantasy games serve as a brief escape from reality, I seriously don't need players who use my game as a playground for their delirium.
In a fantasy game that just has a player smacking monsters around, the fantasy part is window dressing. Substitute monsters with Nazis and you have Wolfenstein, or terrorists/zombies and you have just about every modern FPS on the market in the past decade or two.
As a longtime wargamer, I have seen how computers have affected tabletop wargaming and COVID has all but ended the ability of gaming clubs to hold large tabletop gaming sessions we used to have. (One of my fellow fencing instructors had a neighbor who'd call the police when he had 2-3 students at his home for practice...Seriously? We all wear masks...).
-
Well, given that players with impatience with puzzles, whining about monsters being too tough and treasures too rare, and turning to murder as the solution to everything are complaints GMs have had almost from the beginning of the hobby, I don't think it is fair to blame video games. These have been main tropes of gamer comedy for decades, and at least the second of these is directly addressed in the original DMG.
-
Well, given that players with impatience with puzzles, whining about monsters being too tough and treasures too rare, and turning to murder as the solution to everything are complaints GMs have had almost from the beginning of the hobby, I don't think it is fair to blame video games. These have been main tropes of gamer comedy for decades, and at least the second of these is directly addressed in the original DMG.
You can't blame video games at all. They work differently than a normal RPG. I think RPGs should inspire more creativity.
-
You can't blame video games at all. They work differently than a normal RPG.
That's the point. The people raised on vid games develop a different mindset, different expectations. In 1974, a group of players would calmly sit through six hours of adventuring, meet NPCs, go shopping and plan for a dungeon dive.
The last time I played a MMORPG the dungeon run was more a sprint -A rush to get to the boss room where monsters, drops and treasure was ignored to get to the finish and the main prize. I could barely keep up with the pace.
I've met tabletop players who want the same -run through the dungeon, forget about searching for hidden doors and clues, get to the end of the adventure. Of course, I have the only character with social skills so asking NPCs questions is a waste of time to the other players...
-
I certainly have players who are ready to skip the social parts in favor of combat, but they would be appalled at the suggestion to skip the treasure! That's crazy talk. That's been true for decades.
I will say, though, that in the LARP (over 25 years) I think players have gotten less tolerant of losing. They're not any worse about roleplaying and story (some great, some not so much), but when the whole town gets streamrolled and dies, they are more whiny about it. Take what you will from that.
-
That's perhaps one side effect of video gaming that's often overlooked but pretty much prevalent: with the exception of PvP games, video games present situations where you can fail temporarily, but you're expecting to win in the end - "beat the game" as it is. Having to deal with a loss permanently is seldom an option - you try again, reload a save, or start an new game. You can even check several outcomes and "choose" the one you prefer. Walkthroughs describe the various possible endings and the "true endings" (supposedly the 'best' one) and you're supposed to go there and do that.
to be honest, having "adventure" format games where each scenario is independent from the other and the overall game world does not really care if you succeed or not in the long run also emphasises that aspect.
-
I certainly have players who are ready to skip the social parts in favor of combat, but they would be appalled at the suggestion to skip the treasure! That's crazy talk. That's been true for decades.
I will say, though, that in the LARP (over 25 years) I think players have gotten less tolerant of losing. They're not any worse about roleplaying and story (some great, some not so much), but when the whole town gets streamrolled and dies, they are more whiny about it. Take what you will from that.
I GMed a mercenary campaign were everybody wanted to a god on the battlefield but nobody wanted to have social skills or command. Since none of them could negotiate contracts or even administer a unit, they wound up as (underpaid) hirelings for a NPC, which let me toss in a few curves, like modeling the unit after the cartoon "Archer", where the unit was made up of incompetent malcontents and sociopaths. I'd write more but the name of the unit, as well as the names of most of the PCs were not for a family site. One of the female NPCs was named Gloria Snockers, for example...
In one scenario, the commander was called away and left the PCs on their own...they tortured and executed prisoners, allowed infiltrators into the unit who later stole vehicles and one of the officers was kidnapped...and later paraded through an enemy city through jeering crowds.
They asked for it...
-
The point is in a RPG, you can do anything you imagine. You can make your own story and world. Even toss out a few rules. Because everyone is competing with D&D, there are a plethora of RPGs out there that you can try. Computer games change everything, though.
A computer game gives you a set world, a set story, with scripted outcomes. And yes, if there is a bad end, you can start the game over again. Over time, a computer game can get boring -- you've been through the quests before and can do them without blinking. An RPG is more fluid, and if your game master is a good one, will never disappoint.
-
A computer game gives you a set world, a set story, with scripted outcomes.
There are a number of sandbox games that have open ended outcomes from getting along with the various factions or warring against all of them to a genocidal outcome. The alternate endings are only limited by the number of saves you wish to make.
I prefer thinking games while my players, not so much...So out go the puzzles, riddles and NPCs that don't give straight answers... I mean, they gladly accepted a NPC commander who dictated missions, conditions and strategy, which I never would have tolerated as a player...but those are the conditions they wanted, as long as I pointed them at an enemy and let them loose...until they chose to bite off more than they could chew by picking a fight (despite repeated warnings, not hints but warnings) with a unit of much larger size and losing. Cest la vie.
-
I prefer thinking games while my players, not so much...So out go the puzzles, riddles and NPCs that don't give straight answers... I mean, they gladly accepted a NPC commander who dictated missions, conditions and strategy, which I never would have tolerated as a player...but those are the conditions they wanted, as long as I pointed them at an enemy and let them loose...
I've had a similar experience. I see a lot of criticisms of railroading, but my players not only don't mind it, they actually prefer it. The like to have clear missions and know what they're 'supposed to be doing'. Different groups are different!
-
Are people not understanding the fantasy in Fantasy Roleplaying any more?
I looked at the Dark Elf thread, and I understand it was locked. What I mean is it's okay to have a race of villains in your own campaign setting. It's a fantasy, something people make up. When did someone's fantasies become political? I think people are confusing politics with fantasy.
When were someone's fantasies not political? Are you going to seriously suggest that Tolkien's politics didn't inform how he created Middle Earth and get reflected in that creation? Gygax's in Dungeons and Dragons? More close to home, Terry's in Shadow World? Come on!
Politics have always been in fantasy. The only thing that's changing is whether you get to see your politics as politics or simply the way things are.
-
I'm seeing several different tentacles to this thread, all of them interesting.
1. Historic games and current culture/politics: I know that some of the historic elements have racial/racist foundations. If we know those and perpetuate them, we are participating. But I think 90% of these situations are unknown to the players, and it takes a fair bit of effort to assign blame to them. I'm really not a big fan of "the sins of the father are visited upon the son" or inheritance of guilt/blame. I'm also not a big fan of what I consider "reflexive self victimization," where individuals look at an issue and their first reaction is to look at how it makes them a victim.
2. Thinking games, challenges, and railroading: I've run into this a bit in my latest campaign. I give the party 3 or 4 plot threads to entice them, allowing choice. They get frustrated that I'm not giving them a clear direction. On top of that, I'm finding them more and more risk-averse. I've threatened them that the next adventure will be getting out of the retirement home for unadventurous adventurers.
3. My politics in my campaign: I deliberately put politics in my campaign, but not just those I agree with. I put elements that I like, and elements that if I were in that culture, would infuriate or terrify me. It's a way to experiment and explore the ideas, and how I and the players react to them. I have theocracies, homophobic cultures, racially/culturally split cities, misandrist or misogynist cultures. I do listen to players and try not to hit any really big triggers or personal issues, but I've been very fortunate to have players who also want to challenge whatever the norm or idea is. Even when I don't know it's there, they bring something to the surface. (They were in the middle of a turf war between two gangs and their first plan was just to create a social safety net to help the merchants who were suffering, rather than try to stop the war or become a third faction in the war. Not the direction I was expecting!)
I will borrow Cory's "Fun>Balance>Realism" line, and just say that yeah, if the realism of the cultures/politics is destroying the fun, the realism needs to go. But it all depends on the players, collectively.
-
Politics have always been in fantasy.
As a student of the Milton Friedman school of economics, I have also noted that fantasy has been an integral part of politics...but I'll end there before I tread deeper into banhammer territory...
Tailoring a campaign to suit players was never an issue when I first started RPGs in 1974. There were no scenario books, just rules and very cheap dice that wore off their corners after a few months' use. The players were just happy to play every weekend, so we solved riddles, read puzzles in the form of poems (one GM was good at long poems where the answers were spelled out using the first letter of every line) and do the math (the same GM would design dungeons using mathematical formulae to place traps) and we'd have a blast with anagrams, cryptograms and even foreign languages (we were lucky to have Russian, German, Latin and Japanese speaking players) which added significant depth to the game.
If my last group of players ran through the Xai campaign, they wouldn't have the patience to make it past the (puzzle operated) front door of a dungeon without trying to blow it up. As a long-time advocate of "Victory Through Superior Firepower" a fantasy world can easily trump that overused card.
While GMing a dumbed-down mindless campaign is very simple (all I had to do is present a series of targets for the players to kill until they finally faced one they couldn't beat.) Their answer was building bigger and bigger units without the bother of having to administer or command them. In short, they wanted a huge army to throw at an enemy but didn't want to have the power or responsibility of command. I them had to remind them that no matter how large the army was, none of them were qualified to command more than a tiny fraction of it, if at all (we had one player unable to figure out the sequence of combat over months of play, and his math was atrocious). In short, I was doing all the admin work to run a military unit that was normally the players' responsibility. And they paid for it. They had no idea that all of their benefits came out of the paychecks, the food, medical treatment, legal fees, equipment maintenance, the mobile brothel, they paid for all of it. They had to pay insurance for everything they possessed or did. The NPC commander became incredibly wealthy because the players didn't care about accounting or management.
They still have no idea how much they were exploited...but as a GM, gaming was almost like babysitting and I suddenly realized that since the group was mostly younger veterans, I could see what a modern NCO has to put up with...Lol.