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.
