Detect Magic wrote: Referring to straight white males as the "default" is a bit dehumanizing. Note I'm using the default as a verb, not as a noun. As in "automatically selecting an option when no alternative or condition is specified".
I understand, but there's a danger in using that kind of language.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Kung Fu Joe wrote: "They were trying to scare you off."
"Omar don't scare!"
All my NPCs are going to be Omar from now on. Sure, he checks off a couple of demographic categories, but, more importantly, he's a motherf##@ing badass to the nth degree.
"Omar listening."
White straight male is pretty much the stereotype of characters in roleplaying games. And somehow giving people British accents in movies makes it "historical" no matter what culture it's supposed to be.
How many non-whites were there in the Lord of the Rings movies? I honestly can't think of one...not one.
Alice Margatroid wrote: RE: "defaults"
There's no inherent problem with you as an individual assuming a character is a Straight White Cis Male unless otherwise stated, but it is both unfortunate and a symptom of a number of issues that persist in our world (sexism, racism, heteronormativity).
I won't lie: I do it myself. An on-the-fly NPC is most certainly a Straight White Cis Male (and probably Middle-Class as well) despite me being an advocate for diversity in all forms. But I do try to make a conscious effort to diverge from that. Recently, I made the captain of the guard in my town Keleshite (Arabic) specifically because I realised that everyone in town so far was a Straight White Cis Male. None of my players even blinked. I'm also mentally making sure that 1/4 - 1/2 of his guards are female (the players are planning on hiring them to help clear out some bandits soon). I also realised that all of the bandits I'd shown so far were men - so I made one random encounter have a female lieutenant to fix that a little, and intend on making sure at least a couple of the rest are women as well. I'm certainly going to make sure at least 1-2 people in town that they meet will fall into the LGBT spectrum as well, if it ever comes up.
Little things like that aren't "token gays" or "token PoC" or whatever. It's me consciously taking a stand against those societal norms in order to make a better game. The Captain wasn't defined by his different ethnicity--it was simply part of his character description when the PCs met him. The female lieutenant wasn't defined by her gender--she simply happened to be a woman. None of these characters become "token". They simply become "the captain of the guard", "the bandit lieutenant", "the mercenary for hire", "the serving boy at the tavern" that exist with a little more verisimilitude than having Yet Another Straight White Cis Male.
That's a perfectly understandable and acceptable way of doing so. It is not something I would personally implement, as I've always felt uncomfortable toward the use of diversity quotas (as I believe they undermine equal opportunities, which I think is the way for tolerant diversity), but I have absolutely no problem with it.
Still, my point of contention is not about whether or not we can create inclusivity in the game; it is against the notion that not having homosexuals featured as part of the game means that the DM has predetermined the position homosexuals have within the game world. To which I insist by my position that such argument assumes conscious refrainment, while in truth it can very well (as I believe is my case) be simply a matter of not considering the topic relevant enough for the story to make a conscious effort and instead employing standard options.
kmal2t wrote: White straight male is pretty much the stereotype of characters in roleplaying games. And somehow giving people British accents in movies makes it "historical" no matter what culture it's supposed to be.
How many non-whites were there in the Lord of the Rings movies? I honestly can't think of one...not one.
There were haradrim in the third movie. Those are basically the Middle Earth version of Middle Eastern people.
kmal2t wrote: White straight male is pretty much the stereotype of characters in roleplaying games. And somehow giving people British accents in movies makes it "historical" no matter what culture it's supposed to be.
How many non-whites were there in the Lord of the Rings movies? I honestly can't think of one...not one.
Given that the source material was from the '30s and '40s and the world building earlier than that and that the original concept was a "Mythology for Britain" and to a lesser extend NW Europe, I'll give Tolkien and his adapters a big pass on that.
kmal2t wrote: How many non-whites were there in the Lord of the Rings movies? I honestly can't think of one...not one. Except the scary elephant-ridin' bad guys, of course. In LotR, if you're human and aren't white, you're automatically a BAD GUY who serves the devil. What does that say?
There's a reason that Moorcock, in rebelling against the Tolkien school of fantasy (what he termed "Epic Pooh"), not only had morally- and sexually-ambiguous characters, but also made John Daker -- the ultimate aspect of the Eternal Champion -- nonwhite.
thejeff wrote: kmal2t wrote: White straight male is pretty much the stereotype of characters in roleplaying games. And somehow giving people British accents in movies makes it "historical" no matter what culture it's supposed to be.
How many non-whites were there in the Lord of the Rings movies? I honestly can't think of one...not one.
Given that the source material was from the '30s and '40s and the world building earlier than that and that the original concept was a "Mythology for Britain" and to a lesser extend NW Europe, I'll give Tolkien and his adapters a big pass on that. Never the less its still had a monumental impact on the way fantasy has developed and been portrayed. People have been following the formula of whitey-ville and gandalf-clones for decades which comes back to my point that the stereotype or "default" of an RPG character is a white straight male.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Klaus van der Kroft wrote: I disagree. As I've mentioned, homosexuals are not part of my "default to" set of elements. Therefore, if I were to put homosexuals in the game, I would have to consciously and purposefully add them. But that's the point isn't it, the default kind of view of the world each of us take?
Look, most of the people who I interact with on a regular basis are straight white males. Therefore there's a definite tendency for a new character I make to also default to being a straight white male. I don't feel as if anyone is saying I'm a bad person for doing that, it's pretty understandable really. But what this thread and comments in it do is make me think about what I view as 'normal' and how that gets portrayed.
If I were to say that I'm running a game that doesn't really touch on romance and sexuality then that's one thing. But as thejeff says if any couples I mention in the game world are heterosexual then it's not true for me to say I'm not addressing sexuality in the game. It's not having a go at me to point that out, it's simply true.
I think the fact that quite a lot of us would only include homosexuality if we thought to intentionally do so is the 'problem' here (and I largely include myself in this group on reflection). Being accepting of other genders, races and orientations is great in and of itself. But I think this suggests that there's a step beyond accepting that you're happy for these groups to be existing, to actually considering them as a part of the world we're all in (or that we're in within our imaginations for roleplaying!).
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
kmal2t wrote: Never the less its still had a monumental impact on the way fantasy has developed and been portrayed. People have been following the formula of whitey-ville and gandalf-clones for decades which comes back to my point that the stereotype or "default" of an RPG character is a white straight male. Should nine out of every 10 PCs be dwarven fighters, then? Or 2 out of 5 be halflings? Just because Tolkien did something doesn't mean it's "the D&D thing to do."
If you check Gygax's appendix on the literary antecedents of D&D, there's a lot more fantasy than Tolkien there -- and most of it is not derivative of Tolkien, either.
The problem with assuming straight while males are the "default" is that it implies there is no diversity amongst the group. No individuals. No variety in character. Nothing. Just "white dude #141567314" etc.
I just handled homosexuality in one of my games. The party came to a frontier town at the foot of a mountain pass, on the way to their first adventure. They go to one inn in particular because the gate guard warned them off the other on account of an elf and half-elf in the party. There they found a middle-aged lesbian couple running an in with the help of their adopted children.
I don't know what kind of game other people are playing, but I think I managed to successfully convey that they're a lesbian couple without having them ripping each other's dresses off, pulling out a finely-crafted elven sex toy, and doing each other on the table. Perhaps my own gayness has singularly gifted me in the area, but think I've empirically proved that you don't have to fantasize about licking cheez-whiz off Elijah Wood's feet to put two women into a typical family setting and have one of them call the other "my lady."
Because I'm so not into licking cheez-whiz off Elijah Wood's feet. Ew. But: Science!
So wait, you're saying that the only character traits are sexuality and skin color?
Klaus van der Kroft wrote: That's a perfectly understandable and acceptable way of doing so. It is not something I would personally implement, as I've always felt uncomfortable toward the use of diversity quotas (as I believe they undermine equal opportunities, which I think is the way for tolerant diversity), but I have absolutely no problem with it.
Still, my point of contention is not about whether or not we can create inclusivity in the game; it is against the notion that not having homosexuals featured as part of the game means that the DM has predetermined the position homosexuals have within the game world. To which I insist by my position that such argument assumes conscious refrainment, while in truth it can very well (as I believe is my case) be simply a matter of not considering the topic relevant enough for the story to make a conscious effort and instead employing standard options..
I have stated more than once and I will repeat again. I do not think you are consciously determining anything about homosexuals in your game. I am not accusing you of bigotry or anything like that.
I would argue that you have determined the position of homosexuals in your game world, without consciously doing so. They don't exist. For all practical purposes there aren't any. The world defaults that way, just by not putting any in it.
I'm curious, following up on Alice's post: Do you do the same thing with women? Do NPCs default to men unless there's some plot reason or world role that a particular character needs to be a woman?
And given that this is fantasy, do you do the same with fantasy races? If you're putting together a town that's supposed to be mostly human, with a large minority of halflings and a smattering of the other races, do all the named, notable NPCs wind up being human unless there's some particular reason they need to be another race? Even if that winds up not reflecting the population at all?
That's definitely debatable. All "default" implies is that, if no other traits are stated, you get this. If you say "an American", most will assume, by default, that the person is straight and white. That's because it's the most logical assumption to make. "Defaults" are not inherently bigoted, or even politically incorrect. They're just realistic.
If I say you're most likely to roll a 7 on 2d6, am I saying my favorite number is 7? Do I have a deep dislike for 2s and 12s? Are 6s and 8s second-class numbers in my eyes?
Obviously not. It's just that if I had to bet on a single number, I'd take seven. 2d6 ⇒ (2, 1) = 3
EDIT: Curses. This is why gambling is immoral, people.
kmal2t wrote: thejeff wrote: kmal2t wrote: White straight male is pretty much the stereotype of characters in roleplaying games. And somehow giving people British accents in movies makes it "historical" no matter what culture it's supposed to be.
How many non-whites were there in the Lord of the Rings movies? I honestly can't think of one...not one.
Given that the source material was from the '30s and '40s and the world building earlier than that and that the original concept was a "Mythology for Britain" and to a lesser extend NW Europe, I'll give Tolkien and his adapters a big pass on that. Never the less its still had a monumental impact on the way fantasy has developed and been portrayed. People have been following the formula of whitey-ville and gandalf-clones for decades which comes back to my point that the stereotype or "default" of an RPG character is a white straight male. It did, though Gandalf was in many ways a Merlin figure himself.
And I'd argue the whitey-ville had as much to do with fantasy being mostly written and read by whites from a European background for some of those decades at least.
I'm providing supporting points as to why straight white male is the norm. Nowhere did I say that you should make all characters dwarves or everything just like Tolkien. I'm pointing out the Tolkien influence and the fact that many people will assume by default that a character is a straight white male.
If you provide no further details or descriptors of a character that state otherwise, many players will "default" to imagining a straight white male.
And obviously you should have diversity in the game, its good that DnD and PF are starting to break up the generic mold that has defined fantasy RPG for so long...except guns and robots lol but that's a different discussion.
Ah, perhaps I'm merely overreacting. I just hate being referred to as the "norm". Seems kinda dismissive.
Jim Gaffigan tells a pretty good joke on the subject. Essentially, what he says is that if you're latino, you have a "latin-temper", but if you're white, you're just being a dick.
Detect Magic wrote: The problem with assuming straight while males are the "default" is that it implies there is no diversity amongst the group. No individuals. No variety in character. Nothing. Just "white dude #141567314" etc. Oh there's plenty of diversity in straight white males. So much, there's no need to go outside them, unless you're making a social issue story or you just want something exotic. </snark>
Of course there's diversity there and I don't think that's the intended meaning.
It's descriptive of a common practice. Common even among those who are aware of it and try to avoid it. Do you have a better term than "default" or should we avoid talking about it?
And not specifically mentioning homosexuality isn't implying that it doesn't exist in your world. Should I be sure to mention dandruff and herpes to Players so they know that it exists as well?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Rynjin wrote: So wait, you're saying that the only character traits are sexuality and skin color? No, of course not. There's also gender. :)
The whole point is to have characters who have all sorts of interesting character traits and roles, some of whom happen to not be straight white males.
It's not at all to say "Here's this adventures homosexual. See he's here being all homosexual and stuff. Now we've been diverse and we can get back the important straight characters."
Nor is it to make plot points or adventures around someone's homosexuality, though there's nothing wrong with that if it works.
thejeff wrote: Rynjin wrote: So wait, you're saying that the only character traits are sexuality and skin color? No, of course not. There's also gender. :)
The whole point is to have characters who have all sorts of interesting character traits and roles, some of whom happen to not be straight white males.
It's not at all to say "Here's this adventures homosexual. See he's here being all homosexual and stuff. Now we've been diverse and we can get back the important straight characters."
Nor is it to make plot points or adventures around someone's homosexuality, though there's nothing wrong with that if it works. It could be if its about recovering his c*** ring of protection +5 ...ya this post probably won't last long.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: That's definitely debatable. All "default" implies is that, if no other traits are stated, you get this. If you say "an American", most will assume, by default, that the person is straight and white. That's because it's the most logical assumption to make. "Defaults" are not inherently bigoted, or even politically incorrect. They're just realistic.
If I say you're most likely to roll a 7 on 2d6, am I saying my favorite number is 7? Do I have a deep dislike for 2s and 12s? Are 6s and 8s second-class numbers in my eyes?
Obviously not. It's just that if I had to bet on a single number, I'd take seven. 2d6
EDIT: Curses. This is why gambling is immoral, people.
No, you agree that, unless there's some pressing need otherwise all NPCs worth any detail at all should be straight white males?
Most would assume for "an American", straight and white, so if you were making up a fictional American town, you'd just populate it with straight white people? Unless you needed a gay, a black or a hispanic or other minority for some particular plot point?
kmal2t wrote: thejeff wrote: Rynjin wrote: So wait, you're saying that the only character traits are sexuality and skin color? No, of course not. There's also gender. :)
The whole point is to have characters who have all sorts of interesting character traits and roles, some of whom happen to not be straight white males.
It's not at all to say "Here's this adventures homosexual. See he's here being all homosexual and stuff. Now we've been diverse and we can get back the important straight characters."
Nor is it to make plot points or adventures around someone's homosexuality, though there's nothing wrong with that if it works. It could be if its about recovering his c*** ring of protection +5 ...ya this post probably won't last long. I know you're just joking but: homosexuality == sex. There it is again.
I was thinking more of a twist on any of the standard romance plotlines. Party hired to rescue kidnapped bride who's really fleeing the arranged marriage because she's gay or some such trite nonsense.
Matthew Morris wrote: Scott Betts wrote: Rynjin wrote: It's quite a simple thought process.
"I made this world. I gave no special thought to relationship dynamics. Coincidentally, there happen to be no homosexuals because I DIDN'T F@$$ING THINK OF IT.".
That's the point. By coming at it from the standpoint that homosexual relationships are not normal (and, as such, they require "special thought" just to include), you are implicitly reinforcing a heteronormative worldview. So Scott... do you actively try to figure out how many lefties there are?
Is Paizo's lack of left handed Iconics a sign that they are applying a 'Dextronormitive World view?'
Or is it just a sign that it's not high on their 'list of things to do?' The iconic fighter is ambidextrous. Does that count for anything?
Aren't all characters ambidextrous?
thejeff wrote:
No, you agree that, unless there's some pressing need otherwise all NPCs worth any detail at all should be straight white males?
The opposite, actually. But we're talking about assumptions here.
Let's use a fantasy equivalent: If I send PCs to a town in Cheliax, they will not assume somebody is Shoanti unless I tell them so.
"Straight white" is the default assumption. Unless you deliberately say somebody is, say, gay and latino, people will assume otherwise. It's not any more bigoted than the die example I gave.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: That's definitely debatable. All "default" implies is that, if no other traits are stated, you get this. If you say "an American", most will assume, by default, that the person is straight and white. That's because it's the most logical assumption to make. "Defaults" are not inherently bigoted, or even politically incorrect. They're just realistic.
If I say you're most likely to roll a 7 on 2d6, am I saying my favorite number is 7? Do I have a deep dislike for 2s and 12s? Are 6s and 8s second-class numbers in my eyes?
Obviously not. It's just that if I had to bet on a single number, I'd take seven. 2d6
EDIT: Curses. This is why gambling is immoral, people.
7 is indeed the most common single outcome on 2d6, but you won't get terribly good results if you decide that's your default. You'll be wrong more than 80% of the time.
Similarly for America I think most people would view the country as more diverse than that. The most visible American in the world isn't straight and white after all. If however you used straight and white for your idea of Americans then you would do better at guessing than picking 7 for your dice result, but you'll still be wrong more than 1 out of every 3 times. I don't think that a default assumption which is going to be wrong 1 out of every 3 times is worth all that much. (In hypothesis testing, for example, you generally want at least a 95% level of confidence before someone is prepared to 'believe in' a result for making predictions.)
I'm waffling a bit, but long story short if somebody asked me to picture someone from America I'd need some more information before imagining what race, orientation or even gender that person had.
Being wrong 80% of the time is still better than being wrong 95% of the time.
There are six ways to make 7 on a 2d6, as opposed to at most 3 for any other given number (I may be slightly off on that, I don't feel like writing them all out). It is still, by far, the most likely option.
Guessing any other option is even more likely to be incorrect if it is your default assumption.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: thejeff wrote:
No, you agree that, unless there's some pressing need otherwise all NPCs worth any detail at all should be straight white males?
The opposite, actually. But we're talking about assumptions here.
Let's use a fantasy equivalent: If I send PCs to a town in Cheliax, they will not assume somebody is Shoanti unless I tell them so.
"Straight white" is the default assumption. Unless you deliberately say somebody is, say, gay and latino, people will assume otherwise. It's not any more bigoted than the die example I gave. I'm not arguing with that. The problem is you're discussing an entirely different issue related only by the word "default". We're not talking about assumptions.
We're not talking about the players making their best guess about what a particular NPC will be when he's not described or incompletely described.
We're talking about a GM populating the world and having a default type that he uses when there's no pressing need to do otherwise. It's a very different thing.
We're not talking about the players assuming an NPC is straight until and unless proven otherwise. We're talking about a GM making them all straight unless he has some particular gay related point to make.
Kirth Gersen wrote: Matthew Morris wrote: It wasn't until I was much older that I realized Misters Went and Kidd were more than eccentric assassins in Diamonds Are Forever. IIRC, in the novel Fleming was unmistakably clear about Wint & Kidd.
P.S. Don't forget Omar in The Wire! The baddest assassin in the entire 5-season series is both African-American and homosexual. And the second-baddest dude looks like Urkel. You gotta love it. Omar wasn't an assassin. He was a ripper and runner.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Berik wrote:
7 is indeed the most common single outcome on 2d6, but you won't get terribly good results if you decide that's your default. You'll be wrong more than 80% of the time.
Good point. A better comparison would be guessing 6, 7 or 8. Since we're talking about 90% of the populace.
2d6 ⇒ (4, 3) = 7
See? I rule!
Also, sorry, Jeff, but the fact is that it's a logical default. If you're on that Plateau (I forget the name), feel free to assume people are black. But if I'm in Sandpoint, I, as the GM, will have an NPC be Caucasian unless it's part of their character that they be Shoanti. With gays, it's different, but it still doesn't generally occur to me.
If I give it some thought, I might choose to have an NPC be gay, but I'm not going to reflexively make 10% of the population gay. That's a very trivial concern, honestly. Political correctness is all well and good, but it sucks when it's just for its own sake.
Hey, KC!
Complete derail here, but how's your brother?
Rynjin wrote: Being wrong 80% of the time is still better than being wrong 95% of the time.
There are six ways to make 7 on a 2d6, as opposed to at most 3 for any other given number (I may be slightly off on that, I don't feel like writing them all out). It is still, by far, the most likely option.
Guessing any other option is even more likely to be incorrect if it is your default assumption.
Sure, but try to use your 'default of 7' to build up a population of dice results. If you say a group of 10 dice rolls (in any order) is going to give '7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7' and I say it's going to give '6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 5, 3, 4' then my guess is going to give a more accurate view of the population most of the time.
As an aside there is 1 way to get 2, 2 ways to get 3, 3 ways to get 4, 4 ways to get 5, 5 ways to get 6, 6 ways to get 7 and so on. So no, it isn't 'by far' the most likely option.
Defaults aren't always white as was alluded to.
If you're in Africa you'd assume someone being talked about was black..and you would now be the token white guy. If I'm walking down Castro Street I'm probably assumed to be gay unless stated otherwise.
And being sexually oriented in one or the other isn't funny. Being homosexual in itself is obviously not funny, its just the way someone is..however the stereotypes that go along with gay "culture" are often considered comical
For instance not that long ago I go to walk into the gym and a 40 year old man walks in with a bright pink, "Sassy" belly shirt, and the shortest shorts you've ever seen and a pink bandana on. I cracked up because it's so unusual and I loved his "I don't give a f*ck" attitude because this dude flaunted it like he was on a runway.
This extends to other groups besides just gay people and it obviously doenst mean I think "all gay people are this way or that way"
Kobold Cleaver wrote: Berik wrote:
7 is indeed the most common single outcome on 2d6, but you won't get terribly good results if you decide that's your default. You'll be wrong more than 80% of the time.
Good point. A better comparison would be guessing 6, 7 or 8. Since we're talking about 90% of the populace.
2d6
See? I rule! Even 6, 7, 8 together still represents less than half of the possibilities, you won't get a great view of the population if you ignore the other possible outcomes. And we're not talking about 90% of the populace. As far as I can see from a quick google search about 72% of Americans are white. Assuming 1 in 10 of the population aren't straight then we get the figure I quoted where guessing an American is straight and white is going to be wrong a little more than 1 in 3 times.
Now if you put a gun to my head and ask me to predict the orientation and race of a random American then I agree, I'd guess at straight and white. But building on my example to Rynjin what happens if I need more people than that? What if (as an analogue to world building) I want to populate a village with 100 random Americans? Do you think I'll get a reasonable picture by picking the default for each of those 100 people?
Ultimately if I come up with a village of 100 people who are all straight and white is that actually going to end up being very much like America? What happened to the 30-40 people who are either not-straight or not-white that I'd expect to see in such a sample?
Edit: I managed to miss this off originally, but the point is that if you're going to try and select a sample population using some idea of the 'default' you're not going to end up with something very representative of your wider population. The world I live in may be mostly populated by straight and white people. But if I make a game world which only has straight and white people it isn't actually very like the world I live in any more.
Berik wrote: Sure, but try to use your 'default of 7' to build up a population of dice results. If you say a group of 10 dice rolls (in any order) is going to give '7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7' and I say it's going to give '6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 5, 3, 4' then my guess is going to give a more accurate view of the population most of the time. The point being that you only get one guess. Saying "I guess 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 5, 3, 4" is multiple guesses. At least 7, if we're being generous to you.
7 is the safe bet. 6 and 8 are close seconds, yes, but 7 is still the most likely.
If 7 is your "straight white male" 6 is probably "straight white female" and 8 is "straight black male".
Also, just for fun because I never use the dice roller.
2d6 ⇒ (3, 2) = 5
2d6 ⇒ (5, 1) = 6
2d6 ⇒ (4, 5) = 9
2d6 ⇒ (3, 6) = 9
2d6 ⇒ (4, 2) = 6
2d6 ⇒ (2, 5) = 7
2d6 ⇒ (3, 4) = 7
2d6 ⇒ (5, 5) = 10
2d6 ⇒ (2, 6) = 8
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Also, sorry, Jeff, but the fact is that it's a logical default. If you're on that Plateau (I forget the name), feel free to assume people are black. But if I'm in Sandpoint, I, as the GM, will have an NPC be Caucasian unless it's part of their character that they be Shoanti. With gays, it's different, but it still doesn't generally occur to me.
If I give it some thought, I might choose to have an NPC be gay, but I'm not going to reflexively make 10% of the population gay. That's a very trivial concern, honestly. Political correctness is all well and good, but it sucks when it's just for its own sake.
Sure, if you're in an area that's very homogenous the default might approximate the population. In a more mixed area, the results will be off. Sandpoint is mixed Chelaxian and Varisian, so defaulting one way will skew the results. And that's leaving out the non-humans. It makes far more sense to look at the demographics or the demographics you want and aim to have your named important NPCs reflect that. Even if you have to do so consciously and thus run the risk of totemism.
Especially when you also consider the gender divide. If you're thinking in theory of a relatively non-sexist world, but your default when you need a character is "straight white male", then you're likely to wind up with a list of important men and their wives. Or is that also too politically correct?
And if you're already considering population demographics and sex in the world creation, why is considering sexual preference beyond the pale?
Rynjin wrote: Berik wrote: Sure, but try to use your 'default of 7' to build up a population of dice results. If you say a group of 10 dice rolls (in any order) is going to give '7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7' and I say it's going to give '6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 5, 3, 4' then my guess is going to give a more accurate view of the population most of the time. The point being that you only get one guess. Saying "I guess 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 5, 3, 4" is multiple guesses. At least 7, if we're being generous to you.
7 is the safe bet. 6 and 8 are close second's, yes, but 7 is still the most likely.
If 7 is your "straight white male" 6 is probably "straight white female" and 8 is "straight black male".
Also, just for fun because I never use the dice roller.
2d6
2d6
2d6
2d6
2d6
2d6
2d6
2d6
2d6 You get more than one guess, because we're not guessing. We're world building. This whole default guess sideline is a distortion of the original question.
Rynjin wrote: The point being that you only get one guess. Saying "I guess 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 5, 3, 4" is multiple guesses. At least 7, if we're being generous to you.
7 is the safe bet. 6 and 8 are close second's, yes, but 7 is still the most likely.
If 7 is your "straight white male" 6 is probably "straight white female" and 8 is "straight black male".
There's no reason for straight white male to be more likely than straight white female...
But regardless, I was referencing using 10 dice rolls to build a population, matching the idea of building a population in a game world. If you're guessing what 10 numbers will come up from rolling the dice 10 times you won't be right very often if you keep guessing 10 7's. You don't get anything like a realistic population by building one by just using 7. But that's what some of us more or less do when making the population of a game world. Or maybe we use 6, 7, & 8, but as your own rolls indicate that doesn't capture anything like a true population distribution.
Berik wrote:
Even 6, 7, 8 together still represents less than half of the possibilities, you won't get a great view of the population if you ignore the other possible outcomes. And we're not talking about 90% of the populace.
Actually, the main point of this thread is homosexuals. Race is just yet another detour. This is basically the "Political Correctness" thread now.
Quote: As far as I can see from a quick google search about 72% of Americans are white. To be fair, America is a modern society, and an extremely diverse one. Many fantasy settings are based off medieval Europe. 10% gays, mostly likely. That's thought to be a constant. 28% other races, less so. And for the record, I oppose following bad societal standards exactly "because medieval". But I don't feel demographic numbers are quite the same as having all the societies marginalize women. ;D
Quote: Assuming 1 in 10 of the population aren't straight then we get the figure I quoted where guessing an American is straight and white is going to be wrong a little more than 1 in 3 times. Way better odds than assuming he's white and gay/black and straight, though.
Quote: Now if you put a gun to my head and ask me to predict the orientation and race of a random American then I agree, I'd guess at straight and white. But building on my example to Rynjin what happens if I need more people than that? What if (as an analogue to world building) I want to populate a village with 100 random Americans? Do you think I'll get a reasonable picture by picking the default for each of those 100 people? Nobody's said the default should be the constant. That's one of many assumptions on this thread with little basis in fact. Man, I need to get off this thread...
Quote: Ultimately if I come up with a village of 100 people who are all straight and white is that actually going to end up being very much like America? More like medieval Europe, at least race-wise. ;D
thejeff wrote:
Sure, if you're in an area that's very homogenous the default might approximate the population. In a more mixed area, the results will be off. Sandpoint is mixed Chelaxian and Varisian, so defaulting one way will skew the results. And that's leaving out the non-humans. It makes far more sense to look at the demographics or the demographics you want and aim to have your named important NPCs reflect that. Even if you have to do so consciously and thus run the risk of totemism. I totally agree--you should follow the demographics you write. If you say your city contains lots of halflings, make sure to show it. That's not political correctness, that's consistency.
It seems one side is arguing that one should not assume the entire population is of a single demographic, and the other side is arguing that the most prominent demographic is the one the GM will probably default to when in doubt. We don't see to disagree, so why not move on?
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote: Hey, KC!
Complete derail here, but how's your brother?
He's good. He does appear to have faded out of these forums--spends most of his time on Tumblr nowadays.
Kobold Cleaver wrote: thejeff wrote:
Sure, if you're in an area that's very homogenous the default might approximate the population. In a more mixed area, the results will be off. Sandpoint is mixed Chelaxian and Varisian, so defaulting one way will skew the results. And that's leaving out the non-humans. It makes far more sense to look at the demographics or the demographics you want and aim to have your named important NPCs reflect that. Even if you have to do so consciously and thus run the risk of totemism. I totally agree--you should follow the demographics you write. If you say your city contains lots of halflings, make sure to show it. That's not political correctness, that's consistency.
It seems one side is arguing that one should not assume the entire population is of a single demographic, and the other side is arguing that the most prominent demographic is the one the GM will probably default to when in doubt. We don't see to disagree, so why not move on? I don't actually think that's the argument, since it all spawned out first homosexuality and then sexism. The white was really only a sideline.
The original claim was more like "I just think of straight people when I come up with NPCs, therefore no gays come up in my games." Sometimes with an added "consciously putting gays in feels like tokenism, so I don't do that"
Then Alice brought up how her standard was to use men as a default and she had to consciously remember to make some of them female.
Which led to the whole thing about defaults and then demographics.
I don't know who's talking about "when the GM is in doubt". Sure, I guess that's not a bad rule of thumb if you're coming up with new NPCs on the fly, but unless all the NPCs are made up on the fly it doesn't wash as a good reason for the homosexual part of it. If they are all made up on the fly, then you need a better rule of thumb to keep your demographics somewhere close to what you wanted.
If having to consciously match your racial demographics isn't political correctness, but just consistency, why is doing the same for homosexuals? Or for women? If you have to consciously be sure to create prominent women in your theoretically equal society, if that political correctness or consistency?
Of course people forget that the vast majority of fantasy fans for decades have been(gasp) straight white males. and we probably still are. So that is what most of us write, include in our games and default to when making characters. Even when i have played in areas that are 50% or MUCH higher non-white population virtually all gamers are white. i have met in all my years of organised play only one known gay player. Many talk about female gamers like they are a myth but my local group is about 50% female most of the time, but i get the feeling we are an exception to the rule. It has more to do with making up what we know than anything else.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
And this thread is all about encouraging you to step beyond what you know. There's been a couple of posters who said they took this as an opportunity to examine their own campaigns, in fact.
The added benefit? The demographic of "non-straight OR non-white OR non-male" (logical OR) in the tabletop gaming industry - which has been there all along, simply rarely thought about or marketed to in the past - can feel increasingly included and welcome in the hobby. And in your own home games.
Heh too busy to write good encounters and plot hooks to worry about affirmative action honestly. Now that I've read this I may be more inclined to have more diversity but I wouldn't spend too much time fixated on it.
Alice Margatroid wrote: And this thread is all about encouraging you to step beyond what you know. There's been a couple of posters who said they took this as an opportunity to examine their own campaigns, in fact.
The added benefit? The demographic of "non-straight OR non-white OR non-male" (logical OR) in the tabletop gaming industry - which has been there all along, simply rarely thought about or marketed to in the past - can feel increasingly included and welcome in the hobby. And in your own home games.
No problem with people choosing to include whatever they want in their games but no one should feel bullied into it with the accusation of being a racist sexist homophobe if they do not.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Andrew R wrote: Alice Margatroid wrote: And this thread is all about encouraging you to step beyond what you know. There's been a couple of posters who said they took this as an opportunity to examine their own campaigns, in fact.
The added benefit? The demographic of "non-straight OR non-white OR non-male" (logical OR) in the tabletop gaming industry - which has been there all along, simply rarely thought about or marketed to in the past - can feel increasingly included and welcome in the hobby. And in your own home games.
No problem with people choosing to include whatever they want in their games but no one should feel bullied into it with the accusation of being a racist sexist homophobe if they do not. Good thing that's been very rare in this thread then.
thejeff wrote: Andrew R wrote: No problem with people choosing to include whatever they want in their games but no one should feel bullied into it with the accusation of being a racist sexist homophobe if they do not. Good thing that's been very rare in this thread then. I've seen it before, but it is rare and the people who do so express themselves before the game starts rather than after. YMMV.
Dang. This thread appears near the top of the Gamer Talk threads so often that the last time I saw it next to the 'How much authority should a gm have', I combined the two thread titles in my head...
Now I'm wondering 'How much homosexuality does a DM actually have / should he / she wield?' I know at least a few members of the LGBTQ community who I would refer to as 'wielding it'...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
