| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
DeathQuaker for the win, everybody!
|
DQ's analysis is fine. And it should apply to players too when they build their PCs.
A problem that can still appear is when everyone but ONE player is comfortable with the subjects raised. It can actually lessen other players' fun if they feel that the GM is doing auto-censure on the whole setting for the sake of a single player :-/
Managing differing players' expectations is rather hard IMO. Any advice on this would be appreciated.
Darn, my posts seemed to have gone up in smoke (with the site going down?).
What I was getting at, is that modern values will inevitably creep in, but they don't have to; and playing directly against them or off in a totally different direction can be fun!
Some say equality between the sexes/genders/races must be represented in-game. Well in fantasy I like to do things a bit different. Such as societies where female warriors are in control and the men tend to farm, hearth and home. See how your all male party deals with that.
Break and change from the present however you wish, if you have the inclination.
Fantasy can, after all, be fantastical.
That kind of thing is fine as a weird place to visit in a fantasy game. Or if your group really wants to focus on gender roles an/or overcoming them.
But it seems to me that you really want opportunities for both genders to play any role, or at least any adventuring role, without having to struggle with societies bias against it. And you probably want the main adventuring area to be pretty egalitarian. Otherwise you're either limiting a player's character options or forcing them to deal with whole gender bias thing even when they're not interested.If a player really is interested in playing out an overcoming gender stereotypes/oppression theme then it's probably best to either build a campaign world around that, while allowing the other player's choices to work without such problems, or to have that character be from and have a good deal of the campaign take place in a society with the appropriate gender roles.
Nooo, absolutely not. If the main adventuring area is egalitarian, good bye Robin Hood game, or the fight the established forces of evil quests. Egalitarian sameness can kill a setting. For example, Golarion is kept spicy by having truly different governments and some very strange places rather than egalitarian sameness. Not everything has to be close to us now, we are talking about fantasy after all.
To each their own. Judging by your posts on the subject thus far (including the ones you made yesterday that got erased in the forum glitch) I probably wouldn't enjoy playing in a game/setting run by you DMUTB but then again you probably wouldn't enjoy mine either. But my players and I do and that's what matters, in the end.
Since I've seaid everything I wanted to say two or more pages ago and we're just back in the cycle of things again, I think I'll bid this thread farewell before the discussion turns hostile again. Adios.
Quite simply, then: If at least one person is very sensitive to a certain topic, and the rest want it in, you will have to disappoint either party or both, or split the group.
It is simple, there is no place for sensitivity at my table.
We are here to game yes? Good, time for some fun, not time for some more complaining (keep the whining for the real world).
I will give an example, one of my friends is very into conservation, animal rights, working at a pet shop and being a biologist and all that. They still play characters that kill monsters and dangerous animals, and she enjoys it. Hypocrisy perhaps? Meh. She has fun and leaves a lot of her sensitivity about animal issues at the door, about the same time she enters a different world and setting to our own, where the animals are more a dangerous problem rather than near extinct.
Fighting the animals provides a challenge to her character, and the sensitivity to the harming of animals is left outside.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nooo, absolutely not. If the main adventuring area is egalitarian, good bye Robin Hood game, or the fight the established forces of evil quests. Egalitarian sameness can kill a setting. For example, Golarion is kept spicy by having truly different governments and some very strange places rather than egalitarian sameness. Not everything has to be close to us now, we are talking about fantasy after all.
You can have conflict, oppression, evil, etc. without falling back on tired, old racism and sexism. Not forcing players to put up with fantasy sexism and racism isn't the same as making the entire setting a samey and conflict-free utopia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nooo, absolutely not. If the main adventuring area is egalitarian, good bye Robin Hood game, or the fight the established forces of evil quests. Egalitarian sameness can kill a setting. For example, Golarion is kept spicy by having truly different governments and some very strange places rather than egalitarian sameness. Not everything has to be close to us now, we are talking about fantasy after all.You can have conflict, oppression, evil, etc. without falling back on tired, old racism and sexism. Not forcing players to put up with fantasy sexism and racism isn't the same as making the entire setting a samey and conflict-free utopia.
On this, I must agree!
A campaign where they are trying to keep an ancient evil contained doesn't require those items, and is very full of conflict.
Racism and sexism is just the beginning.
Just how far beyond are you going?
Well I'm confused, I mean, it seems unreasonable to assume that a DM is required to make sure that there are no NPCs for the PCs to interact with who just might be racist, sexist, bigots, elitist, morons, bullies, or any other thing that might offend somebody, right? I mean, it really is a huge difference in the discussion if we are talking about recruiting strangers to play with us on line (and always being clear about what the game will touch upon and what it will not, for instance, my current recruitment for Reflections in the Eye of the Beholder will involve sexual suggestive content, gender identity, and obnoxious come-ons by strange monsters, but Children and Sex is clearly not allowed and stated as such in the recruitment thread) and playing with or friends.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone in this thread has said that a DM mayn't include potentially off-putting NPCs. People have said that a DM oughtn't include NPCs that will be off-putting to their players. But if you know your players, then you can avoid that. People have also said that certain potentially off-putting game elements aren't necessary for building a setting. But that's not the same as saying that those off-putting elements are forbidden.
For an explicit example, a lot of people don't want explicit sexual content in their games. You probably shouldn't include that in your game if you don't know whether everyone in the game is okay with it. Of course, if another group wants sexual content, that's fine too. But you don't need it to build a setting and play the game.
Off-putting npcs? Like the ogres in runelords?
Yes, I do think the hillbilly rapist ogre thing shouldn't have been included in RotRL.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Um... Read the Beastiary write-up for ogres. "Inbred hillbilly rapist" is pretty much the official Pathfinder stance as to what they are >.>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't always play ogres that way, but I am fine with it. If the players are fighting the depraved forces of darkness, a demonstration of their vileness seems to make sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think hillbilly rapist ogres shouldn't be included in the Bestiary.
As for why I think that: statistically speaking, at least one person at your table has been raped or knows someone who has been raped. So it's insensitive to blithely include, even if it's included just to show how vile the forces of darkness are.
On light people being weak, I direct them towards Thai kickboxers. On light women being weak, I direct them to female Thai kickboxers.
In a fantasy setting the 'ardness can go even higher. The training even longer, the foes that need to be killed to survive, even more dangerous than ripped trained humans.
Grimdark settings are immersed in various types of assault and oppression. It comes with the territory. Even middle range fantasy can get pretty dark on the borders and frontiers. Raids, rape, genocide, heavy on the Balkans, low on the calming tea.
Mature themes yo, and the consequences of putting rapacious giants with a cruel streak into a world and setting. They are going to use that grapple check some of the time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You ever notice how "mature" things rarely are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my favorite settings I've played in was one where the nation's ruler, aptly called "the Mad King", was on a campaign to wipe out all elves. He, like many humans in that setting, were envious of elves and fearful of their magic. The campaign began in a concentration camp; each of the player characters was an elf, half-elf, or elf-sympathizer.
Exploring themes of racism and bigotry can be fun. I definitely wouldn't describe that setting as "tired", then again, the DM for that game knew he wouldn't be offending anyone. Each table will vary on what they find fun and exciting, and for us, taking on a tyrannical lunatic, his hateful minions, and the apathetic population was just that: fun and exciting.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of my favorite fantasy writing is pretty, (I dunno opposite of Grimdark? Sweetlight?)
Noblebright.
Sticking a few rapes in doesn't make a story or a game better.
Absolutely agreed. And this is after our WotR agreed that that subject was on the table for our campaign, after we came to a consensus on what lines wouldn't be crossed and what personal boundaries we each had. It was something the GM did not want to just spring on us.
Nooo, absolutely not. If the main adventuring area is egalitarian, good bye Robin Hood game, or the fight the established forces of evil quests. Egalitarian sameness can kill a setting. For example, Golarion is kept spicy by having truly different governments and some very strange places rather than egalitarian sameness. Not everything has to be close to us now, we are talking...That kind of thing is fine as a weird place to visit in a fantasy game. Or if your group really wants to focus on gender roles an/or overcoming them.
But it seems to me that you really want opportunities for both genders to play any role, or at least any adventuring role, without having to struggle with societies bias against it. And you probably want the main adventuring area to be pretty egalitarian. Otherwise you're either limiting a player's character options or forcing them to deal with whole gender bias thing even when they're not interested.If a player really is interested in playing out an overcoming gender stereotypes/oppression theme then it's probably best to either build a campaign world around that, while allowing the other player's choices to work without such problems, or to have that character be from and have a good deal of the campaign take place in a society with the appropriate gender roles.
Maybe I used the wrong word for egalitarian: I was talking mostly about gender or racial equality. A Robin Hood type game would be more class based, which would still pretty much require that kind of discrimination to be the focus of the game, much like an anti-slavery game would need to be. Again, fine if that's what everyone is interested in. Same with any kind of established forces of evil kind of quests. Again, focus of the game and thus presumably agreed to by the players.
More like, using a non-egalitarian, discriminatory setting as a backdrop for other adventures, not as the adventure itself, is a bad idea because it forces players to either ditch...
I am actually half way through prepping for a most unusual game, never seen it done before. At the moment the working title is Slaver: the game. Arabian setting in between Byzantium and Persia (fantasy equivalents) the players come into an unexpected inheritance, and must run a slaving operation. They bring useful skills, but they start fish out of water (none have prepped for this life before). It is up to them as to how they navigate the region and its many groups and threats, they can upgrade their villa, keep the soldiers fed and of high quality, negotiate alliances and fight off competitor and assassins. It is sure to be good, different and it is very much against the spirit of our times. Been running games for over a decade, so I am ready for something Dark Sun themed.
On light people being weak, I direct them towards Thai kickboxers. On light women being weak, I direct them to female Thai kickboxers.
In a fantasy setting the 'ardness can go even higher. The training even longer, the foes that need to be killed to survive, even more dangerous than ripped trained humans.
Grimdark settings are immersed in various types of assault and oppression. It comes with the territory. Even middle range fantasy can get pretty dark on the borders and frontiers. Raids, rape, genocide, heavy on the Balkans, low on the calming tea.
Mature themes yo, and the consequences of putting rapacious giants with a cruel streak into a world and setting. They are going to use that grapple check some of the time.
a) you don't have to play Grimdark or even Mature, whatever that actually means.
Some of my favorite fantasy writing is pretty, (I dunno opposite of Grimdark? Sweetlight?). Some is grimdark. One is not better than the other. There's good stuff in all takes. And bad.
Sticking a few rapes in doesn't make a story or a game better.As for Thai kickboxers, size and women: How well do the female Thai kickboxers so in direct competition with the males? Since smaller size and being female aren't disadvantages, I assume women regularly win both gender tournaments?
They could, of course, all kick my ass, but that's not the point.
The female kickboxers are good enough to kick around lecherous western tourists that are over 6 foot. I've seen the vids. That proves that with training and tenacity, size doesn't equal strength.
Or we can talk other lightweights like Bruce Lee, and any number of super-featherweights and lightweight boxers, martial artists or the like. Oscar De La Hoya has fought at 130 lb and 140 lb.
I actually have too many players for my games.
:''(
And too many games to run all of them. Woe is me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...On light people being weak, I direct them towards Thai kickboxers. On light women being weak, I direct them to female Thai kickboxers.
In a fantasy setting the 'ardness can go even higher. The training even longer, the foes that need to be killed to survive, even more dangerous than ripped trained humans.
Grimdark settings are immersed in various types of assault and oppression. It comes with the territory. Even middle range fantasy can get pretty dark on the borders and frontiers. Raids, rape, genocide, heavy on the Balkans, low on the calming tea.
Mature themes yo, and the consequences of putting rapacious giants with a cruel streak into a world and setting. They are going to use that grapple check some of the time.
a) you don't have to play Grimdark or even Mature, whatever that actually means.
Some of my favorite fantasy writing is Your preferences aren't a requirement.I have played with plenty of groups of young lads that didn't have a sensitive bone in their bodies. They had no time for pc nonsense (except to laugh at it) they were there to game and have fun.pretty, (I dunno opposite of Grimdark? Sweetlight?). Some is grimdark. One is not better than the other. There's good stuff in all takes. And bad.
Sticking a few rapes in doesn't make a story or a game better.As for Thai kickboxers, size and women: How well do the female Thai kickboxers so in direct competition with the males? Since smaller size and being female aren't disadvantages, I assume women regularly win both gender tournaments?
They could, of course, all kick my ass, but that's not the point.The female kickboxers are good enough to kick around lecherous western tourists that are over 6 foot. I've seen the vids. That proves that with training and tenacity, size doesn't equal strength.
Or we can talk other lightweights like Bruce Lee, and any number of super-featherweights and lightweight boxers, martial artists
Incorrect. An equally skilled man and woman (if you could ever even get such a thing, there will always be a difference in experience and training) is a contest that could go either way. Gender doesn't give you a force field against people of equal skill from other genders. You might think all is well, it will be easy, and then a kick or a thrust ruins your day, aaand you have lost. If they follow up and keep up the pressure (as old Sun Tzu recommends), a moment of advantage can turn into an easy win. This I have seen, having trained women in martial arts.
Sparring, fighting, it can really go either way. Dirty fighting and tenacity can really tip the scales. Is someone not attacking when there is an opening? Are they going for an eye gouge? Do they stab you so hard they break their weapon and your ribs? There are a lot of ways to end a fight quickly and women can use them.
In one of the vids I saw, a far smaller Asian woman kicked the larger lecherous man to the ground and kept on kicking. Pursuing advantage, dominating, ending the threat. When I see this, a female fighter/ranger/barbarian in a fantasy world chopping up a foe with a sword doesn't seem out of place to me.
|
Perhaps your belief in what the target demographic actually is isn't the same as Paizo. I don' think that Paizo considers it's core market to be misogynist scientifically ignorant chauvinists.
What if the players don't care?
That is, what if we (my players and I) wanted a more realistic representation of biological limitation - based on height, sex, whatever. Should I let people who are not playing in my game determine the level of immersion the rules are trying to present due to political correctness or female privilege?Should political correctness or influence from a group that isn't the target demogrophic for the product deterime the ruleset?
That's right because basing ability upon biological strengths and weaknesses/limitations is scientifically ignorant, chauvinist and doo-doo head propaganda.
Must be nice living in your world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nooo, absolutely not. If the main adventuring area is egalitarian, good bye Robin Hood game, or the fight the established forces of evil quests. Egalitarian sameness can kill a setting. For example, Golarion is kept spicy by having truly different governments and some very strange places rather than egalitarian sameness. Not everything has to be close to us now, we are talking...Maybe I used the wrong word for egalitarian: I was talking mostly about gender or racial equality. A Robin Hood type game would be more class based, which would still pretty much require that kind of discrimination to be the focus of the game, much like an anti-slavery game would need to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DQ's analysis is fine. And it should apply to players too when they build their PCs.
A problem that can still appear is when everyone but ONE player is comfortable with the subjects raised. It can actually lessen other players' fun if they feel that the GM is doing auto-censure on the whole setting for the sake of a single player :-/
Managing differing players' expectations is rather hard IMO. Any advice on this would be appreciated.
Discuss it with your players. I would probably talk solo with the person who is uncomfortable with the issue, and ask them if they'd be willing to discuss it with the group, and see what, if any, compromises can be made.
It can depend a lot on the attitudes of the players present and what exactly the subject matter that is causing the controversy to provide any further specific advice.
I would say that were it my group having this problem, and we hit an extreme case scenario where one player, let's call him Bob, outright refuses to play with issue X present in game, and all the other players outright insist upon playing with issue X present in game... and presuming they are otherwise being decent to each other and reasonable about understanding there is a major difference of preference... and of course presuming I really want to run a game with issue X present.... I would ask Bob to sit this one out and promise him he's got a guaranteed spot in my next game and that my next game will guaranteed contain no issue X, and that any player who brings it up will be asked to leave.
Mind, I think if anything resembling this scenario has come up in my groups, it's ended with the players who weren't made uncomfortable insisting the person who is uncomfortable stay, and that the issue causing the discomfort is removed, because the kind of people I play with would rather the players present be happy than insist upon a particular storytelling element that in all likelihood can be replaced by another anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps your belief in what the target demographic actually is isn't the same as Paizo. I don' think that Paizo considers it's core market to be misogynist scientifically ignorant chauvinists.
What if the players don't care?
That is, what if we (my players and I) wanted a more realistic representation of biological limitation - based on height, sex, whatever. Should I let people who are not playing in my game determine the level of immersion the rules are trying to present due to political correctness or female privilege?Should political correctness or influence from a group that isn't the target demogrophic for the product deterime the ruleset?
That's right because basing ability upon biological strengths and weaknesses/limitations is scientifically ignorant, chauvinist and doo-doo head propaganda.
Must be nice living in your world.
Except how do you model those differences in stats? Certainly there would be no difference in things like wisdom, intelligence, and charisma. I suppose women might have better con (what with women on average living longer plus that whole child birth thing) and men better strength...but those are only general trends. There are plenty of men who are not very strong and plenty of women who have above average strength. I am sure there are plenty of guys that have high pain thresholds or live longer than average lives. So by reflecting hardcoding those sorts of male/female differences in the game, you are actually making it less realistic
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't have a problem with a higher cap for male humans on strength and a bonus to female humans on con - since we are talking about averages a +1 to a 10 doesn't amount to much for either gender. I take issue with people who spasm/spittle rage for suggesting that males of certain species may be stronger or females of another being larger, etc - all on the premise that it would be offensive to quantify those differences.
That's all
A dm can always flavour a setting as they please. +1 charisma for coming from the city of the seven sighs.
I wouldn't have a problem with a higher cap for male humans on strength and a bonus to female humans on con - since we are talking about averages a +1 to a 10 doesn't amount to much for either gender. I take issue with people who spasm/spittle rage for suggesting that males of certain species may be stronger or females of another being larger, etc - all on the premise that it would be offensive to quantify those differences.
That's all
That doesn't feel like it's been a major point in the thread. I haven't seen much arguing that different species may have different stats or that some species might be sexually dimorphic. RAW Orcs in general have greater strength, and the Lashunta have different stats for male and female. The problem is then trying to apply that to human ethnicities/gender/etc. For a lot of people (specially those into optimization), giving different stats to men versus women can come off as weird or limiting, or even a bit bigoted.
Obviously you can do anything you want in your own game with your players. I won't say your are having badwrong fun. But some of those aspects are turn offs to some players, and they have just as much right to those beliefs as any other
Regarding physical ability scores, it is interesting to look at maximums for humans. Say, sports at elite competitions. There is NO sport where women outshine men. Not strength-based, not precision- or speed-based, and not stamina-based. Take a look if you doubt this. Rather obviously, then, male human maximums are significantly above female.
Now, a simple bonus to one ability score isn't related only to maximums, but also to trends. It seems likely that longer lifespans correlate to a higher constitution. Let us just conclude that a simple, equally large bell curve for all stats is not likely. A somewhat more appropriate modifier could be something like "+1 to Con below 15"... But honestly, does it matter? People want to play a certain character, but they won't, if there are certain penalties attached. Again, we are playing fantasy games, with exceptional characters. It is worth far more to let them shine than to have a semi-accurate description of real life in a non-existent time period.
Oh, and lest I forget: Childbirth is a very exceptional situation. It should not be the basis for general stat modifiers, ever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DQ's analysis is fine. And it should apply to players too when they build their PCs.
A problem that can still appear is when everyone but ONE player is comfortable with the subjects raised. It can actually lessen other players' fun if they feel that the GM is doing auto-censure on the whole setting for the sake of a single player :-/
Managing differing players' expectations is rather hard IMO. Any advice on this would be appreciated.
There's two ways to go about it.
1) Ahead of time you can talk with the group and determine what the tone and expectations will be for the game. If you're going to deal with weighty issues, talk about it so people come prepared.
2) If things come up unexpectedly, I would err on the side of the lower threshold. If no one at the table (except the GM) knew that rape was going to be an issue, it comes up and makes someone uncomfortable, just end that scene/description and move on. Once the game is over, between sessions, you can go back to method 1 to resolve the issue.
As for settling the issue between competing views, I can't really tell you how to do that. People just have to figure out which is more important: a game exactly how they want it, or including certain people at the table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You ever notice how "mature" things rarely are.
Pretty much this, right here. 'Mature' and 'adult' seem to be buzzwords used by advertisers to attract those who are neither (since they can't come out and say 'this softcore porn / R-rated slasher flick / bottle of booze is being marketed towards 13 year olds').
As for the base question,
Q: 'Do modern values have place in fantasy game?'
A: 'Only if you want to game with modern human beings. If your players come from a time period, or are of a creature type, where other genders or races or cultures are to be treated as chattel or prey or 'lesser,' then go for it.'
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That leads to the question, why do modern human beings have to play modern human beings that think like modern human beings?
That doesn't sound very fantastical to me.