You made a lot of good points here. But I find that the problem isnt really with the creators of the content.
It's the consumers.
So, to clarify, the problem we're speaking of is the lack of diversity in RPG materials. And that problem exists because the people that purchase the materials don't want to buy products with materials that feature characters that do not look like them.
Did I correctly understand this part?
That's my take on it, yes. As I said I see this not only in RPG's but in comics and film as well.
thejeff is right in that I usually do play characters at least a little like me. I certainly could explore Quadira (think like the Middle East at the time of the Ottoman Empire) or Mwangi (basically Africa) as a native but I don't know what it's like to be African or Middle Eastern today or even back then really.Interesting. I'm usually the GM, and I have GMed campaigns that take place in a variety of settings. From campaigns similar to ancient Egypt and one set in a vaguely middle-eastern world. In my own campaign world I have a pseudo-feudal Japan area, a pseudo-Roman area, etc.
I am definitely not an expert on Japan or the Rome that I based those areas off of (aside from reading things and playing games set in a similar context.) That has never stopped me from creating content based on those areas.
As as player, it never occurred to me not to play a character from pseudo-Africa or pseudo-Persia even though I've never been there myself. You just use your imagination and come up with a character that makes sense.
And more power to you. I'm not a GM really but when I have tried I usually go for nations I know better like Ireland and Germany because I have extensively studied their history. My knowledge of pre-colonial Africa is very limited and that is a failing on my part.
I just get nervous about stereotyping when playing the unfamiliar. I have enough of an idea of Rome to play an ancient Roman. My knowledge of Pre-Modern Arabia owes more to Aladdin than actual history.
this plays a role as well. With modern sensibilities, a reliance upon or even acceptance of a stereotype is verboten. People are being encouraged to either become qualified experts on what they are writing about or stick with what they know, and when youre a white guy who likes fantasy, that means eurocentric fantasy.
I read it as a more general response to the thread in general. That quoted line was definitely in response to a particular accusation thrown at Inner Heru.
Did you take the whole post as directed at one person?
Thank you.
Requesting more diversity is good. Explaining why it is in everyone's interest to do so, even better. Threatening to start boycotts if someone doesn't agree to your request changes it into a demand, and that is bad. It is better to support those companies that produce products you agree with than it is to attack/shame those that don't.
There is no reason to attack said creator. That damages your cause more than helps it and it's flat out wrong. Unless it's Michael Bay, kick that dude in the butt if you see him. *nod nods*. However it is not wrong to vote with the only tools as consumer that really matters, your money. Akira is one of the greatest if not the greatest animated film to do, the few that rival it are made by the same man. Dragon Ball Z may have been the world's most well known anime. I did not see either live action film. My friend's did not see either film and nobody I know paid to see the film.
Same thing with The Last Airbender and it will be the same with TMNT and Exodus. Do I feel they do not have the right to make films? No I do not. Do I feel it is a demand to ask them to be inclusive or even better not to try to drain the "color" out of the property? Nope.
Do I demand that they stop all that nonsense, do I demand that if they want my money or the money of people who DO care about such that they change the product? Oh yes. I demand that and that is NOT bad.
Again I want to repeat this part because I do not want what I type to be twisted into something I did not say....
I fully support the right to publish anything you want in any way you want. With whoever you want to include or exclude. I fully support that right. I also support the right to starve exclusion out of the culture by denying it MY money and the money of people who care about such matters. I am not going around knocking out people in line to see Transformers 2 and taking their money from them. I am saying to people of the same leaning, "Yeah let us not support this train wreck. The best tool to stop people like this is cutting off their funds. Show them that a large segment of their target consumer base is done being ignored no matter the excuse made up.".
I do agree in a major way with something else you wrote pres man. Support what you do like. Do not pirate it. Do not wait for others to buy it so you can play. All should chip in. Me? I hate Dwarves they annoy me as a race (now you can call me Racist) and it's a running joke that I will have to play one as punishment one day in my group. I own Dwarves of Golarion. I purchased a book I may never need because Paizo made it and Paizo includes not just me but everyone they can think of to their world. I could put up a thank you post and I have. I also tell my friends that dislike D&D to give Pathfinder a try. I encouraged players to buy books that can give them background on their characters.
So I do agree with that point pres but one course of action does not exclude the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this plays a role as well. With modern sensibilities, a reliance upon or even acceptance of a stereotype is verboten. People are being encouraged to either become qualified experts on what they are writing about or stick with what they know, and when youre a white guy who likes fantasy, that means eurocentric fantasy.
That is the problem. A White Guy or Any Guy should not have to be come an expert in a culture just to play a game like Pathfinder. You are dead on about this. I am no expert on Dragons, Daemons, Unicorns, Transgenders or the Paladins that love them but I do not feel pressure to be nor does anyone else because they are all over fantasy writing and games and other forms of entertainment. My Mother knows what an elf is and RPGs/Fantasy is ridiculous to her. That is because they are everywhere...okay that Transgender and the Paladin is just Paizo but you get what I mean.
A more inclusive game and setting would not require future players of this game to be knocked off their feet when a Black Character shows up or freeze when trying to image where the non-white elf came from or better yet, a kid will not be asked why all his characters are white because he would have seen all of it reading and watching the genre.
Oh yeah mean the rear cover art of the Bone Gnawers tribe book from Werewolf 2nd Ed.?
this plays a role as well. With modern sensibilities, a reliance upon or even acceptance of a stereotype is verboten. People are being encouraged to either become qualified experts on what they are writing about or stick with what they know, and when youre a white guy who likes fantasy, that means eurocentric fantasy.That is the problem. A White Guy or Any Guy should not have to be come an expert in a culture just to play a game like Pathfinder. You are dead on about this. I am no expert on Dragons, Daemons, Unicorns, Transgenders or the Paladins that love them but I do not feel pressure to be nor does anyone else because they are all over fantasy writing and games and other forms of entertainment. My Mother knows what an elf is and RPGs/Fantasy is ridiculous to her. That is because they are everywhere...okay that Transgender and the Paladin is just Paizo but you get what I mean.
A more inclusive game and setting would not require future players of this game to be knocked off their feet when a Black Character shows up or freeze when trying to image where the non-white elf came from or better yet, a kid will not be asked why all his characters are white because he would have seen all of it reading and watching the genre.
There's been a problem on this thread about equating dark-skinned people and elves and I kinda want that to stop.
I don't worry about offending dragons by confusing their colors. I also read up and became knowledgeable about elves, dragons, Demons, etc. before playing the game. Becoming an expert on Pre-colonial Africa and Pre-modern Middle Eastern history and culture requires a lot more.
I don't need to be an expert but I get annoyed when people fall back on stereotypes about fictional races in fantasy RPGs; I can't imagine how bad it must be for a Middle Eastern person to see that.
Personally I don't see how a nation of Black people or Arabic people is less inclusive. I kinda see it as more inclusive because it's representing their historical and cultural heritage just like mine is in every fantasy work ever. I love seeing fantasy Britain and Italy all over the place and I was really happy with Andoran representing my country. Why can't someone who's Egyptian see something like Osirion?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's been a problem on this thread about equating dark-skinned people and elves and I kinda want that to stop.
That may have been my fault for mentioning Elfquest, but the comic series has dark skinned elves. Wendy Pini described having an african-american fan at a convention ask why there weren't any black elves, and answering "You, sir, are going to enjoy the color collections very much!"
This whole thread is weird. I feel like we've gone from the OP describing how he hadn't accounted for persons of color in his homebrew campaign (I think that's pretty common for white GMs, and it's one of those you-realize-it-if-slash-when-you-realize-it situations) to a blow back of, "You can't to make me imagine black people!"
You misunderstood me.
I was not equating the two. I was pointing out that they are nothing alike, that one is a fantastic made up creature of imagination and they are more accepted and "believable" to some people than a non-white in their game world. My point is in line with what I think you were trying to say to me just now.
You read up on Dragons and the like because they were included in the hobby, they were in the films along with your elves that is the point. Of course becoming an expert on Africa before the invasion takes a lot more. That is also why you are not an expert on Dragons, it would take a lot more than opening an RPG or watching LotR.
You point out that you do not need to become an expert and you do not want to fall on stereotypes and that is grand! I'm just saying that if there was more exposure to people of different types in fantasy you would not know more about a Dragon, a fictional creature that never lived, than you do about a Human with skin a shade other than your own.
As a side note this is not an attack, text is hard to express meaning and tone at times. Larkos I for one am thankful that you even gave a thought to how your RPing or GMing could be taken the wrong way. It shows care and thanks for that.
Hitdice I just laughed. :D
Oh yeah mean the rear cover art of the Bone Gnawers tribe book from Werewolf 2nd Ed.?
one of my all time favorites. I truly love werewolf, and I would not be here if not for that book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's been a problem on this thread about equating dark-skinned people and elves and I kinda want that to stop.That may have been my fault for mentioning Elfquest, but the comic series has dark skinned elves. Wendy Pini described having an african-american fan at a convention ask why there weren't any black elves, and answering "You, sir, are going to enjoy the color collections very much!"
This whole thread is weird. I feel like we've gone from the OP describing how he hadn't accounted for persons of color in his homebrew campaign (I think that's pretty common for white GMs, and it's one of those you-realize-it-if-slash-when-you-realize-it situations) to a blow back of, "You can't to make me imagine black people!"
FORWARD NUBIAN LIGHT INFANTRY! KUSHITE HEAVY INFANTRY, SUPPORT THEM! WE ARE TAKING THIS IMAGINATION BEACHHEAD!
I read it as a more general response to the thread in general. That quoted line was definitely in response to a particular accusation thrown at Inner Heru.
Did you take the whole post as directed at one person?
Thank you.
Requesting more diversity is good. Explaining why it is in everyone's interest to do so, even better. Threatening to start boycotts if someone doesn't agree to your request changes it into a demand, and that is bad. It is better to support those companies that produce products you agree with than it is to attack/shame those that don't.There is no reason to attack said creator. That damages your cause more than helps it and it's flat out wrong. Unless it's Michael Bay, kick that dude in the butt if you see him. *nod nods*.
I see we cannot be friends, Heru.....
thejeff is right in that I usually do play characters at least a little like me. I certainly could explore Quadira (think like the Middle East at the time of the Ottoman Empire) or Mwangi (basically Africa) as a native but I don't know what it's like to be African or Middle Eastern today or even back then really. I get a little uncomfortable playing someone who is completely unlike me. Though my point above really was that I like the Stranger in a Strange Land archetype and I would like to play it. I don't really know what that's like because I'm straight, white, and a man and the few times I've been out of my home country has been to majority-white nations in Europe.
Why?
I assume you have no issue playing a elf or a dwarf or a gnome or halfing, etc. Why be uncomfortable being a Mwangi or Garundi or Keleshite?
The only difference is elves and dwarves are fantasy and Mwangi or Garundi are similar to real world cultures.
But, Mwangi is NOT Africa. Quadira is NOT the Arab Middle East. Sure, there is some cultural similarities, probably so that players can relate to a culture from real world point of view, but the intent of the designers was not to cookie cut Vikings to make Ulfen, or cookie cut Eygptians to make Osirians. It may look like that at first blush but it has been stated by the designers that they have taken familiar real world cultures as inspiration to make Golarion analogs and have attempted to make those Golarion cultures unique.
So, you don't have to understand African culture or Middle East culture to play a Mwangi or Garundi or Keleshite. Because Mwangi is NOT Africa it is Mwangi, just as Osirion is not Egypt, it is Osirion.
Read the relevant sections off the Wiki if you don't have the relevant player companion books or guides and don't sweat if you are doing it right if you decide to play a Mwangi character.
Basically, most people play elves as pointy eared humans. And dwarves as short humans with Scottish or Irish accents. Most people don't complain about those characterizations. The game is meant to be fun.
So what is fundamentally wrong with playing a Mwangi as a human with a dark skin tone. There is no rule saying you must play a Mwangi like a African from sub-Saharan Africa, nor a Keleshite like a Persian, unless that is how you want to play that character.
Believe it or not, in one campaign, the DM actually told me I was playing my dwarf wrong since his point of view was dwarf = short human with a Scottish accent, and I was playing my dwarf more like a Klingon (obsessed with honor, will not brook any insult, warlike, which is how the DM himself stated the dwarves in that campaign were like). Go figure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see we cannot be friends, Heru.....
So alone....
Scots aren't obsessed with honor? I've been watching too much Rob Roy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my Nigerian friend comes over and I explain to him Pathfinder and he grows excited, wants to play, and starts generating a character, should I really tell him his PC's skin has to be white if he picks an elf or a dwarf? Or worse still, if he picks a black-skinned elf, that his culture is evil and he's going to be hated by bystanders?
I'm sorry. I can't do it.
Let him and all other players pick their ethnicity, skin color, race, whatever-you-want-to-call-it without restriction, whether they're playing a dwarf, elf, human, gnome, or halfling.
Scots aren't obsessed with honor? I've been watching too much Rob Roy.
That is how the DM thought dwarves were like for him - short Scots with names like Thorin Shieldsmasher instead of Rob Roy, but no kilts.
I refused to do the scottish accent as it was so, so old.
I speak passable Klingon and it is so much more butch to my ears than Gaelic, which I know a smattering of.
Actually, the other players loved how I played my dwarf. As one put it - 'finally, something other than short human with a god awful scottish accent'
thejeff is right in that I usually do play characters at least a little like me. I certainly could explore Quadira (think like the Middle East at the time of the Ottoman Empire) or Mwangi (basically Africa) as a native but I don't know what it's like to be African or Middle Eastern today or even back then really. I get a little uncomfortable playing someone who is completely unlike me. Though my point above really was that I like the Stranger in a Strange Land archetype and I would like to play it. I don't really know what that's like because I'm straight, white, and a man and the few times I've been out of my home country has been to majority-white nations in Europe.Why?
I assume you have no issue playing a elf or a dwarf or a gnome or halfing, etc. Why be uncomfortable being a Mwangi or Garundi or Keleshite?
The only difference is elves and dwarves are fantasy and Mwangi or Garundi are similar to real world cultures.
But, Mwangi is NOT Africa. Quadira is NOT the Arab Middle East. Sure, there is some cultural similarities, probably so that players can relate to a culture from real world point of view, but the intent of the designers was not to cookie cut Vikings to make Ulfen, or cookie cut Eygptians to make Osirians. It may look like that at first blush but it has been stated by the designers that they have taken familiar real world cultures as inspiration to make Golarion analogs and have attempted to make those Golarion cultures unique.
So, you don't have to understand African culture or Middle East culture to play a Mwangi or Garundi or Keleshite. Because Mwangi is NOT Africa it is Mwangi, just as Osirion is not Egypt, it is Osirion.
Read the relevant sections off the Wiki if you don't have the relevant player companion books or guides and don't sweat if you are doing it right if you decide to play a Mwangi character.
You are right about Mwangi not being Africa and so on. I'm expressing a personal discomfort here. I understand if that makes me the weird one and I wouldn't ban or look down on anyone not playing their race.
I like taking the info from the Wiki and expanding on it. Like, if I play a Cheliaxian, I'll incorporate British Colonialist sensibilities and, if I did a play-by-post or that, I'd spell things in the British way like honour and colour. I don't think I could do that with a Mwangi or a Garundi.
I can still do that with a Dwarf or Elf because they are fictional. If I modify a few things, no one I play with really cares. I woulda looked at your GM like he grew a second head if he told me I'm "playing the Dwarf wrong." Just look at the Dwarven iconic!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Qapla'....laddie."
Scots aren't obsessed with honor? I've been watching too much Rob Roy.That is how the DM thought dwarves were like for him - short Scots with names like Thorin Shieldsmasher instead of Rob Roy, but no kilts.
I refused to do the scottish accent as it was so, so old.
I speak passable Klingon and it is so much more butch to my ears than Gaelic, which I know a smattering of.
Actually, the other players loved how I played my dwarf. As one put it - 'finally, something other than short human with a god awful scottish accent'
No kilts?! That does not sound like an all-ages table! :P
Seriously, I'm always happier as a GM when a player runs with it, instead of relying on trite characterization. (Dare I ask what accent he demanded from the elf PCs?)
That's my take on it, yes. As I said I see this not only in RPG's but in comics and film as well.
I agree that this is definitely a motivating factor. As the population of the USA changes, I imagine we'll be seeing more and more non-white main characters in books / tv shows / movies.
If my Nigerian friend comes over and I explain to him Pathfinder and he grows excited, wants to play, and starts generating a character, should I really tell him his PC's skin has to be white if he picks an elf or a dwarf?
That depends, what do the elves and dwarves look like in your campaign world? If you're playing a campaign world where black elves and dwarves exist, you're all set. If you're homebrewing and you haven't constructed the races to that level of detail, you could simply state that there are elves and dwarves of all various skin tones.
A lot more people play TTRPGs casually these days. The kick-in-the-door style. In that kind of style, it makes sense to allow the players whatever freedoms they want.
If you're playing a campaign world that has hundreds to thousands of hours put into that has already made a lot of these decisions, then certain facets of character customization may not be available to the players.
Much in the same way that if I describe a stone age type campaign and I disallow the gunslinger class, if I put together a campaign based on a pre-colonial Africa I would disallow white humans.
If a player cannot get into the game because their character isn't the same skin tone as them, then they're probably not going to be a great role player anyhow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much in the same way that if I describe a stone age type campaign and I disallow the gunslinger class, if I put together a campaign based on a pre-colonial Africa I would disallow white humans.
But then it's that persons prerogative NOT to play in your game if it does not afford them the character type that they want to play. As someone who pretty much GM's almost exclusively I'm not going to run a game that my player's aren't interested in.
And as a player my opportunities and time are extremely limited so I'm not going to play in a game where I cant play the character type that I want to. Now I can understand certain class limitations. But when you start limiting what my imaginary character is going to look like? That becomes an issue of agency being removed from the player.
If a player cannot get into the game because their character isn't the same skin tone as them, then they're probably not going to be a great role player anyhow.
That was completely unnecessary.
But then it's that persons prerogative NOT to play in your game if it does not afford them the character type that they want to play.
Of course - no one is forced to play in any campaign that they don't want to. Did I somehow imply otherwise?
As the usual GM of the game, do you get together with all of your players, all collectively agree on the type of campaign you're going to play, and then you go off and create content?
For me, I throw out a very generic idea of a campaign to gauge interest (such as stone age campaign.) If the players seem interested, I spend a lot of time creating content, making decisions and race/class limitations, etc.
I then create the world, interesting areas, main NPCs, etc, etc, etc. Then when the first session comes about, I present the character creation rules to the players and we all go from there. I haven't had much in the way of complaints when it comes to limitations.
But when you start limiting what my imaginary character is going to look like? That becomes an issue of agency being removed from the player.
I understand your viewpoint, but there are certain limitations that help reinforce the concept of the campaign world. At the end of the day, your character must make sense in the campaign world, and in homebrew, the campaign world is created by the GM.
Being one of the players that says something like "My character doesn't come from around here so none of this stuff applies to him," is a cop out.
That was completely unnecessary.
I don't think so. Role playing is about imagining a character that is not you in a fantasy world. If someone has to change the campaign world to make a race look like what they look like in real life, I'd question if they're understanding that their character is NOT them.
In my own games, generic humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings are blends of all RW ethnicities. Which can lead to just about any variation of offspring. Sure some areas/communities will tend to have a specific genotype, but that is more due to close family relations in the area. Small community with 500 people, just about everyone is related to everyone else if you go back far enough.
I include the following paragraph in my game description:
"Individuals of all of the [standard] races can be found with very different shades of skin, hair color, eye color, heights, and weights, the following descriptions are of the most common example of each race only. Most races do not discriminate on the basis of individual superficial differences within their own race, given the very significant differences between races. That is, a dwarf with dusky skin isn’t likely to look down on a dwarf with lighter colored skin, but is likely to look down on an elf even if it also has dusky colored skin."
Also I might note that RW black people are not actually "black" anymore than RW white people are "white". Drow are actually "black" and not merely dark brown (like RW black people). Drows have a color that is "unnatural" and are not confused with more natural dark skinned elves. I also have some various other "unnatural" colors drow can have, including indigo and violet. In fact all of the humanoid races tend to have a bit of a spectrum of colors they can have. Only the standard five tend to have normal RW human skin tones though.
"Qapla'....laddie."
But then it's that persons prerogative NOT to play in your game if it does not afford them the character type that they want to play.Of course - no one is forced to play in any campaign that they don't want to. Did I somehow imply otherwise?
As the usual GM of the game, do you get together with all of your players, all collectively agree on the type of campaign you're going to play, and then you go off and create content?
For me, I throw out a very generic idea of a campaign to gauge interest (such as stone age campaign.) If the players seem interested, I spend a lot of time creating content, making decisions and race/class limitations, etc.
I then create the world, interesting areas, main NPCs, etc, etc, etc. Then when the first session comes about, I present the character creation rules to the players and we all go from there. I haven't had much in the way of complaints when it comes to limitations.
But when you start limiting what my imaginary character is going to look like? That becomes an issue of agency being removed from the player.I understand your viewpoint, but there are certain limitations that help reinforce the concept of the campaign world. At the end of the day, your character must make sense in the campaign world, and in homebrew, the campaign world is created by the GM.
Being one of the players that says something like "My character doesn't come from around here so none of this stuff applies to him," is a cop out.
That was completely unnecessary.I don't think so. Role playing is about imagining a character that is not you in a fantasy world. If someone has to change the campaign world to make a race look like what they look like in real life, I'd question if they're understanding that their character is NOT them.
Roleplaying is about HAVING FUN playing a character that is not you in ANY sort of world.
To dictate otherwise kinda defeats the purpose of playing. If I'm a brown skinned guy who wants to play a brown skinned guy as a character who is way stronger and knows how to use a sword and cast spells somehow I dont understand that that character is NOT me? This is what youre saying?
If I'm a brown skinned guy who wants to play a brown skinned guy as a character who is way stronger and knows how to use a sword and cast spells somehow I dont understand that that character is NOT me? This is what youre saying?
Nope - I'm saying if you can ONLY play a brown-skinned guy when you yourself are brown-skinned, to the point that every elf, dwarf, gnome, tengu, catfolk, ifrit, undine, etc, etc, etc you play must be brown-skinned, then I'd be concerned if you were one of my players.
People not understanding the separation between player and character can result in people getting really hurt feelings when bad things happen to their characters in game. Not interested in going through all that again.
If I'm a brown skinned guy who wants to play a brown skinned guy as a character who is way stronger and knows how to use a sword and cast spells somehow I dont understand that that character is NOT me? This is what youre saying?Nope - I'm saying if you can ONLY play a brown-skinned guy when you yourself are brown-skinned, to the point that every elf, dwarf, gnome, tengu, catfolk, ifrit, undine, etc, etc, etc you play must be brown-skinned, then I'd be concerned if you were one of my players.
People not understanding the separation between player and character can result in people getting really hurt feelings when bad things happen to their characters in game. Not interested in going through all that again.
Wanting to a play a dark-skinned elf because you're dark-skinned and don't see enough people who look like you in fantasy is different than being unable to separate character and player in my mind.
Making a character in Pathfinder is like writing one in a book: there's a part of you in each character. Even if you a straight, white male playing a female, bisexual, transgender Gnome, a part of you is there because what you think of all those things is there. It can be fun as a roleplaying challenge if you have an understanding group but if you mess up than it can get offensive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If my Nigerian friend comes over and I explain to him Pathfinder and he grows excited, wants to play, and starts generating a character, should I really tell him his PC's skin has to be white if he picks an elf or a dwarf?That depends, what do the elves and dwarves look like in your campaign world?
The thing is, it's never my campaign world. It's ours. This isn't a solo hobby. I need to create something that caters to those who want to play--something we can both be happy with.
If I'm not doing that, then frankly, I'm a terrible GM.
Much in the same way that if I put together a campaign based on a pre-colonial Africa I would disallow white humans.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of ways a white person would have ended up in pre-colonial Africa. I can think of five off the top of my head. Shipwreck, first-contact explorer, teleportation, albinism, isolated valley of pale-skins.
Plus, even if you do have pretty rigorous guidelines of who lives where and what they look like, heroes are always exceptions to the rules. That's part of what makes them heroic. If they were just like everyone else, they'd mostly be 1st-level commoners with a single skill point in Profession (subsistence farming). It's fine to have fully fleshed-out gazetteers and guidelines for a campaign world, but working with characters to see that their character concept works in the world you've created is not only necessary to attract players and keep their interest but is also part of the fun of world creation.
But the larger point I want to make about this entire thread is that minority races have been getting the shaft for the better part of the last half millennium. Let's not perpetuate it in a hobby of fictional worlds where almost anything can happen. Create a space for players to make the characters they want to make.
Frowning on a particular race because it doesn't fit in your world(view) means you should probably just change your world(view).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope - I'm saying if you can ONLY play a brown-skinned guy when you yourself are brown-skinned, to the point that every elf, dwarf, gnome, tengu, catfolk, ifrit, undine, etc, etc, etc you play must be brown-skinned, then I'd be concerned if you were one of my players.
That's funny because I know a heck of a lot of white players who have only ever made white characters and no one ever even batted an eye.
I did not get the impression that a single person here did not understand the separation of IC/OOC and I am again unsure where you are getting some of the things you have been putting out into this discussion.
The topic is about more inclusion into the hobby so why would anyone read that as excluding anything but so called brown-skinned depictions? Unless I missed a post I do not think that was anyone's point. What are you seeing that makes you think this way?
If my Nigerian friend comes over and I explain to him Pathfinder and he grows excited, wants to play, and starts generating a character, should I really tell him his PC's skin has to be white if he picks an elf or a dwarf?That depends, what do the elves and dwarves look like in your campaign world?The thing is, it's never my campaign world. It's ours. This isn't a solo hobby. I need to create something that caters to those who want to play--something we can both be happy with.
If I'm not doing that, then frankly, I'm a terrible GM.
This. Lots and lots and yet a little more of this.
If I'm a brown skinned guy who wants to play a brown skinned guy as a character who is way stronger and knows how to use a sword and cast spells somehow I dont understand that that character is NOT me? This is what youre saying?Nope - I'm saying if you can ONLY play a brown-skinned guy when you yourself are brown-skinned, to the point that every elf, dwarf, gnome, tengu, catfolk, ifrit, undine, etc, etc, etc you play must be brown-skinned, then I'd be concerned if you were one of my players.
People not understanding the separation between player and character can result in people getting really hurt feelings when bad things happen to their characters in game. Not interested in going through all that again.
Okay.
But this is in no way what we're talking about. Now you're going into Dark Dungeons territory?
Okay...
I am too sleepy to look through thread and check for links... Have anyone linked >>this article<< already?
Nope - I'm saying if you can ONLY play a brown-skinned guy when you yourself are brown-skinned, to the point that every elf, dwarf, gnome, tengu, catfolk, ifrit, undine, etc, etc, etc you play must be brown-skinned, then I'd be concerned if you were one of my players.That's funny because I know a heck of a lot of white players who have only ever made white characters and no one ever even batted an eye.
LOL. I wanted to throw this out there but I'm glad someone else did...
The thing is, it's never my campaign world. It's ours. This isn't a solo hobby. I need to create something that caters to those who want to play--something we can both be happy with.
Have to disagree with you. The campaign is ours; it belongs to the players and the GM. The campaign world belongs to the person(s) that created the campaign world.
I've played in Forgotten Realms, but I certainly do not own it, nor would I ever imply that I had a hand in designing it.
I'm pretty sure there are plenty of ways a white person would have ended up in pre-colonial Africa. I can think of five off the top of my head. Shipwreck, first-contact explorer, teleportation, albinism, isolated valley of pale-skins.
thejeff already eluded to this, but one of the themes of the campaign world might be an isolated society. Incorporating an outsider ruins that theme.
Plus, even if you do have pretty rigorous guidelines of who lives where and what they look like, heroes are always exceptions to the rules.
My view is that the heroes of the world are heroic based on their actions, not based on some contrived back story. In certain campaigns, anything can go. In other campaigns, there are certain restrictions.
Create a space for players to make the characters they want to make.
Some campaigns are like that. As thejeff has been referring to, the kitchen sink style game. Another method is for everyone to sit down at the table and create the campaign world together. Another is to run a module in a generic setting that allows for whatever.
All of those are acceptable, as is playing in a campaign world that has restrictions on racial options, the appearance of the races, their general personality, how they are viewed by the other races, etc.
Yes and no. Though I do agree we're drifting away from the "minority races getting the shaft" topic at hand and drifting more into the general "Must I include anything players want?" topic, so I won't go much farther with this.
That's true - if the intent of the thread is only to discuss the ways in which minorities are not being represented in images and options available, then I'm definitely off-topic.
Restricted settings, focused around a concept are great fun too. You trade the openness of the kitchen sink setting for the ability to focus on that one concept without the distraction of all the rest of the things available in the game. Of course, any particular concept isn't for everyone and you have to make sure everyone actually buys into what you want to run.
If someone's bought into the game concept and then proposes a character that doesn't fit, then it's time to figure out whether he'd really bought in or misunderstood what the idea was or if it was really under protest and he wasn't really interested in the concept. That may lead to him changing his concept, you modifying yours to fit him or dropping the idea and playing something else entirely.
I agree with you here. Certain campaigns have a concept going into it. However, I think most homebrew campaigns are somewhere between kitchen sink and restricted settings. It's not an either-or. And even a setting as developed as Forgotten Realms has some room for adaptation given a certain group's needs. Heck, you could keep one-half of FR and completely transform the rest if that's what your group wants. Publishers, smublishers.
Here's what I don't understand. In all the settings I've seen, I simply do not see why otherwise typical campaigns limit ethnicity. We keep throwing around Africa as an example (and I might add there were white people even in pre-colonial Africa, just not in any great numbers), but the OP was about Europe.
So, let's go there: Europe analogues--the default setting for most fantasy RPGs. It might be tempting to say that you can't play a black character in not!Europe. But it's historically inaccurate about just about any stage of its history to say there were no people of color there. Small in number, sure. But with Moors in the Iberian peninsula, blacks in England, Chinese traders in the Italian courts, and Romani just about everywhere, certainly not unknown or invisible. So we can toss out historical verisimilitude as a reason.
It might be tempting to say that dwarves and halflings cannot be black. But that's just silly. These are fictional races we're talking about. Why couldn't they be black? It doesn't endanger any historical model any more than white halflings or dwarves do. So the other fantasy races not having lots of different shades also doesn't work as a reason.
A GM might just have never thought of how black people fit into his or her fictional world, as the OP did. Well, there's probably an easy way to include them. A significant oversight, but by no means insurmountable. Even the most developed campaign setting has some unexplored or underdeveloped regions on the map.
So, what exactly, when using a Europe-analog setting, is keeping GMs from including several ethnicities? It seems to arbitrary to say, "Your character must be x color."
EDIT: And since skin color has no bearing on game mechanics (or shouldn't), we can throw that reason out the window too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An occasional restricted setting can be fun, but that's different from:
1) Always running the same restricted setting when you know that one of your players really wants to play something outside that setting.
2) Defaulting to Euro-inspired settings more ethnically restricted than real-life Europe was, without the specific intent to play a game with themes of isolation or cultural sameness.
3) Dismissing a player's preference to play a character who is ethnically like them. It can be fun and enlightening to play characters who are very different from you, but it's also empowering to play a character who reflects your personal history or identity in some way, especially if you find that there is a scarcity of those characters in general media.
For a slight shift in perspective, imagine that you are playing with a female gamer who wants to play a female character. Do you think it is acceptable to constantly play games that are officially or unofficially set in patriarchal cultures where female heroes are nonexistent or constantly harassed by males? Would you say that a female player who complains about this state of affairs is being uncreative or a bad roleplayer?
I am too sleepy to look through thread and check for links... Have anyone linked >>this article<< already?
Yes.
Otherwise, do we actually have anyone on record as saying "Your character must be X color"? Outside of intentionally restricted game ideas.
Outside of intentionally restricted game ideas? Well, any restriction on ethnicity would be an intentional campaign restriction. So, in that sense, yes. In this very thread. A lot.
Example:
if I put together a campaign based on a pre-colonial Africa I would disallow white humans.
Is that what you meant?
Side note: Chinese traders in the Italian courts? Do you have a reference for that and what time period are we talking about?
Yes.
That was completely unnecessary.
If a player cannot get into the game because their character isn't the same skin tone as them, then they're probably not going to be a great role player anyhow.
It's just goofy.
And Wagner was a piss poor composer because he damn sure wouldn't write about Rabi Loew and the Golem, right?