|
I'm not asking for guidance on this specific case, I'm asking for guidance on the general situation where I cannot simulultaneously follow the PFS and Convention rules
Thats a bit of a left turn from this thread isn't it? I mean normally I'm ambivalent to curious about thread derailment but this is a little serious for that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not asking for guidance on this specific case, I'm asking for guidance on the general situation where I cannot simulultaneously follow the PFS and Convention rulesIf you made a document that could cover not just that one specific corner case , but every corner case that is that rare, it would be a phone book.
There is such a thing as following the rules so closely to the letter that you stop allowing for the human element.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not asking for guidance on this specific case, I'm asking for guidance on the general situation where I cannot simulultaneously follow the PFS and Convention rules
I think the point is, every situation is different and no set of rules is going to be able to tell you exactly how to proceed. We can only provide guidance on the intentions of the rules and then its left up to us to make the decision in real time. If we could codify these types of things not only would the Guide be enormous, but there would be little need for community leaders like VO. We are not going to make a rule that says, "you must follow every single rule of OP both written and understood to the letter of the law, no exceptions," nor are we going to say, "any time the OP rules interfere with convention rules, local gaming group regulations, or are simply in the way of a fun time, ignore them."
In the case of a problem arising that you are not sure how to handle, escalate it through the VO corps as far as is necessary to get a meaningful response, eventually to Tonya if necessary. If there is no time, because it is an "at the table issue" consult the onsite organizer or perhaps some experienced GMs in the area. Pool their ideas, come up with a workable resolution and move forward. Then afterwards when you have time, report the incident to your VO leadership with your resolution and ask for their opinion. If your resolution was fair, reasonable, and within the spirit of the campaign rules, 99/100, you'll be fine.
I very much prefer a system with a little ambiguity allowing our organizers and leaders the flexibility to make the best decision based on the circumstance than a rigid laundry list of "If this, do this."
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not asking for guidance on this specific case, I'm asking for guidance on the general situation where I cannot simulultaneously follow the PFS and Convention rulesIf you made a document that could cover not just that one specific corner case , but every corner case that is that rare, it would be a phone book.
You kinda said it yourself: you need guidance on a way of making decisions. Not a rule for what to do with one very specific situation, that would be way too niche to put in the Guide. Rather, you need to know how to think about resolving issues, and want to know what kind of wiggle room you really have as {player, GM, local VA, middle management VO that people escalate to, or Con organizer} to resolve problems.
I think that's one of the more significant responsibilities of being a VO (even if it's only a Venture Agent): coming up with good resolutions "on the ground" that nobody at HQ prepared you for.
But with great responsibility also comes great power; if YOU need to resolve an issue because HQ never foresaw it and didn't give you guidance, then that also means you get more leeway to try to resolve things as best as you can. Afterwards people might say "I would have done it differently" but if you try sincerely to resolve things well, you shouldn't be in any trouble.
I think in situations like this, where we can't possibly anticipate all the specific facts, we need to fall back on principles. We can't go around publishing a rule for the situation where a Con organizer comes by before the table starts with rules about which deities hit too close to home compared to real-world religion, because then we also need a second paragraph for what if it's not the con organizer but someone else, or what if it happens when the table has already started, or... there are just too many possible cases to anticipate all of them. We need you as VO to have guiding principles by which to come to the best solution you can achieve on the ground.
If an issue is not obscure but keeps happening, that's when we start talking about putting up a standardized rule.
So what are good principles to help you come to decisions? I think that's a good discussion to have; ideally we get a concise but also sufficient set. I would certainly want to include:
- Fairness - people don't get punished for things that aren't their fault or that they couldn't reasonably anticipate. If someone gets told mid-game that they essentially can't play their character, it's not fair to "burn" that scenario for them. In really bad cases I'd say don't give the player a chronicle; give the player the chance to play the scenario anew under better circumstances. We trust players to star-replay scenarios or play a scenario after GMing, too.
This would also apply to cases where a scenario has to be broken off due to medical emergencies, the convention hall catching on fire and so forth.
Conversely, if the restriction was clearly advertised (the signup page had a notice with "we're playing in the church, please don't sign up with fiend-worshiping characters") and the player still does it, then he's not protected by this principles.
- Considerateness - If you know or discover a player has a real issue with some content (like phobia of spiders) then you don't rub it in. You try to work around it (change spiders to frogs or something). If it's really not possible, then you just have to stop. It's never ok to go on and cause pain to players.
This can clash a bit with sportsmanship (see below), but you also have to look at whether people are vulnerable. If you have young players and their first character is about to become a wet smear, it's a bit more acceptable to fudge things and give them a chance to escape, than with adults who can absorb it. New players need more consideration.
- Sportsmanship On the other side, it's a game, and in games you don't always win. Both the players and GM have to accept that. Character death sometimes happens; permadeath sometimes happens. Missions sometimes don't get perfect success, or any success. Sometimes it's a TPK.
Just because the PCs "fail" doesn't mean there's a crisis or that rules need to be wrangled; sometimes you make mistakes and lose out, sometimes you do everything right but the dice are frozen and you still fail.
But it's still a game, where we try to "win" the scenario but that only feels like victory if we allow the risk of failure too.
This can come up if players feel like "a scenario just isn't fair" because some success condition seems impossible, or an encounter is just plain mean. And then the GM is under pressure to soften things or waive away failures "to make things fair again". As a VO you might be called in when the players want a death retconned, and sometimes you have to say "no, you just had bad luck and you died".
- A presumption of modesty Some people are fine with graphic descriptions, or with piquant characters. But not everyone is. And when people are having fun with their overly graphic descriptions they sometimes pressure other players to "don't be a prude" or "don't be so squeamish" Or they assume that unless the other players are actively taking a stand, that it's okay.
But this isn't okay. The presumption when you come to a game really should be that you don't have to hear a guy describing his female PC's boobs bouncing all over the place. It's not "he can do that unless you really really don't want him to", it's "I came here to game, not to hear about your creepy sexual fantasies".
The presumption needs to be that people have comfort zones that you're careful with; only when you know everyone at the table is okay with going further can you go further. You don't presume strangers are okay with you flirting with them. You don't presume really graphic and gory descriptions are okay.
Generally, PFS scenarios do a good job of hinting that "there's some stuff going on there" witout forcing nasty descriptions on you. With a couple of exceptions (In Wrath's Shadow) it's not that gory, and the sexual themes are done fairly obliquely.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I could recommend to Lau's recent post is to make it 'gender-neutral', because much like no one necessarily wants to hear abokut female anatomy bounding all over, there is male anatomy that can likewise fit that bill.
And in the case of other races, other racial features that may also be all over the place that no one really wants to hear about.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
2 more questions regarding issues raised here.
When we're talking about phobias to certain creatures. Let's say a character at the table has specific bonuses Vs reptiles or Vs spiders from a trait, feat, racial ability etc but the DM replaced all the snakes/spiders with fluffy puppers. Sure it sounds cute, but you're making the session more difficult for that other character compared to how it's written through disabling some of their options. I do agree with being considerate of course, but I think a lot can also be done by being less graphic in descriptions and maybe using more neutral stand-in minis.
Well that's going to depend on the specific situation. If someone gets nervous if you even use the word spider, then just being less graphic isn't enough.
As for another player's abilities getting hampered by the necessary refluffing: I'd prefer not to hamper other players. If for example another player's ranger has favored enemy: vermin, and I have to replace the poisonous spiders with small poisonous snakes, then I'd take the ranger player aside and tell him why I'm refluffing, and that he can keep applying his bonus, but that he needs to shut up about spiders.
I think in these circumstances we need to trust the GM/VO to make decisions that make the game good for everyone, but not tie their hands too much with really specific rules that never quite fit specific situations that really happen. General principles to help them find out just what "a good solution for everyone" looks like and what the rough boundaries of allowed decisions are, are more useful.
About transphobia. Let's say paizo writes in a non binary/gender fluid whatever npc. But the DM just introduces it as a female character and refers all session to it as a she. The players don't know about how the npc is written so they don't notice anything wrong until a few weeks later one of them reads about that npc being mentioned on the forum. Noone got hurt or offended, I mean, noone even noticed, but I'm guessing it's still against the community rules?
It's not exactly a nice thing to do. But I'm wary of calling it transphobia when it may be just a surprising new thing that the GM isn't entirely comfortable handling. When you start labeling people as transphobic you're calling them bigots and not really talking with them anymore, that's not very constructive.
Example: a few weeks back one of my best friends was running an adventure in which we meet "a nonbinary gnome". The gnome's nonbinariness doesn't seem to play any particular role in the story as far as we could see. And the text constantly refers to the gnome not as Him or Her but as They. Which seems to be the new gender-neutral way of referring to nonbinary people; but which also looks really weird if it's the first time you see it, especially as a non-native English speaker.
My friend was fuming about it a bit along the lines of "sure, if it was an android or elemental or other creature for which it isn't relevant to have a human gender, but..."; and this also came in about the same month as we also ran into the first blind and the first deaf venture captain, as well as a spate of nonbinary/agender NPCs in Starfinder scenarios. It was starting to look like Paizo was really gung-ho on pushing minority visibility. To the point where you wonder if we're here to play a game or hear a lecture on political correctness.
Later on I took my friend apart and talked about it; I pointed out that although right now Paizo is coming across a little strong, his reaction of "well if there's no racial reason to be nonbinary then why should you be" was pretty bad. That being referred to as Him or Her if you don't identify like that is really quite denigrating. That made him sit back and think a bit, I don't think he'd really looked at it from that side before.
So that's what I'm trying to show; that someone who has an initially negative reaction to a nonbinary NPC isn't automatically a bigot, but may require a bit of getting used to it. (For perspective: I'm gay and he's never had trouble with that; it also means I got to hear a lot more about trans people than he does and I was less taken off-guard by non-binaryness showing up in a scenario.)
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mr. Bear, did this happen in Commencement, Incident at Absalom Station or Solstice Scar? I think those are currently the only repeatable scenarios with trans NPCs, though there may be others.
I’m actually ecstatic that Paizo has been more active about inclusion of trans characters, eepecially in Starfinder Society. My daughter’s group of friends (including her significant other) are mostly trans. There are trans people where I work. One of my coworkers, an older person, recently told me that they’re more happy being addressed as “they” because the whole gender thing has always made them uncomfortable. I’ve now met so many people who are non-binary that I’m happy to see these characters visible and receiving representation.
I agree that using the singular “they” can be a challenge, especially for those of us who were taught different ‘grammar’ rules in school. But after a couple of years, I’ve discovered that the singular ‘they’ comes more easily, especially when I see the relief on friends faces when I don’t try to put them in a gender classification that doesn’t fit who they are.
Learning a new language is always challenging, especially when it’s one you think you already know. Still, it’s worth the effort. We’re all players in a roleplaying game that encourages us to use our imaginations. Let’s use those talents to bring those NPCs to life.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
I mean the fact that a person has an issue with what is pretty much normal representation of your average Pathfinder Society table is the very definition of transphobic and ableist.To the point where you wonder if we're here to play a game or hear a lecture on political correctness.
I agree that using the singular “they” can be a challenge, especially for those of us who were taught different ‘grammar’ rules in school. But after a couple of years, I’ve discovered that the singular ‘they’ comes more easily, especially when I see the relief on friends faces when I don’t try to put them in a gender classification that doesn’t fit who they are.
I think the only time I've ever seen it confusing is when a Pathfinder deity managed to use both singular and plural they at the same time. To show how much Paizo got better at writing the deity was referred to as he in the ISWG.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My nonbinary partner played a particular scenario where the primary NPC was trans three times before the third GM was the first to not just ignore all information in the scenario involving that aspect of the NPC. The only reason it even came up the third time is because I forced the issue, and the GM admitted he didn't realize that the character was trans.
It's genuinely easy to miss reading it, and I'm not surprised it doesn't come up. The PCs have to ask a very specific question, it doesn't tie into the rest of the scenario. and there isn't a whole lot of back and forth with the NPC. Background info in PFS scenarios just doesn't come out to the forefront in a lot of cases.
|
|
It's genuinely easy to miss reading it, and I'm not surprised it doesn't come up. The PCs have to ask a very specific question, it doesn't tie into the rest of the scenario. and there isn't a whole lot of back and forth with the NPC. Background info in PFS scenarios just doesn't come out to the forefront in a lot of cases.
My table certainly missed it when I played it. Apparently no one asked about the one specific word choice which you have to ask about to get that background.
Which is a shame because Paizo has been great about setting the standard for representation in RPGs and not making it inconguous in context.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Mr. Bear, did this happen in Commencement, Incident at Absalom Station or Solstice Scar? I think those are currently the only repeatable scenarios with trans NPCs, though there may be others.
I’m actually ecstatic that Paizo has been more active about inclusion of trans characters, eepecially in Starfinder Society. My daughter’s group of friends (including her significant other) are mostly trans. There are trans people where I work. One of my coworkers, an older person, recently told me that they’re more happy being addressed as “they” because the whole gender thing has always made them uncomfortable. I’ve now met so many people who are non-binary that I’m happy to see these characters visible and receiving representation.
I agree that using the singular “they” can be a challenge, especially for those of us who were taught different ‘grammar’ rules in school. But after a couple of years, I’ve discovered that the singular ‘they’ comes more easily, especially when I see the relief on friends faces when I don’t try to put them in a gender classification that doesn’t fit who they are.
Learning a new language is always challenging, especially when it’s one you think you already know. Still, it’s worth the effort. We’re all players in a roleplaying game that encourages us to use our imaginations. Let’s use those talents to bring those NPCs to life.
Good post, to be honest, I am still in the phase where "they" sounds weird.
Frankly, I partly blame the German language for this, because in German our we have the same word for the formal use of "you" and "them".. so it will take some time to get used to it when translating scenarios.Frankly, I got into more contact with genderfluid/nonbinary people through cosplay and while I started with the stupid old Pokemon question "Are you a boy or a girl", at some point I understood that it really did not matter at all and started to appreciate them for their passion and artistry.
---
That's party my problem with representation, in scenarios it is great to do representation, but at the same time, it feels wrong to focus the attention on that fact.
If the character is a kickass demon hunter the focus really should be on that, the fact that his gender identity might not be "traditional" is definitely part of his character, but I find it hard to strike a balance between showcasing that part and just assuming that it is normal.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My nonbinary partner played a particular scenario where the primary NPC was trans three times before the third GM was the first to not just ignore all information in the scenario involving that aspect of the NPC. The only reason it even came up the third time is because I forced the issue, and the GM admitted he didn't realize that the character was trans.
** spoiler omitted **
It's genuinely easy to miss reading it, and I'm not surprised it doesn't come up. The PCs have to ask a very specific question, it doesn't tie into the rest of the scenario. and there isn't a whole lot of back and forth with the NPC. Background info in PFS scenarios just doesn't come out to the forefront in a lot of cases.
This instance might not have been the best place for it, I reread the text, and vaguely remember reading it a couple of months ago when I prepared to run it for the first time.
Rereading the part, players are relatively unlikely to ask (this is partly due to the time-sensitive nature of the scenario ) and really have another objective at that point.
Personally, I like it when Paizo tackles representation in other ways, I think that explaining it in a pregen's background story is a really good place for it, and I really liked the description of the Tradeprince's family when he was preparing a wake.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I am not gonna blame the GM for missing out on that. I personally played it and ran it a combined 4 times before I realized what was going on there (even reading it thoroughly, the trans aspect is written in somewhat flowery language to the point where it was an "ohhh" moment when it was finally pointed out to me).
Its a multi-table special where the GM is prepping like 14 encounters - the lore kind of DOES get missed unless its tossed in your face the way it is in Sky Key Solution or Siege of Diamond City.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem with Tran characters is that many GMs simply don't have enough familiarity with these types of characters to feel comfortable running them. What's worse, glossing over the tran nature of a character or running it so badly because you don't understand them that it becomes insulting? I recently had to explain to a GM what a Non-Binary Gnome was as she had no clue (thought it was some special sub-race she hadn't heard of). GMs that do not feel comfortable about a subject matter in a mod tend to either ignore them or skip over them. I have seen this happen, for example, with mods that are heavy in the gore/horror department as some GMs simply get too uncomfortable describing the scene and tend to skip over that aspect.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem with Tran characters is that many GMs simply don't have enough familiarity with these types of characters to feel comfortable running them. What's worse, glossing over the tran nature of a character or running it so badly because you don't understand them that it becomes insulting? I recently had to explain to a GM what a Non-Binary Gnome was as she had no clue (thought it was some special sub-race she hadn't heard of). GMs that do not feel comfortable about a subject matter in a mod tend to either ignore them or skip over them. I have seen this happen, for example, with mods that are heavy in the gore/horror department as some GMs simply get too uncomfortable describing the scene and tend to skip over that aspect.
This is a salient point. I personally want to represent diversity as best I can. And will do my best to be respectful. But I'm still in the learning stage of what this all means and how LGBTQ+ individuals would like to be represented.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you would be comfortable with a male character talking about his child, girlfriend, or wife, consider how you would feel about a boyfriend or husband.
Parents come up in conversation? Old love interest comes up in conversation? Anything related to Calistria comes up in conversation? Family history comes up in conversation?
Sexuality is all over common interactions, many of which take place in Pathfinder already. If you don't have a problem with them unless its about a non-binary or non-heterosexual character, take some time to consider why that is.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I may be bad at presenting the information, even in the case of Merchant's Wake, it took my players a good long time to pick up that 'partner' didn't mean 'business partner' and that was just a same sex relationship. Whether that's on me or my partially rural playerbase is up for debate.
I guess my point though is that most people are pretty understanding. As long as you are making an effort to present things in a respectful way people aren't going to come for your head when you mess up the details. There's a difference between discomfort and discrimination, and its important we as GMs and especially as Venture Officers that we be on the right, respectful side of things and that we police those who verge into disrespect and discrimination.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
The vast majority of NPCs don't get enough face time for it to matter. I have no more of a problem with an elf NPC than a do with a gay/trans/whatever NPC, but unless they strip down naked in front of the PCs I don't care about their gender or sexuality. Unless it is a vital part of an adventure... Like saving a husband of a gay character... It has no bearing on the game.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak for MadSci, but I know that I felt extremely uncomfortable at my store when they hosted The City of Strangers scenarios, both because of the scenario's content and the players' reactions.
I'm sorry that happened to you.
It's amazing how differently those scenarios are portrayed. When I was first exposed to Miss Feathers, I didn't interpret her as trans at all! Nor was there anything offensive or silly in how she was portrayed. I just assumed she was a female impersonator/performance artist- no different than Lady Chablis or RuPaul. I thought it was pretty great that Paizo had put in a character that was willing to do their thing without fear or censure. I viewed Miss Feathers as one of the earliest attempts by Paizo to be inclusive. I still do, in fact, regardless of people's online reactions.
I realize that many/most people don't view Miss Feathers that way, and I respect that my experience doesn't invalidate yours (nor yours, mine). I just wanted to point out that Miss Feathers isn't universally despised. I realize that with all the hate she's drawn, she won't be showing up any more, but I'll miss 'seeing' her in Kaer Maga.
Also, only 1 time have I ever had a situation where a player reacted in a phobic way to Miss Feathers. I shut him down hard, and the session continued. That instance was the only time I've encountered any Miss Feathers hate- outside of these forums.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I, myself, don't see why the character's background would need to be focused on when the story flow is not actually taking it into account. We do have some instances where the character does mention their own situations in passing, or directs the PC's to their significant others that are not the "Normal" man and woman relationship.
There is also the availability of magics to be the, forgive me if this offends, the wanted gender.
Miss Feathers also has some continuity problems as the character is slightly different in a later scenario than how he is presented in the first appearance.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
My Apologizes. I had not read that post before this. Miss Feathers being as she is, I believe it makes the character more interesting and fits with the setting of the City where she lives.
The short time she is presented to the players does have a very memorable place in the scenarios she is in. I know that some are uncomfortable when they meet him/her (depending on when the meeting takes place) and some decorum is needed when that is observed.