[Closed] The Problem With "Gaming Is For All"


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

17 people marked this as a favorite.

This post is not meant to aggravate or deter anyone. I am merely posting this in the hopes of preventing possible stagnation of narrative story telling in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition community. Please be respectful, and fully consider others opinions on this matter.

Currently with how the "Gaming Is For All" section of the book is worded, it is a bit heavy handed. While I agree that we should all respect one another, and give anyone the opportunity to join in on games. We should not shy away from character and story ideas that could possibly be controversial.
There can easily be situations where a player or a game master can push the envelope too far, and make others feel bad about themselves or make others angry. I am not saying that should be allowed. But pushing the idea, that proposing a controversial character or story is wrong, is like calling someones ideals wrong. Sometimes heavier concepts need to be explored to tell a more compelling story, but censorship should never be the way we try to resolve issues.
It is common sense that we should respect one another. We learn that outside of the game. But I simply ask of Paizo not to limit their and our creative freedom when it comes to developing a story. When healthy debating is killed, there comes the risk of unstable uniformity.


23 people marked this as a favorite.

By my reading, the section you're referring to boils down to "try not to make your fellow players uncomfortable." Given that this is a game intended to be fun, I'm not sure exactly what the problem with this is. The section doesn't actually include any specific prohibitions (aside from "don't discriminate," which I would hope is relatively uncontroversial), so if your group is okay with with whatever character or story you're worried about, then it's not a problem. The section is just asking you to pay attention to how others react to your decisions and make an effort to ensure that they're having fun.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The section actually directly imposes noncontroversial ideals upon the people playing it. It goes out of its way to call ideas that could be so wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What exactly are you referring to? Beyond "don't be a jerk" (which I would certainly hope is noncontroversial) I'm honestly not sure what ideals the section could be imposing.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have a lot of friends in the communities of those mentioned. I've never seen anyone complain about well-handled, well-written stories even when they are controversial.

I have seen problems with GMs or players running games that don't take into consideration other people's lives or feelings. Frankly, it could be a lot more heavy-handed and I'd still be fine with it.

The societal problem that the section is trying to address is that a lot of people have taken hell almost all their lives about something they can't change. And that takes its toll. Every player has areas where they're insecure or emotionally vulnerable. It could be something long-standing or something acute from a recent trauma.

As a player I would resent a story that targeted one of my vulnerabilities either explicitly or absentmindedly. If you need a story where women aren't equal or a story where black or brown people aren't equal, then you're targeting a vulnerability either explicitly or absentmindedly.

If you feel like being a jerk is your deity-given right and that not being able to tell an hurtful story means that you're being censored, then find another game. No one is going to arrest you for being a jerk, but no one has to play with you either.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

If you would like direct quotes imposing ideals upon players, then I will give the following and provide context on why they do.

"and the table is a safe space for everyone."
The term safe space is usually used in environments where anyone can feel comfortable one hundred percent of the time. This should simply not be the case when darker story or character directions can, and will, make this impossible.

"Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all."
This doubles down on what I just said, and I'm not exactly sure on what they mean by inclusive. Unless they are referring to humanity as a whole, or excluding those that might be opposed to this ideal.

"As a player, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are not creating or contributing to an environment that makes any other players feel uncomfortable"
Again, this is a not a very realistic goal.

"A character whose concept and mannerisms are racist tropes, for example, is exceptionally harmful and works against the goal of providing fun for all."
While racism isn't okay in a real life setting. It is common place to have a character not like, let's say elves, for the purposes of story telling.

"If another player tells you that your character concept or roleplaying style makes them uncomfortable, you shouldn’t argue about what they should or shouldn’t find offensive or say that what you’re doing is common (and therefore okay) among players or in other media. Instead, you should simply stop"
This would mean talking to the player that is uncomfortable with an idea is in the right always. There is no room for debate from the other player.

"If you notice a player becoming uncomfortable, you are empowered to pause the game, take it in a new direction"
The book at this point is asking for a GM to change their story if someone doesn't like its direction. Depending on the story this could either be impossible, or extremely inappropriate.

"People of all identities and experiences have a right to be represented in the game, even if they’re not necessarily playing at your table."
Assuming that this means equally, this is simply not possible at times with given time periods and settings.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

My main issue is this part:

Quote:
For example, it's never acceptable to refer to another person using an offensive term or a slur, and doing so "in character" is just as bad as doing so directly. If your character's concept requires you to act this way, that's a good sign your concept is harmful, and you have a responsibility to change it.

Now, I get what they're trying to say. Don't make your fellow players uncomfortable. But my issue is the part where they actively call that character concept harmful, and I present two famous characters as a counterargument to the playtest rulebook's claim: Gimli and Legolas.

They met on around October 25th, TA 3018 and the Ring wasn't destroyed until 6 months later on March 25th. That's plenty of time for Legolas to have made an offhand remark about Durin's Bane, offending Gimli in the process. Or especially with Haldir's behavior toward him, I'm sure Gimli would have had some choice words for all the Nandor when the Fellowship visited Lothlórien. But their character arc also led to them being so close of friends that Gimli was allowed entrance to the Undying Lands, the only other three mortals to ever be granted entrance being Frodo, Sam, and Bilbo for being Ring-bearers.

By saying a character concept is necessarily harmful if it requires them to have racial prejudices, it implies that the concept is also harmful if you were planning on a redemption arc.

My other issue is with this:

Quote:
Everyone has a right to play and enjoy Pathfinder regardless of their age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other identities and life experiences. Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all.

To put it bluntly, it's heavy-handed. Like as much as the RPG rulebook from the 80s that made explicit mention of gamers not worshiping Satan in the forward. (I'm trying to find it again for proof)

EDIT: I found it. The first edition rulebook for the Palladium RPG, which was published in 1983, at the height of the Satanic Panic, has the following text at the center of the back of the title page, formatting original:

Quote:
The Palladium RPG and its supplementary books are fictional. The characters, magic and monsters portrayed are imaginary and have no substance in the real world. The inclusion of fictional magic is simply a device to create the wondrous world of classic heroic and fantasy literature. ALL of us at Palladium Books® condemn the belief and practices of the occult.

That. That is what the first paragraph of the section reads like to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:
If you need a story where women aren't equal

War for the Crown?


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think that the authors were talking about Elf-Americans when they were talking about that.

But let's take these one-by-one before this thread gets shut down for good.

Quote:

"and the table is a safe space for everyone."

The term safe space is usually used in environments where anyone can feel comfortable one hundred percent of the time. This should simply not be the case when darker story or character directions can, and will, make this impossible.

Yeah, don't do this. If your story calls for, e.g. explicit rape depictions or explicit descriptions of chattel slavery of black or brown people that's probably going to be a problem. Safe spaces are a place where people have normal interactions but people don't make rape jokes or use immutable characteristics as the basis for humor or arguments. It's not a guarantee of comfortableness and never has been. It just means Greg is gonna get tossed out if he starts remarking on "how he'd tap that".

Quote:

"Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all."

This doubles down on what I just said, and I'm not exactly sure on what they mean by inclusive. Unless they are referring to humanity as a whole, or excluding those that might be opposed to this ideal.

Let's try the dictionary: "not excluding any section of society or any party involved in something." Sure, exclude Susie because she picks her nose or can't stop telling puns or takes an hour every time she plays, but don't exclude Susie just because she's a woman or genderqueer.

Quote:

"As a player, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are not creating or contributing to an environment that makes any other players feel uncomfortable"

Again, this is a not a very realistic goal.

This isn't even hard, much less unrealistic. Most tables I'm at, even with women and black or brown people don't have an issue. Just treat people with respect.

Quote:

"A character whose concept and mannerisms are racist tropes, for example, is exceptionally harmful and works against the goal of providing fun for all."

While racism isn't okay in a real life setting. It is common place to have a character not like, let's say elves, for the purposes of story telling.

Again, they're not talking about Elf-Americans. And if you have someone who might object, run the idea past them and emphasize that you want an honest opinion and if they seem to get upset, ask them why.

Quote:

"If another player tells you that your character concept or roleplaying style makes them uncomfortable, you shouldn’t argue about what they should or shouldn’t find offensive or say that what you’re doing is common (and therefore okay) among players or in other media. Instead, you should simply stop"

This would mean talking to the player that is uncomfortable with an idea is in the right always. There is no room for debate from the other player.

No, not really. If I played a character with you named "Mebmunay-is-stupid" designed to satirize you, I could argue that you asking me not to play that constitutes censorship. But, in reality, I would just be being a jerk. Don't be a jerk and don't justify your "right" to be a jerk in a common setting.

Quote:

"If you notice a player becoming uncomfortable, you are empowered to pause the game, take it in a new direction"

The book at this point is asking for a GM to change their story if someone doesn't like its direction. Depending on the story this could either be impossible, or extremely inappropriate.

If it's making someone truly uncomfortable. They're not talking about not liking the percentage of vampires-to-non-vampires. They're talking about GMs calling for roles to determine how many wenches they laid. Or how successful the rape part of a rape-and-plunder campaign went.

Quote:

"People of all identities and experiences have a right to be represented in the game, even if they’re not necessarily playing at your table."

Assuming that this means equally, this is simply not possible at times with given time periods and settings.

If you're okay with Elves, Dwarves and Dragons, but not brown people or women warriors in your medieval campaign and you just need to get together with your other Viking-worshiping friends to pretend that medieval Europe didn't have Africans, Asians and a multitude of other kinds of people, please go find another game.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Mebmunay wrote:

"and the table is a safe space for everyone."

The term safe space is usually used in environments where anyone can feel comfortable one hundred percent of the time. This should simply not be the case when darker story or character directions can, and will, make this impossible.

A story that makes the players uncomfortable is fine, as long as the players are okay with that. The GM shouldn’t have the authority to force people to participate in something they’re uncomfortable with.

Mebmunay wrote:

"Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all."

This doubles down on what I just said, and I'm not exactly sure on what they mean by inclusive. Unless they are referring to humanity as a whole, or excluding those that might be opposed to this ideal.

I think it’s fairly safe to assume that they mean that the game should include everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Mebmunay wrote:

"As a player, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are not creating or contributing to an environment that makes any other players feel uncomfortable"

Again, this is a not a very realistic goal.

Again, people should be allowed to be comfortable if they want to.

Mebmunay wrote:

"A character whose concept and mannerisms are racist tropes, for example, is exceptionally harmful and works against the goal of providing fun for all."

While racism isn't okay in a real life setting. It is common place to have a character not like, let's say elves, for the purposes of story telling.

That sentence isn’t referring to in-world speciesism, it’s meant to prevent IRL racism.

Mebmunay wrote:

"If another player tells you that your character concept or roleplaying style makes them uncomfortable, you shouldn’t argue about what they should or shouldn’t find offensive or say that what you’re doing is common (and therefore okay) among players or in other media. Instead, you should simply stop"

This would mean talking to the player that is uncomfortable with an idea is in the right always. There is no room for debate from the other player.

Are you really arguing that you have the right to argue with someone over that person’s own emotions? If someone is uncomfortable (which might not be something they have complete control over, since it is an emotion) you shouldn’t try to convince them that they aren’t.

Mebmunay wrote:

"If you notice a player becoming uncomfortable, you are empowered to pause the game, take it in a new direction"

The book at this point is asking for a GM to change their story if someone doesn't like its direction. Depending on the story this could either be impossible, or extremely inappropriate.

This isn’t referring to the “I’m not getting enough magic items, so we better be find a huge treasure hoard soon” kind of discomfort. It’s about the “I’m a victim of sexual assault, so could we please not have that in our game” type.

RazarTuk wrote:
By saying a character concept is necessarily harmful if it requires them to have racial prejudices, it implies that the concept is also harmful if you were planning on a redemption arc.

Again, this isn’t about in-world prejudices. The section is just saying that you or your character shouldn’t use real-world slurs that might actually offend someone.

RazarTuk wrote:
To put it bluntly, it's heavy-handed. Like as much as the RPG rulebook from the 80s that made explicit mention of gamers not worshiping Satan in the forward. (I'm trying to find it again for proof)

The key difference is that Satanism wasn’t actually an issue. Racism, sexism, homophobia and so on are all real problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

SuperSheep and The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge, I am feeling a good amount of aggression from you both right now, from a few points in your response there. From what I've read, you are injecting meaning that might not be there from what is written. My stance on this is from what is written, not what is suggested.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quote:
SuperSheep and The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge, I am feeling a good amount of aggression from you both right now, from a few points in your response there. From what I've read, you are injecting meaning that might not be there from what is written. My stance on this is from what is written, not what is suggested.

Well there's definitely a degree of irritation involved. Statements don't exist in a vacuum and your argument seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is too hard or impossible to always create a game that is fun and comfortable for all those playing.

And that you feel that Paizo putting in this statement is akin to them suggesting that your story involving some controversial theme be censored. And that they are asking for something that isn't realistic.

Am I wrong here?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I for one am certainly not trying to be aggressive, and I apologize that I gave you that impression. I shall endeavour to maintain a higher degree of civility in future posts.

However, I must admit that I think it is you who is “injecting meaning that might not be there from what is written.” The section you are criticizing merely attempts to limit discrimination and remind players and GMs to be cognizant of the impact of their actions and ensure that everyone is having a good time, but you have interpreted this to be some kind of prohibition on dark and difficult stories even if all participants agree to them.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

12 people marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:

My main issue is this part:

Quote:
For example, it's never acceptable to refer to another person using an offensive term or a slur, and doing so "in character" is just as bad as doing so directly. If your character's concept requires you to act this way, that's a good sign your concept is harmful, and you have a responsibility to change it.

Now, I get what they're trying to say. Don't make your fellow players uncomfortable. But my issue is the part where they actively call that character concept harmful, and I present two famous characters as a counterargument to the playtest rulebook's claim: Gimli and Legolas.

They met on around October 25th, TA 3018 and the Ring wasn't destroyed until 6 months later on March 25th. That's plenty of time for Legolas to have made an offhand remark about Durin's Bane, offending Gimli in the process. Or especially with Haldir's behavior toward him, I'm sure Gimli would have had some choice words for all the Nandor when the Fellowship visited Lothlórien. But their character arc also led to them being so close of friends that Gimli was allowed entrance to the Undying Lands, the only other three mortals to ever be granted entrance being Frodo, Sam, and Bilbo for being Ring-bearers.

By saying a character concept is necessarily harmful if it requires them to have racial prejudices, it implies that the concept is also harmful if you were planning on a redemption arc.

My other issue is with this:

Quote:


Everyone has a right to play and enjoy Pathfinder regardless of their age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other identities and life experiences. Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all.
To put it bluntly, it's heavy-handed. Like as much as the RPG rulebook from the 80s that made explicit mention of gamers not worshiping Satan in the forward. (I'm trying to find it again for proof)

Gimli and Legolas can have fights, hurl insults,etc if that's what your table is in to, but the point of this text is that the people playing these characters should avoid having Legolas or Gimli use real-world slurs. For example, there are words that are very offensive to use to refer to shorter folks and the problematic behavior that is being referred to would be if "Legolas" would use one of those words for Gimli. There is a difference between two in-world characters ribbing each other or even using the made-up fantasy types of insults provided in the campaign setting and a player having their character using a slur from "our world".

Quote:
Do not use real-world racial slurs for people, period. "For example, it's never acceptable to refer to another person using an offensive term or a slur, and doing so "in character" is just as bad as doing so directly.

RPGs are can be great venues for learning and practicing all sorts of social situations, team work, story building, or just having fun and bonding with friends. Its important though, that players at a table are all getting a chance to experience that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:
Quote:
SuperSheep and The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge, I am feeling a good amount of aggression from you both right now, from a few points in your response there. From what I've read, you are injecting meaning that might not be there from what is written. My stance on this is from what is written, not what is suggested.

Well there's definitely a degree of irritation involved. Statements don't exist in a vacuum and your argument seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is too hard or impossible to always create a game that is fun and comfortable for all those playing.

And that you feel that Paizo putting in this statement is akin to them suggesting that your story involving some controversial theme be censored. And that they are asking for something that isn't realistic.

Am I wrong here?

For the most part you are correct. While I have no stories in the works that could institute such themes. With what is written it can easily be interpreted to be a censor on controversial character and story ideas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Mebmunay wrote:

"Pathfinder is for everyone, and Pathfinder games should be as safe, inclusive, and fun as possible for all."

This doubles down on what I just said, and I'm not exactly sure on what they mean by inclusive. Unless they are referring to humanity as a whole, or excluding those that might be opposed to this ideal.

I think it’s fairly safe to assume that they mean that the game should include everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

RazarTuk wrote:
To put it bluntly, it's heavy-handed. Like as much as the RPG rulebook from the 80s that made explicit mention of gamers not worshiping Satan in the forward.
The key difference is that Satanism wasn’t actually an issue. Racism, sexism, homophobia and so on are all real problems.

Perhaps, but Satanism was certainly a perceived issue, otherwise it wouldn't have warranted merit. My point in bringing it up is that even though it might have been an important comment to make at the time, 30 years later, it looks extremely dated because most of society has moved on from the Satanic Panic. Similarly, if there were still a significant number of tables insisting RPGs are only for boys, I could see a comment like that being warranted. (You actually even see a form of this with rulebooks from the 80s specifically mentioning that they don't mean to be exclusionary by using the gender-neutral "he") But at least in my experience, those days are also far enough behind us that explicitly calling it out seems unnecessary.

The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Mebmunay wrote:

"As a player, it is your responsibility to ensure that you are not creating or contributing to an environment that makes any other players feel uncomfortable"

Again, this is a not a very realistic goal.
Again, people should be allowed to be comfortable if they want to.

In general, yes. But making a setting unsettling can have its uses, like in the Thrushmoor Terror. There's a difference between "mildly uncomfortable" and "too uncomfortable" and an entire genre that thrives on the former.

The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge wrote:
Mebmunay wrote:

"A character whose concept and mannerisms are racist tropes, for example, is exceptionally harmful and works against the goal of providing fun for all."

While racism isn't okay in a real life setting. It is common place to have a character not like, let's say elves, for the purposes of story telling.
That sentence isn’t referring to in-world speciesism, it’s meant to prevent IRL racism.

I don't get that from the text. It just says "offensive terms and slurs" with no mention of Earth or Golarian. But even restricting it to the former, I can think of an analogy to Gimli and Legolas warming up to each other. You could easily make a character for War for the Crown who starts off vehemently opposed to letting women inherit the Taldan throne and is only helping to combat Stavian's treachery, but who warms up to the concept. (Or at least to male-preference primogeniture, just to avoid future succession crises)

Sara Marie wrote:
Quote:
Do not use real-world racial slurs for people, period. "For example, it's never acceptable to refer to another person using an offensive term or a slur, and doing so "in character" is just as bad as doing so directly.
RPGs are can be great venues for learning and practicing all sorts of social situations, team work, story building, or just having fun and bonding with friends. Its important though, that players at a table are all getting a chance to experience that.

That first sentence isn't in my copy of the playtest PDF. I just checked.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Almost all people have been put in uncomfortable situations before; congratulations on your impressive luck to anyone who has not.

Recall how that discomfort felt, and take another human being's word on the matter if they tell you that something is, has, or might in the future cause them feel this way. Period. It's really not up for debate.

As far as the potential controversial subject matter of the game goes, as with any multi-person activity, up-front transparency is of primary importance. If anyone at the table even thinks that something controversial MIGHT come up, it should be discussed with and agreed upon by all participants in advance. If at any point, even after the initial agreement, any single party suddenly decides things have gone too far, and requests that it cease, then it ceases.

This is pretty much common decency, it really isn't that difficult, and sure as hell isn't too much to ask.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Without concrete examples from you, this is at best theoretical.

But Paizo's statements don't exist in a vacuum either and exist during an era of #metoo, BLM, etc.

Creating a product that promotes inclusiveness is good. Creating a product that encourages everyone to come to the table is good.

And I've been roleplaying for 2+ decades with a gender-diverse group (at least half women for that entire period). It is not hard to produce a game or a character that doesn't make other people feel like dirt.

To give you a concrete example, I created a noble in one campaign who didn't like it when people challenged him too much, and he made the statement, "Do not pretend that this is a conversation between equals".

It really upset the other player, a woman, because she was frequently talked down to at work because she was a woman. After that, I changed my character's behavior because my idea is not more important than her feelings of wholeness or sense of well-being.

I didn't argue that that's who my character would react. I apologized and moved on. I kept the character, but softened that bit of him to make sure everyone felt safe.

It is totally possible. It isn't event that hard and if you need your character to be a certain way even if it makes someone else feel like crap, then you're being a jerk. And if the game makers want you to feel ostracized for that kind of behavior, then that's their right and I applaud them for that.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Mebmunay wrote:
SuperSheep wrote:
Quote:
SuperSheep and The Sesquipedalian Thaumaturge, I am feeling a good amount of aggression from you both right now, from a few points in your response there. From what I've read, you are injecting meaning that might not be there from what is written. My stance on this is from what is written, not what is suggested.

Well there's definitely a degree of irritation involved. Statements don't exist in a vacuum and your argument seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that it is too hard or impossible to always create a game that is fun and comfortable for all those playing.

And that you feel that Paizo putting in this statement is akin to them suggesting that your story involving some controversial theme be censored. And that they are asking for something that isn't realistic.

Am I wrong here?

For the most part you are correct. While I have no stories in the works that could institute such themes. With what is written it can easily be interpreted to be a censor on controversial character and story ideas.

There's certainly a space for stories that make people uncomfortable, otherwise we wouldn't have horror films. The point is that you have to make sure that your players know about it first. Not a lot of people go to a horror movie without knowing what it is first. They are going to be unhappy if they're surprised with something unpleasant that they weren't expecting (see the general reaction to the movie mother!, for example). There are just some things (i.e. real-life racism, rape, etc.) that should be off the table unless everyone agrees to them first.

This should be something that's common sense, but it's been a problem in the gaming community in the past. I have personally had a GM spring an unexpected rape (of an NPC, rather than a PC at least...) in a game, and it severely diminished my enjoyment of the game and made me uncomfortable and vaguely angry for the rest of the session. That's the stuff that this page is trying to avoid.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RazarTuk wrote:
But at least in my experience, those days are also far enough behind us that explicitly calling it out seems unnecessary.

Are you suggesting that gaming in now fully inclusive and doesn't have a gender or race problem?

If that's the case, we're going to have to massively disagree. I could take a census of the people at the various gaming shops around me and it would be pretty stark.

There are more women then there used to be, but so many of them do not feel comfortable being in those spaces because they've been made to feel uncomfortable. It's miles better than it used to be, but it's still pretty bad and Paizo's statement about inclusiveness is totally appropriate and not at all out of place in our current time.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not so much what was said in that section it's how it was said. I don't appreciate anyone when trying to make a valid point trying to guilt trip myself and others in the hobby. All they had to say imo is "Don't be a jerk everyone regardless of their creed, religion, gender and political affiliation are to be welcomed at the table. Keep an eye out to see if anyone is uncomfortable at the table". Short and sweet.

Depending on the adventure sometimes their maybe a controversial story line that comes up. One could have a origin story where a Sorcerer npc is tormented by the other children in the orphanage for being different. Turns to evil or just in a fit of anger leaves and burns down the orphanage.

I'm also a majority rules type of person. I will try to accommodate everyone at the table. Yet trying to please everyone is sometimes both hard to do and in some cases impossible. If out of a six person person group 4-5 players are happy with the story and themes I plan to run with the game with. The other 1-2 players either try to see if it's Ok for them to stay or they can find another group. Again I will try to the best of my ability to accommodate everyone at the table. Neither will I put a campaign on indefinite hiatus because I cannot.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:

Without concrete examples from you, this is at best theoretical.

But Paizo's statements don't exist in a vacuum either and exist during an era of #metoo, BLM, etc.

Creating a product that promotes inclusiveness is good. Creating a product that encourages everyone to come to the table is good.

And I've been roleplaying for 2+ decades with a gender-diverse group (at least half women for that entire period). It is not hard to produce a game or a character that doesn't make other people feel like dirt.

To give you a concrete example, I created a noble in one campaign who didn't like it when people challenged him too much, and he made the statement, "Do not pretend that this is a conversation between equals".

It really upset the other player, a woman, because she was frequently talked down to at work because she was a woman. After that, I changed my character's behavior because my idea is not more important than her feelings of wholeness or sense of well-being.

I didn't argue that that's who my character would react. I apologized and moved on. I kept the character, but softened that bit of him to make sure everyone felt safe.

It is totally possible. It isn't event that hard and if you need your character to be a certain way even if it makes someone else feel like crap, then you're being a jerk. And if the game makers want you to feel ostracized for that kind of behavior, then that's their right and I applaud them for that.

I would argue that you were playing a reasonable character in a reasonable way, and that the other player needed to learn to differentiate fantasy from reality and recognize context.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Thing From Another World wrote:
I'm also a majority rules type of person. I will try to accommodate everyone at the table. Yet trying to please everyone is sometimes both hard to do and in some cases impossible. If out of a six person person group 4-5 players are happy with the story and themes I plan to run with the game with. The other 1-2 players either try to see if it's Ok for them to stay or they can find another group. Again I will try to the best of my ability to accommodate everyone at the table. Neither will I put a campaign on indefinite hiatus because I cannot.

The tyranny of the majority is a real thing. It's also a common way for people to keep people excluded. Got 5 male players and 1 female players and the female player is uncomfortable with the table's obsession having sex with wenches, well she's the minority. Likely she'll just self-exclude and that's how you get an entire gender whose majority stance is that gaming isn't for them. Because people made it not them.

And there seems to be some confusion -- willful or not -- between making something that everyone likes and making something that everyone feels safe experiencing. There are plenty of things I've experienced that I thought were awful, but they didn't attack my sense of safety or my sense of well-being.

No one is saying that you have a run a campaign were everyone likes the plot lines or the themes or the characters.

What Paizo and others are saying is that if you find yourself relying on the damsel in distress trope too often or describing physical and emotional abuse of people in a group with people suffering PTSD from abuse... stop.

If you want to have your NPC jokester hang around the PCs all the time and none of the players actually like the characters, that is fine. No one is being harmed by that. But insisting on Jack the Ripper as a major recurring villain after a rape survivor says she no longer feels safe at your table or just looks incredibly uncomfortable because she keeps having flashbacks... that's not okay. Stop.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
sherlock1701 wrote:
I would argue that you were playing a reasonable character in a reasonable way, and that the other player needed to learn to differentiate fantasy from reality and recognize context.

I think that's the kind of response that Paizo is trying to limit. Don't argue someone else's feelings, just respect them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:


The tyranny of the majority is a real thing. It's also a common way for people to keep people excluded. Got 5 male players and 1 female players and the female player is uncomfortable with the table's obsession having sex with wenches, well she's the minority. Likely she'll just self-exclude and that's how you get an entire gender whose majority stance is that gaming isn't for them. Because people made it not them.

I never had too many players fortunately being obsessed with having sex with npc wenches. If it's all they talk about I will put a stop to it. Some players both male and female will create characters that are promiscuous. I allow them if and only IF they do not take it too far at the table and if the table is comfortable with it. I also mention what themes and everything else I will include at the table from the start. Players are free to stay and go. I do this because stopping the game every time a person is offended just slows the game to a crawl and ruins in-game immersion. Mind you I have come across one too many DMs/players who really are clueless when it comes to not noticing player discomfort.

Not to sound cold or callous yet this is a hobby for me not a full time job. Once it becomes that for me at least I leave it. If I say the game includes slavery and at session 0 a player who is bothered by it refuses to say that it does it's on him/her to tell me about it. I can't force the person to do so. I also treat fellow gamers as mature adults. They are at a certain age if something bothers them table speak up about it. If nothing is said once the session starts I'm probably not going to remove slavery from the campaign.

SuperSheep wrote:


What Paizo and others are saying is that if you find yourself relying on the damsel in distress trope too often or describing physical and emotional abuse of people in a group with people suffering PTSD from abuse... stop.

Your made your point without making me feel terrible that is the difference imo. I agree about relying too much on certain tropes. The problem with descriptions sometimes they need to be very descriptive imo. What gets the point across of a Red Dragon Attack. "Dragon come, hurt, burn people, building destroyed." Or you describe how the survivors are suffering both because the dragon destroyed their home, business or even their crops. The npc innkeeper that the group may have befriended holds the burnt remains of his son who tried to stand up to the dragon. Tee stench of cooked flesh is nauseating and makes the players want to vomit. Sometimes one has to deliver some rather extreme descriptions to get the point across that the npc/creature is damn fine piece of work and not in a good way.

As both a DM o player the player suffering from PTSD needs to inform the group of what they deem acceptable at the table. It's all nice and good for Paizo to insist that both players and DMs be part time or full time psychologist at the table. Quite frankly with all due respect it's not my job. I do keep a eye out as both a player and DM to see and or sense player discomfort. I'm not a expert in the field and it's the players responsibility to do so. Another reason I found the advice a little heavy handed because it relies on our world being a perfect world. In a perfect world every players their demands would be satisfied by everyone at the table. Whether you and I like it or not that will simply not be the case. It's not fair but welcome to the real world.

SuperSheep wrote:


If you want to have your NPC jokester hang around the PCs all the time and none of the players actually like the characters, that is fine. No one is being harmed by that. But insisting on Jack the Ripper as a major recurring villain after a rape survivor says she no longer feels safe at your table or just looks incredibly uncomfortable because she keeps having flashbacks... that's not okay. Stop.

I agree yet in my experience those are exceptions to our hobby not the rule. That kind of terrible behavior on the part of DM/and/or players is when I walk and I ask the player who is bothered by it to leave the table with me. Or kick people out of my place if the game is being held at my place.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Mebmunay wrote:

This post is not meant to aggravate or deter anyone. I am merely posting this in the hopes of preventing possible stagnation of narrative story telling in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition community. Please be respectful, and fully consider others opinions on this matter.

Currently with how the "Gaming Is For All" section of the book is worded, it is a bit heavy handed. While I agree that we should all respect one another, and give anyone the opportunity to join in on games. We should not shy away from character and story ideas that could possibly be controversial.
There can easily be situations where a player or a game master can push the envelope too far, and make others feel bad about themselves or make others angry. I am not saying that should be allowed. But pushing the idea, that proposing a controversial character or story is wrong, is like calling someones ideals wrong. Sometimes heavier concepts need to be explored to tell a more compelling story, but censorship should never be the way we try to resolve issues.
It is common sense that we should respect one another. We learn that outside of the game. But I simply ask of Paizo not to limit their and our creative freedom when it comes to developing a story. When healthy debating is killed, there comes the risk of unstable uniformity.

First... if you don't follow the text of this section... what exactly are the consequences going to be? Is someone observing your games and reporting them to Paizo? Are they going to come to your house and confiscate your books? Are they going to block your access to the SRD?

Second, I want to get your answer on the solution to an example. One of your players is suffering from PTSD. Doesn't matter from what specifically, but the topic can for them trigger panic attacks. The specific topic though is relatively contained, and it is very easy to run a game that avoids that topic. Would you as GM purposely include or exclude that topic from your game? In other words... would you make your table a safe place for this person, or would you insist that they choose between suffering form these panic attacks or not playing?

Basically that's all that this boils down to. Take a moment to consider who your players are. Have some empathy for the things that they've endured during their lives, and if including something at your table would make the experience at the table a bad experience (not uncomfortable, but actually a very bad and negative experience), maybe consider not including it.

In the end the question is:
Would your gaming experience be improved by having more or less empathy for your fellow players?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I do not presume that most players or GMs are behaving badly. Thankfully that has gotten better. And gaming isn't the only place where people behave badly and its not the only place where a statement has to be made that "we do not discriminate".

Paizo's statement is a tame one. It's about what you could expect out of any business or organization.

Quote:
The npc innkeeper that the group may have befriended holds the burnt remains of his son who tried to stand up to the dragon.

I wouldn't have a problem with this either, unless one of the players recently lost a child or had a terminally ill one. But so far what you're saying is you take things on a case-by-base basis. I think Paizo isn't asking for anything more than that. Be decent. Be respectful. Understand that people aren't like you and maybe, just maybe, they've gotten a lot of s**t because of that.

Some players may want to simulate the problems of the real world in order to fix them. That may be their therapy or their outlet. No one has stated here that that's a problem.

And I've never taken a stance (nor is Paizo) that you can't play with delicate themes. Just be careful if you do. And get consent from the players.

One thing I will argue though. It's not necessarily the responsibility of the person suffering to tell you. They may not be in a mental state where they can come forward. They may not feel it's safe to say anything for fear of harassment. That's frequently how harassment thrives. If someone complains about the harassment, abusers just escalate until they stop complaining or leave altogether. I've seen it a bunch of times.

You're not getting paid to be a professional psychologist, but I would argue that it's everyone's job to be mindful of the feelings of those around them because we're a social species. And if you want to be part of a community you have to do the work.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

DMs should show empathy towards their players to be sure. Players should also show common courtesy to their DMs and the rest of the table to inform them of any topics that bother them before the game starts. Using my above if a player dislikes slavery I rather be told before I put the work into crafting the campaign. If saving captured slaves and taking down the evil Slaver is the theme of the campaign having to go back to redo everything. Is both time consuming, wasted time and much work for nothing.


How about these cases:
A player asks everyone wearing a Christian cross to remove it or leave the table, because the player is uncomfortable with them wearing torture symbols.

Or I'm GMing at a convention. Two Boy Scouts sit down in uniform at my table to play. The BSA Bylaws explicitly say that I cannot be the best type of citizen. Can I ask them to leave or do I have to put up with the insult?

Rephrase that as an African-American GM and two KKK members in uniform. What then?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperSheep wrote:


One thing I will argue though. It's not necessarily the responsibility of the person suffering to tell you. They may not be in a mental state where they can come forward. They may not feel it's safe to say anything for fear of harassment. That's frequently how harassment thrives. If someone complains about the harassment, abusers just escalate until they stop complaining or leave altogether. I've seen it a bunch of times.

I think personally with the DM they do need to mention it. I understand and empathize that it's not easy to do. I'm not a mind reader and I rather not have to redo a entire campaign from scratch because the player dislikes slavery and tells me after I put in all the work. Players feels are important. My time spent working on the campaign is also important as well.

SuperSheep wrote:


You're not getting paid to be a professional psychologist, but I would argue that it's everyone's job to be mindful of the feelings of those around them because we're a social species. And if you want to be part of a community you have to do the work.

The way Paizo wrote in that section were expected to be professional psychologist at the table imo. I will anbd do keep a eye on the players at the table for some sign of discomfort. I also have my hands full running the game.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Romanowski wrote:

How about these cases:

A player asks everyone wearing a Christian cross to remove it or leave the table, because the player is uncomfortable with them wearing torture symbols.

Find me a person doing this who isn't trolling and I'll answer your question. But let's say it's a Wiccan and a couple of Christians at the table. Yeah, there's gonna be some issues. One of the reason I didn't mention religion in my posts was because religion sometimes doesn't have a clean way to resolve the conflict.

Scott Romanowski wrote:
Or I'm GMing at a convention. Two Boy Scouts sit down in uniform at my table to play. The BSA Bylaws explicitly say that I cannot be the best type of citizen. Can I ask them to leave or do I have to put up with the insult?

Is that because you're not a BSA yourself? Does the BSA code say that because you're a homosexual? I, think, in this case the BSA has dropped that particular objection, but you would be within your rights to ask them to not participate if their organization openly demonized someone based on one of the outlined traits (e.g. gender, race, sexual orientation).

Scott Romanowski wrote:
Rephrase that as an African-American GM and two KKK members in uniform. What then?

If the KKK members are in full-regalia at a private convention I would hope the organizers would show them the door. If you're talking about military uniform and they started espousing white supremacist viewpoints, then again, I hope they would be shown the door.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Have empathy for your fellow players. Get consent before includong uncomfortable topics.

If you don't think you should consider how your players feel, you are literally arguing in favor of the Piss GM.


The Thing From Another World wrote:
DMs should show empathy towards their players to be sure. Players should also show common courtesy to their DMs and the rest of the table to inform them of any topics that bother them before the game starts. Using my above if a player dislikes slavery I rather be told before I put the work into crafting the campaign. If saving captured slaves and taking down the evil Slaver is the theme of the campaign having to go back to redo everything. Is both time consuming, wasted time and much work for nothing.

Is someone in this thread suggesting that players conceal which topics might cause issues?

Silver Crusade

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Respecting your fellow players autonomy and comfort should be the least controversial part of the playtest Rules.


>Find me a person doing this who isn't trolling

Me, if the Christian is pushing their religion in my face. I'll use this "gaming is for all" to get them to stop or be kicked out because that makes me uncomfortable.

For the record, I don't wear atheist symbols, membership pins, or t-shirts to conventions because it might offend people, especially parents with kids who could ask uncomfortable questions.

>>Does the BSA code say that because you're a homosexual? I, think, in this case the BSA has dropped that particular objection, but you would be within your rights to ask them to not participate if their organization openly demonized someone based on one of the outlined traits (e.g. gender, race, sexual orientation).
>>>

You are right, the BSA has dropped their objection to homosexuals. I am heterosexual. I am an atheist, and the BSA Bylaws state
"The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship"
Article IX, Section 1, Clause 1.
All Scouts, adult and youth, are required to subscribe to this as part of the membership application process. I just checked their application forms.

As an atheist, by this section, the BSA states explicitly that I cannot be the perform 'the best type of citizenship' -- I cannot be the best type of citizen. I must be a second-class citizen or worse by this bylaw.

>>>If the KKK members are in full-regalia at a private convention I would hope the organizers would show them the door. If you're talking about military uniform and they started espousing white supremacist viewpoints, then again, I hope they would be shown the door.
>>>

Interesting. Both are wearing their regalia, but one group gets shown the door as soon as they walk in, while the other has to "openly demonize someone" before you act. Aren't atheists worthy of the same protection as African-Americans? Doesn't the "gaming is for all" apply to atheists?

By 'atheist' I simply mean that I do not believe in any of the more than a quarter million deities that humans have worshiped over the millennia.

I've had parents talk to their kids about membership in the BSA, another gamer tell me how much he's helping kids as an adult leader in the BSA, and other gamers have had very large crosses hanging around their necks or large tattoos. I've held my tongue. I don't think that section of the rulebook is necessary, but it's good to know that Paizo will now have my back when I'm uncomfortable -- it's in the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Mebmunay wrote:

This post is not meant to aggravate or deter anyone. I am merely posting this in the hopes of preventing possible stagnation of narrative story telling in the Pathfinder 2nd Edition community. Please be respectful, and fully consider others opinions on this matter.

Currently with how the "Gaming Is For All" section of the book is worded, it is a bit heavy handed. While I agree that we should all respect one another, and give anyone the opportunity to join in on games. We should not shy away from character and story ideas that could possibly be controversial.
There can easily be situations where a player or a game master can push the envelope too far, and make others feel bad about themselves or make others angry. I am not saying that should be allowed. But pushing the idea, that proposing a controversial character or story is wrong, is like calling someones ideals wrong. Sometimes heavier concepts need to be explored to tell a more compelling story, but censorship should never be the way we try to resolve issues.
It is common sense that we should respect one another. We learn that outside of the game. But I simply ask of Paizo not to limit their and our creative freedom when it comes to developing a story. When healthy debating is killed, there comes the risk of unstable uniformity.

First... if you don't follow the text of this section... what exactly are the consequences going to be? Is someone observing your games and reporting them to Paizo? Are they going to come to your house and confiscate your books? Are they going to block your access to the SRD?

Second, I want to get your answer on the solution to an example. One of your players is suffering from PTSD. Doesn't matter from what specifically, but the topic can for them trigger panic attacks. The specific topic though is relatively contained, and it is very easy to run a game that avoids that topic. Would you as GM purposely include or exclude that topic from your game? In other words... would you make your...

For your first question, it comes down to if it is an official event. A game master or player that is not comfortable, no matter how trivial it may be, can be in the right if they decide to report you for something. Ergo, you might not be allowed at a location anymore because of someones viewpoint. This hinders the development process.

For your second question, that depends on the severity of the PTSD and if it is ever brought up. Of course any sensible person would find a work around if it caused the person mental trauma. If you can't understand that, then you haven't developed enough as a person to run a game. How it is written, it can come down to more than just someone with a mental problem not being able to tolerate something, it can come down to someone with the smallest issue not being able to tolerate something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

@Scott Romanowski

Anyone actively proselytizing typically gets thrown out. You mentioned someone wearing a Christian cross. If they're handing out pamphlets they should have the owner's permission to do so and if they started talking about Christianity I would ask them to stop.

With regard to the BSA, I'm going to admit that I'm not a fan of the organization itself, but I'm also not very knowledgeable about them. I kept track of their position about admission of gay members, but haven't keep track of their positions on general subjects.

And, yes, atheists and agnostics (either weak or strong) should have the full protection and consideration as people with any other belief system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Firstly, I like to believe that I support equality and I hope that this post doesn't taken the wrong way.

Sara Marie wrote:


Unknown source wrote:


Do not use real-world racial slurs for people, period. "For example, it's never acceptable to refer to another person using an offensive term or a slur, and doing so "in character" is just as bad as doing so directly.

I completely agree with this statement. Unfortunately, the italicised section is nowhere to be found in the rulebook.

I would like to note the distinction between calling an Elf "knife-ears" and calling a Mwangi Human any number of real-world racial slurs.

The cynic in me looks at this as using "equality" as a means to force the acceptance of a race of illiterate, cannibalistic, murderous psychopathic pyromaniacs into our games.


16 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the thing that I'm confused about when people have issues with this section of the rulebook is that every tabletop RPG has always had a "with the consent of everybody involved in the game, you are free to alter or ignore literally anything in the rulebook" clause which is basically something that is part of the background radiation for the entire hobby.

So if you want edgier games, it's not fundamentally different from gridless/theater of the mind style games, or games with no resurrection, or gestalt games, or games with no elves. It's not default Pathfinder, so you should clear it with people before you spring it on them, but it can work.

But the rulebook doesn't need to go out of its way to tell you that you can ignore the rulebook, so setting the baseline at "this game actively excludes as few people as possible" is precisely where it should be.

Honestly, if we're excluding anybody, I would prefer it be people who get irate when they read things like "the table is a safe space for everyone".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This post has never been a matter of exclusion, but a matter of forced inclusion. The way it is written forces peoples hands depending on the situation. I'd prefer to have open reign with creative freedom. I'm not one for anything offensive, but I want the choice to have a controversial character or story without having to risk scrapping it.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

When I first read this section, my thought was that I'm glad it's there but it seemed just slightly heavy-handed.

After reading this thread, I no longer feel it's heavy-handed...


Mebmunay wrote:
This post has never been a matter of exclusion, but a matter of forced inclusion. The way it is written forces peoples hands depending on the situation. I'd prefer to have open reign with creative freedom. I'm not one for anything offensive, but I want the choice to have a controversial character or story without having to risk scrapping it.

Then ignore that section, right up until the controversial stuff causes an issue. Nobody is going to come to your place and take away your books for running a controversial character or story.

Unless you're talking about PFS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
Mebmunay wrote:
This post has never been a matter of exclusion, but a matter of forced inclusion. The way it is written forces peoples hands depending on the situation. I'd prefer to have open reign with creative freedom. I'm not one for anything offensive, but I want the choice to have a controversial character or story without having to risk scrapping it.

Then ignore that section, right up until the controversial stuff causes an issue. Nobody is going to come to your place and take away your books for running a controversial character or story.

Unless you're talking about PFS.

This goes beyond me having a personal preference. Things like PFS are the exact reason this text should be revised. It can set a precedence that has a snowballing effect. Respect and care for others is common sense in a team based game. Having it forced upon people can create a hostile environment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am very uncomfortable with the topic of this thread. And it's because of Paizo's own works.

I am currently running my role-playing group through Rise of the Runelords because they won't do the playtest if they have to remake characters, I own the AP, and they haven't gone through it.

Paizo's own RotR AP is RIFE with topics that counter this sidebar.

Just in 'Burnt Offerings', I'm pretty sure I have at least one player that would react very negatively to Nualia's backstory, if it ever came out. What should I do about that?

Change her backstory? That can make her seem MUCH worse.
Never let it be revealed? I guess so, but it can hurt immersion. But by Paizo's own guidelines in the 2E playtest, immersion shouldn't come into it.

(This is also ignoring my own issues with 'heavyhanded religion in universe is shown as BBEG and real BBEG is given a motivation against that religion'.)

Also, what about the Goblins? They _explicitly_ use racial slurs (longshanks), and engage in animal cruelty, among other things. And this is portrayed as something funny.

Finally, PTSD is very important. You cannot use the excuse, 'But it's not insulting you! It's insulting your character.' Or the excuse, 'It's not a real-life insult.' People who, as the defenders of this sidebar state, have suffered from discrimination for one or another reason can still be triggered, in an emotionally cruel way, by hearing any discriminatory remark in their vicinity, not just submitted to themselves in a clear real-world way. I myself would react very negatively to hearing about domestic abuse; any space that contains a discussion of that probably wouldn't qualify as a 'safe space' for me.

So, saying all that... can people here explain how you would use the guidelines Paizo has given about 'safe spaces' to 'safe-space-proof' Paizo's own Burnt Offerings module, given the above?

Edit: I would like to point out that things like Exalted's 'Red Rule' (please look it up if you are unaware of it) are quite useful. And note that it is a mechanical rule of the system. I'm just very unsure how to handle the very vague guidelines such as given by Paizo here.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:

Then ignore that section, right up until the controversial stuff causes an issue. Nobody is going to come to your place and take away your books for running a controversial character or story.

Unless you're talking about PFS.

I would offer, that when ignoring part of the book you should always let everybody at the table know, in advance, that you're planning on doing this and allow for feedback to change your mind. Other people have different experiences and different perspectives which can result in being able to tell much better stories if you take that into account.

I mean, putting aside specific things that specific people might have issue with, just walking the line between "I want my players hate this villain" and "I do not want my players hate this game" is a thing that requires some care and sensitivity, but it's not like the game tells you to avoid loathsome villains (nor should it.) It's just there are some specific ways a villain could be loathsome that are likely to cross over into "this is making the game unfun" for a lot of people.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The fact that you are asking something to be "safe-space-proofed" indicates that you most likely don't fully understand what that text block is saying.

It is not saying - nor is anyone ever going to say - that you should make your games completely safe for all possible players.

It is saying that you should strive to make your game safe for your players, whatever that means for you and your group.

Which yes, is common sense.

Sadly, I have personally met plenty of people who don't have any common sense, so I don't blame Paizo for saying it aloud.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unfortunately the text in question does not say exclude as few people as possible, it uses absolutes in a situation that cannot handle absolutes and then appears to privilege some types of discomfort over others. So instead of empowering me to call out players who can't seem to regulate their language in front of kids, it leaves it wide open to them acting indignant when I say something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

The fact that you are asking something to be "safe-space-proofed" indicates that you most likely don't fully understand what that text block is saying.

It is not saying - nor is anyone ever going to say - that you should make your games completely safe for all possible players.

It is saying that you should strive to make your game safe for your players, whatever that means for you and your group.

Which yes, is common sense.

Sadly, I have personally met plenty of people who don't have any common sense, so I don't blame Paizo for saying it aloud.

Again, I am talking about my group.

I am saying that I have a player that would not consider and adventure with a character with an abusive domestic situation as backstory/starting-point-of-evil (Nualia) being the BBEG of the module as a 'safe space'.

I am saying that I have a player that is uncomfortable that the Goblin in the group calls people, 'Longershanks'. (The entire party are Small, with one Dwarf.)

I am saying that I have a player in my group (the Animal-Order Druid) that almost burst into tears when I read the Blocked text about the dog dropping with a _slit throat_. He doesn't like that the Goblin weapon names are 'Animalnamekillingmotion'. And that is OOC, not just IC.

Should I change the module to accomodate these players, and if so, how?

I am asking because I would genuinely like to know what people think is enough to proof _one of Paizo's own adventures_ for my group.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

While the sentiments expressed, respect everyone, don’t be a jerk, make room for all etc. are admirable, I can’t stand having it rammed down my throat. I don’t want my rpg rulebook to have an agenda.

This is the first I’ve heard of this being in the new rulebook. Can’t wait to see what ramifications this will have in pfs. I’m glad I didn’t purchase it and will probably sit out 2E.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
NemisCassander wrote:
Should I change the module to accomodate these players, and if so, how?

I think you should. I don't remember the specifics of RotRL that well, but generally replacing things in the written material with other things suffices.

Like I've run this game for literal children, and one thing that kids absolutely do not like is "killing animals". So knowing this, if I'm running from a module I'm just going to replace all the "fights with wolves" with fights against something with the same statblock as a wolf but is clearly "wrong" or "supernatural" in some way. Kids don't see themselves aspirationally as a brave wolf-killer, but if you give the thing spider eyes and tiny vestigal fly wings, and a rattlesnake tail and it becomes fine.

But like if you have a goblin run into a party consisting of a gnome, a grippli, a halfling, and a cecaelia obviously they're not going to call them "longshanks" or at least will drop the term when called on the absurdity of "the only person in the party who is taller than you conspicuously lacks shanks".

But renaming things, changing descriptions, and changing backstories are honestly one of the easiest things in the GM's job description.

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / [Closed] The Problem With "Gaming Is For All" All Messageboards