New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 308
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    If a GM includes oppressive cultures or governments in their setting—especially if they oppress groups that the PCs(or players) belong to—and lets the PCs get to a level of power where the PCs are capable of fighting these governments or cultures and the GM doesn't have plans to either let the PCS do that or explain why they can't beyond just "no, you can't, can't be done," then the GM has failed utterly in their job.

    If my Chaotic Good Barbarian gets to level 20 and can't depose the king of so-called civilization who is pressing and hurting innocent people for reasons my Barbarian finds stupid, not just not having the opportunity but being physically prevented from doing so, even if her level 20 Sorcerer, Druid, and Bard friends agree with her, then the GM has made a mistake.

    And that goes double if the oppressive King is intended to be seen as a "good guy."
    Yeah, that's all true.

    But then again, a more realistic scenario would be that the king remains in power because he has even higher level allies, or that the oppression is a systemic aspect of their culture developed over generations rather than being the fault of a few evil monarchs, or that rather than being evil the king has slowly compromised their morals to account for the harsh realities of the world.

    Heck, it might even be the theme of the game. For example, I am told that Fable 3 has one of the better twists in gaming history when (spoilers for a decade old game) the entire plot of the game revolves around overthrowing a tyrannical king, only to find out that the reason he was being so tyrannical was that he was secretly trying to prepare the nation to fight off an apocalyptic invasion by a hostile foreign power.

    Due note that I am in no way arguing against players being able to change the world, that is literally what the core of my setting is about. But at the same time, it is also about exploring the costs and the consequences of doing so and there being no such thing as a free lunch.

    Which can, also, cost you players.

    For example, in my long running home game, the PCs have conquered or toppled every major government on the planet in over a decade of play. One player, after (without any prompting on my part) made the decision that the best long term course of action in a region was to commit genocide and wipe out a single tribe to the last child, said that they didn't want to play any more because even though they had accomplished all of their goals they had never once felt like a hero.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    But then again, a more realistic scenario would be that the king remains in power because he has even higher level allies, or that the oppression is a systemic aspect of their culture developed over generations rather than being the fault of a few evil monarchs, or that rather than being evil the king has slowly compromised their morals to account for the harsh realities of the world.
    Just be aware that if I wanted to feel depressed about the sheer inertia driving most social problems I'd just go outside. One of the main reasons to play a heroic PC type is to be able to make a significant difference through my actions. In true superhero fashion that does often involve punching one figurehead and doing a bit of speechifying, but that's because other methods of trying to solve major social problems through game mechanics range from poorly implemented to nonexistent.

    Due note that I am in no way arguing against players being able to change the world, that is literally what the core of my setting is about. But at the same time, it is also about exploring the costs and the consequences of doing so and there being no such thing as a free lunch.
    Skimming your work I see pages and pages of rules for combat and equipment that can be used for combat. Where do you have rules for speechifying, and for the unintended consequences and unforeseen complications that might come of your attempts to fix one problem?

    What a game's rules spend more or less attention on will affect what players will see as more or less important. Heart of Darkness doesn't really show me any rules for changing hearts and minds or meaningfully changing the world, outside of the superhero version I mentioned above. Be aware that countless people have tried "we're totally about Deep Roleplaying" while cribbing someone else's rule engine. (Usually some version of D&D, but oWoD was notably based on the Shadowrun ruleset at first.) Intent matters a lot less than what the rules actually support/encourage.
    Last edited by Anymage; 2021-02-20 at 07:04 PM.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    KCMO metro area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    Just be aware that if I wanted to feel depressed about the sheer inertia driving most social problems I'd just go outside. One of the main reasons to play a heroic PC type is to be able to make a significant difference through my actions. In true superhero fashion that does often involve punching one figurehead and doing a bit of speechifying, but that's because other methods of trying to solve major social problems through game mechanics range from poorly implemented to nonexistent.



    Skimming your work I see pages and pages of rules for combat and equipment that can be used for combat. Where do you have rules for speechifying, and for the unintended consequences and unforeseen complications that might come of your attempts to fix one problem?

    What a game's rules spend more or less attention on will affect what players will see as more or less important. Heart of Darkness doesn't really show me any rules for changing hearts and minds or meaningfully changing the world, outside of the superhero version I mentioned above. Be aware that countless people have tried "we're totally about Deep Roleplaying" while cribbing someone else's rule engine. (Usually some version of D&D, but oWoD was notably based on the Shadowrun ruleset at first.) Intent matters a lot less than what the rules actually support/encourage.
    I haven't read Talakeal's game, so I can't comment on the merit of this critique. But it seems self-contradictory - you say that attempting to solve social problems through game mechanics is usually done poorly, then you ask where Talakeal's game mechanics for solving social problems are.

    I'd be all for a game where social interaction mechanics don't exist specifically because they make conversation feel gamified and inorganic - I can't tell you how many times I've had players ask to roll Sense Motive or Insight checks with nothing to go on instead of bothering to do the necessary work to catch a character in a lie. But I actually agree with the gist of your last point - while I don't think you need dense rules to make something seem important, having dense rules implies something is important. If you want a game that's supposed to be about balancing social interaction and combat, and you specifically do not want social interaction rules, you need to keep the combat rules bare-bones.
    Last edited by quinron; 2021-02-20 at 07:33 PM. Reason: grammar mistake

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    Just be aware that if I wanted to feel depressed about the sheer inertia driving most social problems I'd just go outside. One of the main reasons to play a heroic PC type is to be able to make a significant difference through my actions. In true superhero fashion that does often involve punching one figurehead and doing a bit of speechifying, but that's because other methods of trying to solve major social problems through game mechanics range from poorly implemented to nonexistent.
    You know, Westerns are a good analogy.

    Back in the old days, they were typically black and white good guys shoot the bad guys and save the day, and were really popular.

    Then, people started to understand just how terrible the wild west really was in a lot of ways, and how the mindset of cowboys in white hats riding into town and shooting the bad guys before riding off into the sunset really wasn't the best way to approach real life problems.

    And, westerns became less popular.

    But they still make westerns, and a lot of them are very good, but they are often now more nuanced and emotionally complex than the westerns of old.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    Skimming your work I see pages and pages of rules for combat and equipment that can be used for combat. Where do you have rules for speechifying, and for the unintended consequences and unforeseen complications that might come of your attempts to fix one problem?

    What a game's rules spend more or less attention on will affect what players will see as more or less important. Heart of Darkness doesn't really show me any rules for changing hearts and minds or meaningfully changing the world, outside of the superhero version I mentioned above. Be aware that countless people have tried "we're totally about Deep Roleplaying" while cribbing someone else's rule engine. (Usually some version of D&D, but oWoD was notably based on the Shadowrun ruleset at first.) Intent matters a lot less than what the rules actually support/encourage.
    Well, that may be the first time anyone ever told me I had too many combat rules!

    To clarify though, I would like to say to things:

    First, I didn't mean to give the impression that my game wasn't about violence, it absolutely is. It is not a moralizing tale about the evils of violence, being a pacifist is just as ineffective and likely to get innocents killed as running in and shooting up "the bad guy" with no thought to the consequences. The game is about exploring moral shades of grey and the consequences of violence; but more than that it is about the creation and development of unique and complex human characters. The decisions you make and their effects on the world are important, but much less important than how you came to those decisions and the effects that they had on you.

    Second, I am not sure if I agree that the mechanics of a game need to go hand in hand with the storyline. For example, a game like Spec Ops: The Line is a game all about PTSD and the dehumanization of modern military operations, but it plays more or less exactly like any of the various other first person shooters that glorify warfare. Or how in old school CRPGs you are supposed to be the hero who is out saving the world, but you still spend most of your time breaking into people's homes and ransacking them, and the merchant who is asking you to save the town is still charging you an arm and a leg for the weapon you need to do it; because sometimes fun gameplay doesn't care about things like story or theme. Which is not to say that a good game doesn't have mechanics which reinforce the theme, I just think its not essential, and is best when left as subtext.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anymage View Post
    ...but oWoD was notably based on the Shadowrun ruleset at first...
    Is this true? I do see a lot of similarities between the two, but as there were only 1-2 years between the books publication, I always assumed it was just more of a convergent development resulting from the state of gaming / pop culture at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by jinjitsu View Post
    I'd be all for a game where social interaction mechanics don't exist specifically because they make conversation feel gamified and inorganic - I can't tell you how many times I've had players ask to roll Sense Motive or Insight checks with nothing to go on instead of bothering to do the necessary work to catch a character in a lie. But I actually agree with the gist of your last point - while I don't think you need dense rules to make something seem important, having dense rules implies something is important. If you want a game that's supposed to be about balancing social interaction and combat, and you specifically do not want social interaction rules, you need to keep the combat rules bare-bones.
    Also this.

    In my experience the more people tend to right rules about something, the less engaging it becomes. For example, D&D has a lot more ink devoted to its alignment system than damn near any other game, and as a result I feel that it is probably the worst RPG I have ever seen for exploring themes of morality. Likewise, most games that have social combat systems just come across as feeling like shallow mind control simulators.

    To use another example, I am currently playing Mage, and I like that Mage tied your sanity and hubris into your humanity; but the idea that I am more likely to become a marauder (an insane mage who has lost their grip on reality and now lives in an artificial reality of their own making) is tied to performing "evil" acts. Which makes no damn sense; in my mind the most grounded Mages would be cynical sociopaths, and the one's most likely to become marauders would be the idealistic ones who attempted to put everything right regardless of the cost.

    Edit: Oh, and I really do appreciate any time anyone takes to look at my work and / or give me feedback about it; even if it challenges my intent / execution. Thanks!
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2021-02-20 at 10:37 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Orc in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    I am trying to make my game / campaign setting more inclusive for various gender and sexual identities, but I don't really know how to go about it.

    My setting is roughly equivalent to nineteenth century Earth, but far more egalitarian, without rigidly defined gender roles. In addition, alchemy makes seamlessly changing one's biological sex something which is, while not easy or commonplace, something that is achievable for most people.

    I can't personally really see how many of the modern gender identities would fit into such a setting outside of very specific circumstances.


    Likewise, when it comes to writing up specific setting NPCs, I don't generally mention family unless it is important for the setting (for example, a dynastic family) because I want to leave it open for other people to develop as they see fit, and because it would also feel forced / tokenist to simply insert a context less line about someone's sexuality or AGAB into their biography. Likewise, I prefer to leave NPCs sexuality ambiguous in my games in case a player wants to romance them.

    So, while I have had trans, gender fluid, intersex, and homo/bi/pan sexual NPCs in games that I have run, very little of it comes across in the official NPC write-ups or setting design.



    On a related note, what is the proper ratio of male to female characters in artwork? A common sense answer would obviously be 50/50, I have had several people comment about how there are already too many drawings of women despite them only making up about 40% of the artwork.
    To go further down that rabbit hole, do you think male gamers are more or less likely to be interested in a game with lots of female representation in the artwork? And vice versa?
    And, a little deeper, does it matter how sexualized the art is? I try and avoid out and out cheesecake (its tough, I have found that a lot of artists want to draw it even if not requested), but most of the illustrations are of conventionally attractive people regardless of gender. Likewise, while I am trying to display a wide array of clothing styles and body types, a large portion of the illustrations do depict people who are scantily clad or with unrealistic physiques.

    Thanks!
    On a side note, a interesting thing that relates to this is how Fallen London (set in pseudo gothic 1870s London that was stolen by immensely powerful beings called the Masters of the Bazaar and resides now undergrounds in massive massive cave... long story) deals with sexuality and gender. On the latter, the eldritch ***ery of the place makes it so that while there are guys and gals, there are now people with squids for heads and semi sentient golem workers, to the point where someone identifying as agender or nonbinary wouldn't even be given a passing glance. On the former, one of the Maters portfolios deals with love of all kinds, so lgbt relationships aren't stigmatized as they were in IRL 1870s London because he deals in ALL kinds of love.

    Spiel aside, try to make sure everything makes sense according to the lore of your world. I look forwards to seeing the finished product!
    Last edited by Destro2119; 2021-02-20 at 09:08 PM.
    All Classes Matter

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    On a related note, what is the proper ratio of male to female characters in artwork? A common sense answer would obviously be 50/50, I have had several people comment about how there are already too many drawings of women despite them only making up about 40% of the artwork.
    To go further down that rabbit hole, do you think male gamers are more or less likely to be interested in a game with lots of female representation in the artwork? And vice versa?
    And, a little deeper, does it matter how sexualized the art is? I try and avoid out and out cheesecake (its tough, I have found that a lot of artists want to draw it even if not requested), but most of the illustrations are of conventionally attractive people regardless of gender. Likewise, while I am trying to display a wide array of clothing styles and body types, a large portion of the illustrations do depict people who are scantily clad or with unrealistic physiques.

    Thanks!
    As a man, I think if the artwork is entirely female characters I am more likely to buy the book.

    If I were making decisions I would probably weight in favor of underrepresented groups, not sure I could say an exact ratio I would be aiming for. I personally think diversity and quality are related, so I would be more focused on the art being high quality.

    My personal take on sexualization is consistency is more important than severity. If the men and women are sexualized about the same, I think that is fine and easier for people to accept. if one is more than the other, people will question it. Past that, I think whatever fits the tone best would be the best to aim for. If you are going for high fantasy, conventionally attractive and unrealistic physiques are probably fine. If you are going for something more realism or gritty then the art probably not.
    My sig is something witty.

    78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    There is also the issue of how one even goes about sexualizing a male. Amongst game criticism, the standard ultra feminine woman with an hourglass figure is universally seen as a male sex fantasy, while the standard muscular bearded violent super manly guy is seen as a male power fantasy.

    I personally prefer roguish men with a swimmers build and tall, full figured, athletic women in dominant positions; and so if I am going for "sexy" that is what I will ask for, usually just in the most revealing clothing that is practical for the role; but I know I am absolutely not the norm.
    Yeah, there will always be differences in people's preferences. Some people like skinnier women than curvy ones. I guess you can take a que from how they are usually sexualised in media as to what depiction might be most widely appealing.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    In the distant past, the setting made extensive use of genetic engineering.

    One of the results is that women are much closer in size and strength to men, [...]
    In the one setting where I directly addressed this issue the answer was "only makes a difference before the first plateau", after that when the diminishing returns reverse for a while and you enter what would be superhuman strength in our world it just stops being relevant. Although my indirect solution is usually "all those things are trends and individuals may not follow them".

    Anyways I realized I was kind of getting lost so I when back and double checked the opening post. On artwork I agree with Witty Nickname that consistency of sexualization is pretty important. The tone/style should be consistent across characters. For representation I'd say go for about 50/50 or somewhere between that and the ratio for the groups you are portraying in the setting. Everything else I think I have already commented on.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Talakeal:

    How close are the names in your world to IRL ones? If not very much then one thing that can happen (I think almost should happen) is lack of gendered names. So a person transitioning would not normally change their name - they can, of course, like some people change their names for reasons unrelated to sexuality or gender, but that should be significantly rarer. In fact lack of gendered names is practically a default assumption in transhumanist SF I've read. Now with RL names it is somewhat jarring but still possible; with made-up names it's easy.

    Lord Raziere, Rater202

    I definitely agree that if your character can topple the government by themselves they should be able to topple the government regardless of what player has in mind. That's only fair. However not every game is presuming that such level of power is achievable. I also do not think that non-TO 20lvl party is on that level of power in every official D&D setting.

    Now if we go "not quite by themselves" then we have the problem of people supporting your character or party. The party may be able to inflict more damage than a nuclear warhead, and still not able to solve the problems without support of others. And if there is no support readily available then you sometimes can create that support and sometimes you can't. It's not necessary a GM screwing with you. Saying that converting a society of steppe nomads to strict veganism is impossible is not an indication that GM has a low opinion of veganism (not even indication that GM is not vegan themselves). Additional important thing: more things are theoretically possible in long-term, but even if your character can live for another 100 years I think that many players who want changes will not settle for that - nor will GM or other players agree to make that a focus of campaign.

    Finally, Raziere: killing those who will not listen? Really?
    Last edited by Saint-Just; 2021-02-21 at 04:04 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    WhiteWizardGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Expanding on Saint-Just's idea there and Segev's posts on the last page, I think what would realistically happen with inheritance (and therefore names) is absolute primogeniture. Your eldest child is your heir and gets a "strong" or "primary" name, while everyone else is expected to get married off in order to secure alliances and maintain social ties, regardless of gender. "One of you three needs to marry one of the four Dewmonts, so we're taking you all to a party so we can figure out which pair makes the best match." And if it turns out that two of the young men volunteer, the assumption is probably that they'll work out the question of child rearing between the two of them, possibly with a dowry from the wealthier family's parents to defray the costs. Possibly one of them transitions physically via alchemy, but doesn't switch their pronouns, since he's only going to be female-bodied 'for the sake of the children' and only as a temporary measure.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint-Just View Post
    Talakeal:

    How close are the names in your world to IRL ones? If not very much then one thing that can happen (I think almost should happen) is lack of gendered names. So a person transitioning would not normally change their name - they can, of course, like some people change their names for reasons unrelated to sexuality or gender, but that should be significantly rarer. In fact lack of gendered names is practically a default assumption in transhumanist SF I've read. Now with RL names it is somewhat jarring but still possible; with made-up names it's easy.
    That's a great suggestion; unfortunately I am terrible about coming up with names or inventing languages.

    The setting is a mash-up of Arthurian and Western. As a result, most of the world's historical figures use names taken from real world mythology, while modern names in the setting are typically simple American names.


    Edit: For land owners, family names are generally taken from a great hero who founded the dynasty and are tied to the land they live on. Land is typically inherited by the eldest child (and their spouse) regardless of gender, although land that has grown unwieldy might be split between all children. Marrying into a family, regardless of gender, usually means taking on their name, moving to their land, and cutting legal ties with your existing family.
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2021-02-21 at 03:49 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Edit: For land owners, family names are generally taken from a great hero who founded the dynasty and are tied to the land they live on. Land is typically inherited by the eldest child (and their spouse) regardless of gender, although land that has grown unwieldy might be split between all children. Marrying into a family, regardless of gender, usually means taking on their name, moving to their land, and cutting legal ties with your existing family.
    With an absolute primogeniture you will see significantly less situations where dynasties enlarge their holdings by marriage. In fact it probably will only happen when at least participant is a sole child. Marriages between firstborns will be either strongly discouraged, or alternatively result in a "junior" partner in the marriage (one who abandons their family name) disinheriting themselves.

    Also if RL history is any indication nobody ever though it is possible to have too much land. So splitting will not be done because the lands are "unwieldy", you just hire stewards. It can be done because parents wanted to give a good life (and possibly political power) to all of their children, but depending on time and place it could be against the law (at least as far as the land and buildings go, giving out gold, animals etc was probably legal everywhere).

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint-Just View Post
    Finally, Raziere: killing those who will not listen? Really?
    Its a last resort if being a trickster-teacher doesn't work out, because just speechifying at them directly doesn't work on people. if were being realistic making big speeches and telling people directly what is moral will just make them more resistant and make your think your just an unreasonable moral crusader/twee and thus defy you anyways. therefore the best way to get people to change without measures is often in ways that require cleverness and changing other factors- things that you might not always have time for in a fantasy game where there might be some other evil lurking about/threatening things, and having the guile and intelligence for such work in the first place is already quite lucky and requires some social focus which my character might not have. leading people to the right answer without directly telling them so that they won't resist those answers is delicate work. and again I don't plan on killing civilians.

    whats your alternative?

    "Stop enslaving people"
    "No, I'm not listening"
    "oh well I guess I'm just going let that happen."

    "Stop oppressing people for having different religion/physical features/partners than you."
    "No, I'm not listening."
    "oh well I guess I'm going to let that happen."

    "Stop being a corrupt jerk who hoards wealth"
    "No, I'm not listening."
    "oh well I guess I'm going to let that happen."

    "Stop going to war"
    "No, I'm not listening"
    "oh well I guess I'm going to let that happen."

    "Stop abusing your power"
    "No, I'm not listening"
    "Oh well, I guess I'm going to let that happen."

    not all of us view playing in settings as taking a tour of suffering we can look at without being able to change much outside of what the GM's wants us to focus on. and if your putting that stuff into fantasy full of fantastic abilities and classes that capable of combat and being badass over others, don't be surprised when violence is what is resorted to.

    you want to play out that social change realistically with player involvement you better make sure up front from the start that its a political intrigue game, make sure that a complete noncombat character with social skills is not only a viable character concept, but one of the more optimal ones and that no greater evil or dungeon-crawling is involved at all, because your asking for something that requires total focus of concept, and if there is anything greater than that politics at work the only choice will be to start taking shortcuts to make sure both evils are defeated, lesser and greater. because there is always the chance the lesser evil will be corrupted by the greater one anyways. there is a universe that has both such greater evils and such politics, its called Wh40k, and the people there take violent shortcuts with the politics within to make sure they can deal with the threats from without which are always more pressing.

    its the "Thousand Dooms" problem of Exalted 2e: why care about doing the politics and culture properly if some big supernatural disaster or whatnot is constantly going roflstomp over everyone's lives if you don't deal with that anyways? might as well resort to military rule and force them into it, because that is what will be most efficient to responding to those threats.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  14. - Top - End - #74
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    I am trying to make my game / campaign setting more inclusive for various gender and sexual identities, but I don't really know how to go about it.

    My setting is roughly equivalent to nineteenth century Earth, but far more egalitarian, without rigidly defined gender roles. In addition, alchemy makes seamlessly changing one's biological sex something which is, while not easy or commonplace, something that is achievable for most people.

    I can't personally really see how many of the modern gender identities would fit into such a setting outside of very specific circumstances.


    Likewise, when it comes to writing up specific setting NPCs, I don't generally mention family unless it is important for the setting (for example, a dynastic family) because I want to leave it open for other people to develop as they see fit, and because it would also feel forced / tokenist to simply insert a context less line about someone's sexuality or AGAB into their biography. Likewise, I prefer to leave NPCs sexuality ambiguous in my games in case a player wants to romance them.

    So, while I have had trans, gender fluid, intersex, and homo/bi/pan sexual NPCs in games that I have run, very little of it comes across in the official NPC write-ups or setting design.
    I hope these things haven't been said better by someone else already, but I don't think that the changes you suggest would necessarily lead to a society where trans or queer identities kind of even out and fade in the background, as there is more to gender and sexual identity than the single issues of transition and discrimination.

    I think at this point the question becomes, how does your setting's conception of gender identity and expression change once the means to affirm that identity and the freedom to express it are more easily achieved? Are men and women still tied down to the signifiers of beard, blue, trousers and make up, pink, skirt, or is an amalgam of all those forms of expression more widespread (and are there new ones)? Are different pronouns and inclusive language more widespread? Non binary and gender-fluid people will still exist, and more people will be out probably.

    It seems to me if you do want a more inclusive society, then you need to think about the history of that society and work a way for your trans characters' identities to be not only present and tolerated/permitted, but widespread and celebrated in how they differ as well as how they're the same as more rigid conceptions of gender.
    .
    .
    .
    Spoiler
    Show
    It's like, a secret to everybody or whatever.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    "Stop going to war"
    "No, I'm not listening"
    "oh well I guess I'm going to let that happen."

    "Stop abusing your power"
    "No, I'm not listening"
    "Oh well, I guess I'm going to let that happen."
    A lot of what you are saying misses the mark, but I found these two examples particularly ironic. You are proposing to respond to people going to war or abusing their power, by your PCs abusing their own power to go to war with those people.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    A lot of what you are saying misses the mark, but I found these two examples particularly ironic. You are proposing to respond to people going to war or abusing their power, by your PCs abusing their own power to go to war with those people.
    Yet I still find it a better reason than what most murderhobo PC's attack people for: gold or exp. Whether its ironic or not has no bearing on anything. Imminent disasters require action. If there is no other way to get rid of the problem- which in a fantasy setting with nobility will be the ONLY way given the lack of social mobility- that is the only path forward if they refuse to be persuaded. Do you comment on the irony of killing bandits trying to kill you as well?
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  17. - Top - End - #77
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2017

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Two art questions, to spitball ideas.

    First, does being active and having agency in a scene help reduce peoples sense of the character just being eye candy? Like tons has already been written about boobplate and chainmail bikinis. If the boobplate wearer is from a culture where the armor also tends towards sculpted abs and is taking charge of the scene, is that okay with people as opposed to her just looking cheesecakey?

    Second, how often do gender nonconforming behaviors wind up showing up in art? As noted, being able to change one's physical sex for a moderate cost has some unintended consequences and doesn't show much if the character is indistinguishable from cis at a first glance (since a glance is all we get in an art piece, and someone who passes perfectly will by definition be impossible to tell from a cis person). Someone AFAB who hasn't magically altered their body but still prefers to present masc is not unknown; a suit or tuxedo that's been appropriately tailored is a look I've seen in real life, and a small chested woman going for sculpted abplate could work too. A masculine bodied person wanting to present femme is going to be trickier because there are a lot of cultural landmines re: man-in-a-dress and effeminate men in general, but gendernonconforming people in art and described in the setting book might communicate an openness to exploring genderspace than simply saying that physical transformation is possible and having few to no good ways to show that in play.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Verappo View Post
    Are men and women still tied down to the signifiers of beard, blue, trousers and make up, pink, skirt, or is an amalgam of all those forms of expression more widespread (and are there new ones)? Are different pronouns and inclusive language more widespread?
    The language is gender neutral by default but has various optional pronouns, most of which are not based on gender, but rather social class, species, or spiritual aspects.

    Most women are incapable of growing a bear biologically, but plenty of men shave. Trousers are typically worn by those who ride horses, skirts by those who don't. Colors are not generally related to gender, but more by what church you belong to. Makeup is, I suppose, more common among women, but nobody is going to comment on guys who look like Jack Sparrow or Louis the XIV.

    Quote Originally Posted by Verappo View Post
    Non binary and gender-fluid people will still exist, and more people will be out probably.

    It seems to me if you do want a more inclusive society, then you need to think about the history of that society and work a way for your trans characters' identities to be not only present and tolerated/permitted, but widespread and celebrated in how they differ as well as how they're the same as more rigid conceptions of gender.
    Given the above, what would a non-binary or gender fluid character even look like in this setting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    its the "Thousand Dooms" problem of Exalted 2e: why care about doing the politics and culture properly if some big supernatural disaster or whatnot is constantly going roflstomp over everyone's lives if you don't deal with that anyways? might as well resort to military rule and force them into it, because that is what will be most efficient to responding to those threats.
    Ok, that kind of goes back to my point. So you have made that decision and your group of PCs militarize the world. Now, another group of solar Exalted have decided that it is their duty to liberate and enlighten repressive militant societies, so they come in to destroy your society. At that point, which side is the good guys? How does this play out that makes the world a better place?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    You want to play out that social change realistically with player involvement you better make sure up front from the start that its a political intrigue game, make sure that a complete noncombat character with social skills is not only a viable character concept, but one of the more optimal ones and that no greater evil or dungeon-crawling is involved at all, because your asking for something that requires total focus of concept, and if there is anything greater than that politics at work the only choice will be to start taking shortcuts to make sure both evils are defeated, lesser and greater. because there is always the chance the lesser evil will be corrupted by the greater one anyways. there is a universe that has both such greater evils and such politics, its called Wh40k, and the people there take violent shortcuts with the politics within to make sure they can deal with the threats from without which are always more pressing.
    To clarify, it seems like you are saying that the campaign world can only include darker elements that were put there specifically for the PCs to solve? Is that correct?

    So like, if I am running a game about boxers in the real world, are you saying that it would be unfair to mention that one of their fellow boxers got cancer and retired because you can't simply punch out cancer, and therefore cancer is only appropriate in a hospital drama game where someone is playing an oncologist?


    Quote Originally Posted by Saint-Just View Post
    With an absolute primogeniture you will see significantly less situations where dynasties enlarge their holdings by marriage. In fact it probably will only happen when at least participant is a sole child. Marriages between firstborns will be either strongly discouraged, or alternatively result in a "junior" partner in the marriage (one who abandons their family name) disinheriting themselves.

    Also if RL history is any indication nobody ever though it is possible to have too much land. So splitting will not be done because the lands are "unwieldy", you just hire stewards. It can be done because parents wanted to give a good life (and possibly political power) to all of their children, but depending on time and place it could be against the law (at least as far as the land and buildings go, giving out gold, animals etc was probably legal everywhere).
    Most landowners in my setting are going to be part of the nobility in a fairly strict federal system. Trying to hold onto more land than you can successfully manage or manipulating your children's personal relationships or bodilly autonomy is a dangerous game as your superior can simply remove you from power. It is typically far better to simply share the land with a brother or cousin.

    Also, IIRC Charles Martel divided his Empire between his three sons, which is why there is such a strong divide between Frankish and Germanic cultures in Europe and why they are always warring over the lands between.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Ok, that kind of goes back to my point. So you have made that decision and your group of PCs militarize the world. Now, another group of solar Exalted have decided that it is their duty to liberate and enlighten repressive militant societies, so they come in to destroy your society. At that point, which side is the good guys? How does this play out that makes the world a better place?
    No, I have not "made a decision". I have analyzed the circumstances and have determined that such a thing is the only decision that is sane. But not in the situation you have detailed. You have instead have detailed a different situation with your example assuming that I have just decided to militarize societies without any outside threat involved, which is a different case altogether, because I wouldn't do that.

    To clarify, it seems like you are saying that the campaign world can only include darker elements that were put there specifically for the PCs to solve? Is that correct?

    So like, if I am running a game about boxers in the real world, are you saying that it would be unfair to mention that one of their fellow boxers got cancer and retired because you can't simply punch out cancer, and therefore cancer is only appropriate in a hospital drama game where someone is playing an oncologist?
    I don't get what it, are you saying that a boxer should somehow be expected to solve cancer?
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  20. - Top - End - #80
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    No, I have not "made a decision". I have analyzed the circumstances and have determined that such a thing is the only decision that is sane. But not in the situation you have detailed. You have instead have detailed a different situation with your example assuming that I have just decided to militarize societies without any outside threat involved, which is a different case altogether, because I wouldn't do that.
    I am saying, what if the PC's circle comes to that decision, and decides to militarize society to save it from outside forces. Then, a different circle of celestial exalted comes to a different decision, and decides to destroy your militarized society for the sake of freeing the people whom they see as victims of an oppressive militaristic society.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    I don't get what it, are you saying that a boxer should somehow be expected to solve cancer?
    Absolutely not.

    I am saying that a boxer shouldn't be expected to solve cancer, just like a random gang or murder hobos shouldn't be expected to solve societal ills.

    And I am saying that including "darker" aspects of the campaign should not be forbidden just because the PCs aren't tailor made to solve them.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    I am saying, what if the PC's circle comes to that decision, and decides to militarize society to save it from outside forces. Then, a different circle of celestial exalted comes to a different decision, and decides to destroy your militarized society for the sake of freeing the people whom they see as victims of an oppressive militaristic society.
    Okay so I immediately get punished taking the actions to save that society from repeated supernatural threats of Exalted 2e of the Thousand Dooms which everyone who knows enough about Exalted 2e can attest to. Thus the only sane option is to abandon ruling altogether, let the that other circle free them however they want and become a wandering knight-errant saving only small towns in my lack of agency while letting other places be oppressed. great to know.

    Absolutely not.

    I am saying that a boxer shouldn't be expected to solve cancer, just like a random gang or murder hobos shouldn't be expected to solve societal ills.

    And I am saying that including "darker" aspects of the campaign should not be forbidden just because the PCs aren't tailor made to solve them.
    Okay, who said I wanted to play your "just another person" game? I want to play a hero, not replicate my own meaningless in my fantasies.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  22. - Top - End - #82
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Its a last resort if being a trickster-teacher doesn't work out, because just speechifying at them directly doesn't work on people. if were being realistic making big speeches and telling people directly what is moral will just make them more resistant and make your think your just an unreasonable moral crusader/twee and thus defy you anyways. therefore the best way to get people to change without measures is often in ways that require cleverness and changing other factors- things that you might not always have time for in a fantasy game where there might be some other evil lurking about/threatening things, and having the guile and intelligence for such work in the first place is already quite lucky and requires some social focus which my character might not have. leading people to the right answer without directly telling them so that they won't resist those answers is delicate work. and again I don't plan on killing civilians.

    ....

    not all of us view playing in settings as taking a tour of suffering we can look at without being able to change much outside of what the GM's wants us to focus on. and if your putting that stuff into fantasy full of fantastic abilities and classes that capable of combat and being badass over others, don't be surprised when violence is what is resorted to.

    you want to play out that social change realistically with player involvement you better make sure up front from the start that its a political intrigue game, make sure that a complete noncombat character with social skills is not only a viable character concept, but one of the more optimal ones and that no greater evil or dungeon-crawling is involved at all, because your asking for something that requires total focus of concept, and if there is anything greater than that politics at work the only choice will be to start taking shortcuts to make sure both evils are defeated, lesser and greater. because there is always the chance the lesser evil will be corrupted by the greater one anyways. there is a universe that has both such greater evils and such politics, its called Wh40k, and the people there take violent shortcuts with the politics within to make sure they can deal with the threats from without which are always more pressing.
    I mean the realistic (self-consistent) answer is that you can't cure the society's ills in your off-time. Not even by killing people (though it may be marginally more likely to succeed). As far as not killing civilians it seems that people owning slaves, people oppressing people for having different religion/physical features/partners, and corrupt jerks who hoard wealth are more likely to be civilians.

    As far as Wh40k goes I think that violent shortcuts are usually presented in two ways. Either it is a grim necessity ensuring survival, "Men must die so that Man endures", or it is darker option of "you'll learn to love the taste of this boot" (Imperium are not the good guys, after all). Where each individual instance falls is up to debate. This does not help your cause because even theoretically the fact that some means are allowable in extreme circumstances (survival) does not mean they are allowable for each and every good cause. You also can change a lot of things outside of what the GM's wants you to focus on, without being able to change anything you want. There are a lot of things which cannot be done or reliably done.

    IMO a character who is focused on creating beauty is nowhere guaranteed to create a most beautiful artwork in history (even if it is a long campaign and player sinks some resources into making the character a good artist). If you would expect for the artist character to do this then maybe a social-oriented character should be able to reform the society; we just hold different ideas about power and effect of "average" PCs. But if you will not say that about the artist character then you are one expecting success of character's schemes to depend on how good or desirable or enlightened their goals are. And with character who is not socially oriented you will likely have either no result at all or aforementioned military dictatorship if they are good at applying their violence (all in the name of freedom from oppression, of course).

    Quote Originally Posted by Verappo View Post
    I hope these things haven't been said better by someone else already, but I don't think that the changes you suggest would necessarily lead to a society where trans or queer identities kind of even out and fade in the background, as there is more to gender and sexual identity than the single issues of transition and discrimination.

    I think at this point the question becomes, how does your setting's conception of gender identity and expression change once the means to affirm that identity and the freedom to express it are more easily achieved? Are men and women still tied down to the signifiers of beard, blue, trousers and make up, pink, skirt, or is an amalgam of all those forms of expression more widespread (and are there new ones)? Are different pronouns and inclusive language more widespread? Non binary and gender-fluid people will still exist, and more people will be out probably.

    It seems to me if you do want a more inclusive society, then you need to think about the history of that society and work a way for your trans characters' identities to be not only present and tolerated/permitted, but widespread and celebrated in how they differ as well as how they're the same as more rigid conceptions of gender.
    I would love to see more unconventional gender signifiers, especially given how things were different IRL in different times and places (manly man kissing each other on the mouth, societies where openly crying is seen as a sign of sincerity or humility), but in fantasy I think some norms (which need not to be gendered) are expected or it all ends up looking like a ren fair instead of an actual society (ren fair fantasy is acceptable but not my default assumption for a setting).

    As far as celebrated vs acknowledged I do not think it universally holds true. In the XIXth century and earlier literature a lot of time was spent on people struggling with class divisions and while class divisions remain the particular elements has disappeared, particularly the importance of (formal) nobility. A lot of those stories will not work if background changes to the late XXth century. Struggles of "commoners" who may have education, manners, money to achieve recognition; struggles of aristos to keep up appearances even if they know it's suicidal in the long term - they doesn't quite translate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Yet I still find it a better reason than what most murderhobo PC's attack people for: gold or exp. Whether its ironic or not has no bearing on anything. Imminent disasters require action. If there is no other way to get rid of the problem- which in a fantasy setting with nobility will be the ONLY way given the lack of social mobility- that is the only path forward if they refuse to be persuaded. Do you comment on the irony of killing bandits trying to kill you as well?
    You view e.g. corrupt jerks hoarding wealth as imminent disaster allowing non-judicial killings? Or because there is an outside disaster waiting to happen you can shape the society by non-judicial killings (and without that threat you'd be more careful with your means)?
    Last edited by Saint-Just; 2021-02-21 at 06:43 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Okay, who said I wanted to play your "just another person" game? I want to play a hero, not replicate my own meaningless in my fantasies.
    You don't see any middle ground between "meaningless / just another person" and "capable of solving all the world's problems, even if they are outside of my wheelhouse"?

    And again, you might like to play omnicompetent characters in black and white worlds, and that is absolutely fine. But the language you have been using seems to imply that the majority of players feel the same way.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Dec 2019

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    Most landowners in my setting are going to be part of the nobility in a fairly strict federal system. Trying to hold onto more land than you can successfully manage or manipulating your children's personal relationships or bodilly autonomy is a dangerous game as your superior can simply remove you from power. It is typically far better to simply share the land with a brother or cousin.

    Also, IIRC Charles Martel divided his Empire between his three sons, which is why there is such a strong divide between Frankish and Germanic cultures in Europe and why they are always warring over the lands between.
    I am not sure I'd call a system where ruler can just remove a noble landholder from power without any crime being committed by a nobleman a "feudal" system, but it obviously has precedents aplenty, whatever you call it. In that case it is obviously an option (though going the other way such partition will likely require an approval of aforementioned superior instead of being at-will done).

    And it was Charlemagne (Charles the Great, Carolus Magnus), the grandson of Charles Martel. In which case it was mostly because he was a strong king who could do whatever he wanted (and also a little bit earlier than mandatory primogeniture enforced on noble in some places probably starting as late as Renaissance, not sure).

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Talakeal View Post
    You don't see any middle ground between "meaningless / just another person" and "capable of solving all the world's problems, even if they are outside of my wheelhouse"?

    And again, you might like to play omnicompetent characters in black and white worlds, and that is absolutely fine. But the language you have been using seems to imply that the majority of players feel the same way.
    Making a lot of assumptions there.

    Look.

    If I see something I don't like, I'm going to do something about it. if I'm resorting to violence I'm probably some Dawn Caste wielding some ridiculous sword with nothing but a bunch of cool fighting skills to her name. what do you want from me?

    You punish me for doing something about it, and you punish me for not doing anything about it.....why should I care?

    I don't care about these points you raised its not a question of style, my original point stands: players, if they find something they don't like will try to get rid of it, and some players will be real stubborn and adamant about not tolerating injustice. Not everyone can sit by and just let such things happen.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    Yet I still find it a better reason than what most murderhobo PC's attack people for: gold or exp.
    Sure, if you want your character to be compared to a murderhobo who kills for wealth, then you are right. The comparison is apt, and maybe your character comes out just ahead.

    Whether its ironic or not has no bearing on anything. Imminent disasters require action. If there is no other way to get rid of the problem- which in a fantasy setting with nobility will be the ONLY way given the lack of social mobility- that is the only path forward if they refuse to be persuaded.
    I'll explain.

    Your character will kill everything he sees as a problem. He sees abuse of power and warfare as problems. But your solution is to effectively declare war on the nobility, which is of course a misuse of your character's power. Therefore another character, who has shares your own character's perspective of killing everything they see as a problem, would be justified in killing your character to punish your character's misuse of power and class warfare.

    Do you comment on the irony of killing bandits trying to kill you as well?
    No, because that is not ironic. It might be ironic if I were to be so incensed by the bandit's thievery that I stole from them to punish them for it though. The irony is that you are what you are trying to punish. So it was with your character who will go to war with the nobility to punish them for war or who will use their power to kill people who abuse their power
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2021-02-21 at 07:24 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lord Raziere's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    I'll explain.

    Your character will kill everything he sees as a problem. He sees abuse of power and warfare as problems. But your solution is to effectively declare war on the nobility, which is of course a misuse of your character's power. Therefore another character, who has shares your own character's perspective of killing everything they see as a problem, would be justified in killing your character to punish your character's misuse of power and class warfare.
    So your saying is that a corrupt jerk who already kills anyone in his way, having ruling without anyone opposing them has finally met someone able to stop him because they are sane enough to defend themselves in kind to his attempts to kill people?

    You have already justified killing the entirety of the nobility for me, if none of them took any action to effectively oppose them in their incompetence.
    I'm also on discord as "raziere".


  28. - Top - End - #88
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Rater202's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Where I am

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Malakal, you're starting to veer into a strawman argument a bit.

    the point is that the PCs are presented with problems.

    If the PCs are presented with a problem and want to solve it, they should be allowed to try and solve it.

    If the problem is a corrupt, oppressive regime who refuses to be reasoned with, sometimes the only way to solve that is with violence.

    You seem to be both exaggerating Raz's claims into one's more simplified than the point I think she's trying to come across with, and coming up with situations that make it more complicated than it needs to be.

    If you present an obvious bad guy, the PCs are going to want to fight them. It's as simple as that.

    If you don't want the PCs to try and deal with social issues they encounter, either don't present social issues or make it abundantly clear that that's not what the game is about before anyone even makes a character
    I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.

    Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
    Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
    Spoiler: Ode To Meteors, By zimmerwald
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by zimmerwald1915 View Post
    Meteor
    You are a meteor
    Falling star
    You soar your
    Way down the air
    To the floor
    Where my other
    Rocks
    Are.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Raziere View Post
    So your saying is that a corrupt jerk who already kills anyone in his way, having ruling without anyone opposing them has finally met someone able to stop him because they are sane enough to defend themselves in kind to his attempts to kill people?
    I don't quite understand this sentence. Did you miss a word in there somewhere?

    Edit: I know you missed the word "what" as your second word, but it seems this sentence was still intended to mean something else.

    You have already justified killing the entirety of the nobility for me, if none of them took any action to effectively oppose them in their incompetence.
    Well, I haven't justified anything, because I have only pointed out how the code you put forward would also turn back on you. If you think it's ok to kill anyone you see as a problem, then surely its ok for anyone who sees you as a problem to kill you (and lots of people would see you as a problem because you're going around killing everyone).

    You've now extended it to not only killing people who are themselves the problem, but also killing those who you see an incompetent. I think you are back to being evens with the murderhobo now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    You seem to be both exaggerating Raz's claims into one's more simplified than the point I think she's trying to come across with, and coming up with situations that make it more complicated than it needs to be.
    I think Raziere exagerated their own claims.

    Raz may have started off by saying she prefers a game where she is able to take steps to cure what she sees as social problems within the setting, and that she think a DM making that impossible would make the game less enjoyable. Not an unreasonable proposition. Although, also not reasonable to have some stuff baked into a setting, or making effecting social change a huge challenge (both of which are probably more realistic). Probably warrants some pre-game discussion between the group.

    But Raz has herself gone on to make more outlandish claims since. She has, it seems to me, created her own strawman. And of course it is human nature to focus on the more outlandish claims rather than the more reasonable ones.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2021-02-21 at 07:46 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Talakeal's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denver.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    If you don't want the PCs to try and deal with social issues they encounter, either don't present social issues or make it abundantly clear that that's not what the game is about before anyone even makes a character
    Speaking of straw men...

    I never said that I don't want the PCs to solve societal problems, I said that societal problems are complex and that going in and killing a few obvious scapegoats is not likely to "make the world a better place".

    Different problems require different solutions.

    For example; say I am running a fairly straightforward sword and sorcery campaign, where the PCs are sell-swords operating out of a frontier city, making their living collecting bounties on outlaws and monsters living in the wilderness. To emphasize the sword and sorcery aesthetic, I decide to make references to slave markets, and opium dens, and brothels, and other unsavory places in the town, maybe I mention people complaining about how taxes are high and the city lord's live in luxury while the poor starve in the street, or that the sheriff is overly zealous in hanging troublemakers.

    To me this seems to be a pretty standard game.

    Now, if the players decided they wanted to turn the town into an enlightened bastion of modern values, that is totally doable, but it isn't something the players can just do overnight, if they simply attack the town guard, they will likely be killed. Then, if / and or when they do succeed, they better be wiling to spend the time and effort, as well as having masterful skills in economics and sociology, otherwise they are just going to cause chaos and anarchy as people turn on one another in the resultant power vacuum.



    Now, the tone I got from Raz, which may or may not have been intentional, seemed to me to be sort of bullying the DM by saying if I don't like every aspect of the setting you worked so hard on, I am going to smash it out of spite, and if you don't let me smash it, I am going to take my ball and go home. Which is an attitude I have seen a lot at the table over the years, and not one I have a whole late of patience with anymore.
    Last edited by Talakeal; 2021-02-21 at 07:57 PM.
    Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •