Separated these posts out because of length!
@arkandel said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
I chalk this up to players not being able to properly separate IC from OOC very well, which is a way more widespread issue. It happens everywhere, too, across the board and on nearly every game I've even seen.
Sure? I mean, I agree asshole players are a thing everywhere, and bad behavior etc etc etc.
Buuuuut there's still something specific to this, and the potential RL connection I mentioned. Certain players gravitate to this stuff for certain reasons. And it isn't just the -isms. It's also the class/power imbalance of L&L, and how those let you belittle and dominate your social inferiors in game. In a way, some of these games are basically built around these modes and motivations and play.
Even where there's no real 'race' per se or mindset for someone to use when picking a faction.
You even see it in Horde versus Alliance on WoW, like there's a kind of player who chooses one over the other. It's how we are... tribal creatures who need a 'them' so there can be an 'us' we then get to be part of.
So if someone's bitching about them asshole halfies or whatever it is... that's on them. I can't honestly say it's the game's fault for having a freakin' halfling race. If they had werewolves instead it'd be them asshole furries or them asshole bloodsuckers or whatever the hell. If you want to stick a label on others badly enough you'll figure out what to write on it.
Sure, kinda? I mean tribalism is definitely a thing and players in rival factions dehumanize each other. But I think it doesn't quite encapsulate it entirely. Faction is often OOCly a play-style / character theme choice in games. IE, you play a Ventrue because you want political play, or a Daeva because you want combat/hot TS. You play a Werewolf because you want those character options. And this may put you at conflict with the non-Werewolves, but it puts you at conflict with them on the (presumed, game balance aside) even footing of rival major-archetype PCs.
Basically, 'die Werewolf' is, somehow, not quite the same thing as a racial slur (even a fantastic one) despite being the same thing? WoD races or WoW factions can't quite encapsulate it because they have some kind of presumed equality even if they're opposed. The closest thing I can think of in WoD is maybe how minor template (ghouls, kinfolk, etc) characters are sometimes treated.
Firan-wise, it was the difference between how Gold Dragon and Griffon players (for the non-initiated: hugely rival clans with a bloody history) treated each others, and how people treated halfies. The OOC vibe was not remotely similar, despite both the levels of IC antagonism and OOC factional-separation being similar (arguably it was more intense for the GD vs Griffon).
@collective said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
That having been said, you were quoting me to illustrate a point I was not making and I do not believe could be reasonably inferred from the text. That's not kosher. Not even a little.
I was quoting you to illustrate a point I (and others too) honestly thought you were making. A simple, "Yo, that's not what I meant" would have sufficed in place of assuming the worst and going on the attack.
Back to the topic, I said back on page 1 that I can see both sides of the argument. I'm not arguing for or against either having -isms or not having them. Games should feel free to make their own choices.
What I don't get is this the idea of the whole "opt-out" thing. It's one thing to say "sexism doesn't exist in this theme". People can deal with that (see: Arx or BSG). But "sexism totally exists in this theme but your cowgirl gunslinger PC can opt out of it" seems problematic.
How does she opt out of it? Is the ranch owner PC forced to hire her even though thematically he would have reason not to? Are the 'proper lady' PCs of town forced to not give her side-eye even though thematically they totally would? Etc. etc.
FTB on an assault scene or avoiding a specific plotline is easy. I genuinely don't comprehend how one would "opt out" of pervasive historic discrimination.
@sunny said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
That's one of the benefits of having the discussion. If we never do then the perspectives are never challenged, and we can only get so far from an echoing chamber of talking to people who already agree with our viewpoints 100%.
I disagree. The point of having a discussion is absolutely to examine differing viewpoints and the like, but complete misrepresentation of a point makes it impossible to actually talk. If I say 'I like it when it's warm' and someone responds to it with 'well, I think sunsets and sunrises are just as pretty as a summer blue sky', that's not a discussion.
Controversial topics, by nature, are divisive. I can see why people with strong enough opinions either way could respond in a knee-jerk fashion and reduce others' opinions they disagree with down to easily dismissed strawman arguments.
Obviously it's not fun when it happens to (generic) you. But it still beats the alternative of only talking about them with those we already know will agree with us in the first place. It's not perfect but it's what we got.
How about this:
Player One (in character): I hate all those fucking fags. They should be hanged, all of them!
Player Two: (out of character) Um ... yeah. Can we not do that? I get a pretty big dose of that in real life and I don't have the energy to deal with it in my escapist fantasy time. Is that okay?
Player One: (out of character): Oh, okay.
Player One: (in character): But anyways, about that McGuffin you wanted polished. I got that right here.
Admittedly, that's expecting somebody to curb RPing something that hurts somebody else, but we already accept that as a part of the hobby in several other contexts. But the effort required to not make somebody's day worse is minimal.
@collective that example seems reasonably innocuous and I have no problem with it. But what about the examples I cited? Or if that comment you made had been in direct reaction to something going on IC at that moment? Obviously everything is case by case but it seems to me that many of the cases become pretty problematic if the antagonist is displaying thematic views.
@collective What happens when the "Oh okay" is more costly by design?
"Hey, your character is borderline racist but he's my black character's boss, so that's affecting my IC career progression within the faction. Can we not do that?"
"But that would require me to change my character in a fundamental way."
At this point is it the first player's issue for rolling a character on a game like that? Is it the second player's issue for rolling that kind of character? Is it staff's for allowing it to happen?
What's the resolution for it once it hits the fan? What's the best way to prevent it from getting that far assuming you want to have a 'realistic' setting?
Let me start this by saying that I don't think 'Theme' trumps human beings. I just don't. If a hypothetical game runner does, they should post a notice saying so in policy or character gen, so I can move along and find another game.
But in those cases, it's perfectly okay for a given character to not like another character. What's not okay is to seek that character out to abuse them, if they've asked you not to. That does mean that certain people who must play their character as being assholes to a certain class of character might not get a chance to RP with many people of that class.
That's okay. Both players and characters are probably going to benefit by that distance and lack of tension.
Characters do not trump real people. Ever.
@collective said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
Let me start this by saying that I don't think 'Theme' trumps human beings. I just don't. If a hypothetical game runner does, they should post a notice saying so in policy or character gen, so I can move along and find another game.
Let me be clear - I fully respect and support your right to have games free of whatever RL discrimination makes you uncomfortable. (In fact - come play on my BSG game, which is exactly such a place). I fully support games' rights to say "it's alt-history Wild West, where slavery never existed".
But if a game is going for 'costume drama realism', and discrimination is a part of the theme, then I don't think it's fair for one player to force other players to alter their characters to ignore that aspect of the theme. Fade to black? Sure. Handwave abuse instead of using the words on screen? Sure. Try to avoid each other as much as possible? Sure. But if you're a preacher and my cowgirl gunslinger walks into your church, I think you have a right to react to that ICly.
@faraday I don't believe that either. For the ... seventh (I think) ... time in this conversation, I am not saying that games where discrimination is a theme should not exist. BUT, I think you should tell players that up front and give them an idea of how much abuse they can expect to take so they can decide if the game is worth their time.
As for opting-out, it is far more useful a tool in games that set in contemporary, fantasy or SF universes. Yes, it's of limited use in historic settings. But I feel like there is a little accidental goal post moving going on by suddenly limiting this discussion to hypothetical historical games.
@collective said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
But I feel like there is a little accidental goal post moving going on by suddenly limiting this discussion to hypothetical historical games.
Given that the OP's original question specifically included them I fail to see any goalpost-moving here.
@arkandel said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
For instance would you feel about a vaguely racist characters belong on a MUSH set at a time slavery was still legal? Would you find it appropriate (or how inappropriate) for a Victorian age PC to use a slur against Chinese NPCs? How about sexism if the game is set in the fifties("you mean a woman is in charge of your team?!"). How about playing homophobes?
@collective said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
Yes, it's of limited use in historic settings
limiting this discussion to hypothetical historical games
@faraday said
specifically included them
One of these things is not like the other, can you tell which one it is?
@sunny said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
One of these things is not like the other, can you tell which one it is?
I guess I missed the part of the discussion where asking about a historical example equated to limiting the conversation only to historical examples and "moving goalposts"? But thanks so much for clearing that up for me.
@faraday said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
@sunny said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
One of these things is not like the other, can you tell which one it is?
I guess I missed the part of the discussion where asking about a historical example equated to limiting the conversation only to historical examples and "moving goalposts"? But thanks so much for clearing that up for me.
He was given an example; he provided how he'd deal with it. He acknowledged that it didn't apply to historical examples. That's the problem going on, here. The question at hand includes X, it is not limited to X. His answer is a reasonable one for the example in most cases. Telling him his answer is incorrect because it does not apply to X is moving the goal post, as the original question included but was not limited to X. If the only solution worth discussing is one that applies to every single aspect of every single possible conflict, then there's no discussion to have at all, because one size does not fit all.
@faraday With respect, the conversation (if you'd care to go back and review, you can confirm this independently) has ranged out in terms of setting. While the specific example in the first post was historic, the thread as a whole hasn't stayed in the past.
But by limiting the discussion to historical games, it is a lot easier to say 'Well, that's just unreasonable to even ask' when people ask why the slurs and discrimination are setting vital.
I am not saying you are trying to do that on purpose, but I am saying that in narrowing the scope back down in conjunction with your reservations about allowing players to opt out from bigotry, you are basically bolstering your point at the expense of ignoring a large part of the ongoing conversation.
Sometimes, in the pursuit of 'winning' a disagreement, we get a little tunnel vision. I do it myself.
Here's the deal.
I work somewhere where folks have to deal RL with racism and the resultant discrimination on a constant, all the time basis. It impacts everything from buying homes to owning businesses. It is terrible and heartbreaking on a daily, consistent basis. I don't want to deal with this theme in my pretendy fun time. I deal with it as a 'theme' in my professional and personal life already. I don't get to turn it off. I don't get to walk away from it.
It's not fun. It's not enjoyable to explore. It's not enlightening, either.
I don't object in any way to, for an example, someone including this theme as part of their Wild West game. I wouldn't play it, because it's on the tin that this sort of thing is very likely to be included (cos realism is more important than somebody's delicate feefees, yes, I have accepted this).
Now, if it was a Wild Wild West movie game (see: Will Smith), I would not expect there to be a problem with wanting to opt-out of the racism stuff. Cos that's not the point of it (we have giant spider robots, ffs, we are not going for historical accuracy).
A big thing here is a wider mistake in game design: setting is not theme. They're related, but not identical.
Sometimes thematic elements are inferred from the setting. IE, when you pick something that is explicitly 'not in our time,' it seems obvious you are saying "We care about the time our game is set in. This matters. Think about your character as a historic person." Maybe because of that, people seem to be a little better about clarifying what they want to leave out, too. "It's history but women aren't property."
In generically modern WoD (which, obviously, is very popular among MSB and pretty relevant) it's a lot less clear. Since the time isn't differentiated, some assume it's not the focus ('this isn't reality!!!'), and that you really care a lot more about all the un-reality of the setting. "I am playing a Vampire. The game is about ageless monsters and their vicious but also distinctly inhuman politics." On the other hand, WoD has a lot of 'through the mirror darkly' kind of theme to it, which other players may latch onto.
So while we probably cannot settle what games should be in a universal way, I think it's probably safe to say that all staff should be clear about what game they're running.
@bored Excuse me, sir, I play certain bloodlines of Ventrue and I kick ass just fine with them.
@deadculture said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
Can you imagine The Godfather without the hard language?
Totally off topic but if you ever get the chance watch the basic cable or broadcast edit for Goodfellas ... serious the most bizarre experience I have ever had.
Imma try to bring this up another way.
Many of these historical games are set in time periods where there's no indoor plumbing, rampant disease, people not bathing, water and food that could possibly kill you, no reliable birth control, women dying in childbirth all over the place, etc.. The world during these time periods was not actually enjoyable or fun. A lot of these things tend to be glossed over for historical settings, realism be damned, because this part isn't fun for anybody playing in it.
Racism isn't fun for the people that have to live with it.
Homophobia isn't fun for the people who have to live with it.
So yes, it is completely valid for him to ask 'Why is it important to you to have your character call my character a faggot?'
I am not suggesting that these things are things that nobody should be allowed to explore, that we should cut them out of our games, that anybody is bad or wrong for making a bigot PC. I do not in any way think this is true. I do think it's a valid question to ask. I do think it's something staff on these games should be clearer about.
ETA: Is it really that big of an OOC ask for you (generic) to not use that particular word in reference to my PC?
@sunny said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:
One of these things is not like the other, can you tell which one it is?
I guess I missed the part of the discussion where asking about a historical example equated to limiting the conversation only to historical examples and "moving goalposts"? But thanks so much for clearing that up for me.
