How should IC discrimination be handled?

[Auspice]

@dontpanda said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@arkandel If you're going to have it in your game, but only directed at NPCs, then don't bother having it at all, I think. I don't play a game to interact with NPCs, so if a key flaw of my character is his hatred of people with blonde hair, it should come up with PCs for it to actually make an impact.

Well, this is the opposite of what I was thinking and I apologize if my concept didn't come across.

I mean more allow/focus on NPCs being the ones to dish out the discrimination (rather than be on the receiving end). That way people don't feel pressured (though I'd still allow it) for their PC to have certain views and no one has to worry about things like 'Is Bob's player actually sexist or...?'

But it'd allow for scenarios like... the pirate ship on T8S has an ex-slave on it. A competing (NPC) pirate crew could use that as the basis to pick a fight. Or to lob insults. Which could have the benefit of bringing the PC crew closer together.

I had my whore PC hassled in the street by a pirate one day and he brought up her nationality (a native), her 'place' in society, etc.. It was an NPC flinging insults and slurs, which gives the PCs something to latch onto (should they wish).

[faraday]

@auspice said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

I mean more allow/focus on NPCs being the ones to dish out the discrimination (rather than be on the receiving end).

Yeah that's what I tried on Sweetwater. PCs could have whatever views they wanted, and the NPCs would reflect the historical norms.

It really didn't work out too well. Only rarely did people emit NPCs reacting as historical NPCs would. And the prevalence of progressive viewpoints far overshadowed anything the NPCs did occasionally dish out, leading to a sort of weird cognitive dissonance.

Now I'm not saying it can't ever work. That's just my personal experience.

ETA: By the dissonance I mean... it's kind of strange when the theme says "the NPCs discriminate based on historical norms" but you've got your Native American outcast, your African American doctor and your lady gunslinger all openly attending the town-wide barn dance without a single PC saying a word or a single NPC being emitted giving them side-eye. Yet that's what can happen. I'm not saying that's bad either... it's not like, "oh no we need more prejudice in our RP". It's just a little disconcerting sometimes when there's a disconnect between theme and RP.

[surreality]

This is one I've given a lot of thought, because this one has more layers than an onion.

First, I like @Collective's approach to this: ask the players, and see what they want to do. This is ideal for tabletop. It's less so for MUX due to a combination of a much larger player pool and not even knowing who those players are going to be at any given time, but it can be adapted at least to some extent. I know that's the approach I was trying to take with it in regard to a historical setting. (I got a lot of hate for how I wanted to handle it specifically, but if I pick up that project again, it's still how I aim to handle it.)

This is how I looked at it:

1. No matter what else is decided, these things have no place whatsoever in the OOC atmosphere of a game, ever. Not even as a 'joke'.

2. People have different answers to the question posed, regarding how much or how little they want to address this.
   2a. All players involved must have a respectful attitude toward other players on the game (which is covered above in regard to RL), but also toward other players' fun, unless it crosses into wrongfun territory.
   2b. I do not believe an interest in exploring these themes automatically indicates the player embraces these views RL. (Some do believe this, and some players do embrace these views. I don't believe either of these things are a healthy approach in general to creating any sort of positive environment, on a game or off.)
   2c. Some people are intrigued by the idea of combatting these views directly IC rather than indulging in them as an aggressor. They want to be the woman who overcomes discrimination and takes on her own crew by virtue of unquestionable badassery. They want to be in the Underground Railroad. They want to be the character who succeeds and thrives in spite of these challenges, and consider this heroic and life-affirming. In my experience, these players are more common than those who want to play antagonists focused on these themes, or characters with these traits. Without this conflict existing in the game world itself, these character types are excluded from the list of possibilities along with the antagonists. Similarly, there's already examples in thread of people coming into play with these views, and having them evolve and change and grow out of them as part of their character's story arc. If the player characters in a world are the exceptional individuals in that world by default, I don't think these exceptions are unreasonable.

3. I do believe there are certain forms of 'wrongfun'. With one major exception, these are all OOC forms of 'fun'. (The one exception to this for me is acting out child sex, whether it exists in the world or not. I define this as 'below 16'. YMMV in any number of directions, you do you.) This is generally stuff like trolling, stat bullying, playing head games with other players, trying to strong-arm other players into things they find uncomfortable they have no interest in engaging with, and so on. For some players, these are big reasons to be on a game and are major sources of their 'fun'. It's important to note that these things are not Character vs. Character competitions or actions, they are Player vs. Player interactions in the truest sense. I believe that a MUX (or MOO, or Evennia game, etc.) should be Player with Player, whatever the Character vs. <X> focus(es) of the game intend to be. Settings that incorporate heavy themes of discrimination, bigotry, or bias (in the way most historical settings may have to consider these subjects) must recognize their inclusion offers the players with these OOC wrongfun attitudes a number of means of engaging in the OOC wrongfun behaviors than modern settings in which they would encounter more pushback IC, even if they behave wholly in line with point #1 above in their OOC interactions with fellow players. (And most will, at least on the surface.)

4. I believe this means additional measures must be taken to ensure these themes, if they are included, are clearly noted as opt-in.
   4a. There's no opt-in to these things existing in the larger world of the game, whether the player has opted-in to personally encountering it or the direct fallout from it or not. They do exist in the world, just as horrible things exist in the world today that most of us would gladly erase from existence given the choice. It doesn't mean we have necessarily encountered them or their direct fallout, or ever will, and this approach can be extended to the game environment. I try to use myself as an example for these things usually, but I have really bad luck, y'all, so I'm going to use an extreme example here: There are child soldiers in the world subjected to unimaginable cruelty and brainwashing; this exists. It absolutely exists. I have never encountered it save for on the evening news or as characters in fiction. Odds are high I will never encounter it, though it is inescapable in other parts of the world. It is extremely unlikely this or the direct fallout from this (investigation of, encountering the victim of) will ever surface in my direct experience. This can be translated to the game world in a variety of ways.
   4b. No player should ever, ever be forced to have these views IC. This goes both ways; "You're supposed to hate me because I'm <X>!" is just as horrid as "I don't want my play experience to be dominated by people hating me because I'm <X>!" and 'forcing hate' is also something I do not consider OK to ask of someone to take on if they don't want to engage with these themes.
   4c. Provided that players keep in mind that these things do exist in the broader game world, I do not think 'it's all exceptions on grid as PCs!' does so much harm to that game world's 'accuracy' that it renders it invalid enough that 'you may as well just rewrite it all'. (I'm way too into cause and effect for that, and all of these things are enormously impactful on society and the way a world takes shape in broader terms.)

5. I set up a preference system for this on the MUX. People could express their comfort zones regarding this material (and various other subjects) to make their personal wishes known. This allows for those interested in exploring it to find one another, those who wished to avoid it to find one another, and each to see the other's preference and communicate with one another directly from there to see how to handle any given interaction. Sometimes, the answer will end up being 'don't interact'. Usually, there will be some measure of compromise, or some give and take, because most players are not assholes and genuinely care about whether everyone is enjoying themselves or not. This also let people set things up on a per-PC basis; if someone has a limited tolerance for this subject, they may have one character that gets logged in once in a blue moon that's opted in to it, and the rest that aren't. It also allows people to define their personal comfort zones and specifics. For instance, I may not care about sexist profanity being slung at my character, but I may not be down with being treated as a husband's property, and someone else may be completely the opposite -- which is why giving people the space to speak personally about their own interests (or their complete lack of interest) in as little or as much detail as they wish.

Plenty of people think this is the dumbest 'solution' ever, or that it's more problem than solution. I don't. I still aim to try it if I ever get back on that project.

[Auspice]

@faraday said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

It's just a little disconcerting sometimes when there's a disconnect between theme and RP.

This is something I've just come to accept, sad to say. Every game I've ever played, there's some level of disconnect between theme and RP.

We've discussed it here ('why are there beach parties in a constantly dangerous post-apocalyptic scenario?' 'where are these military members finding time to constantly hang out an drink during a war?' and so on)without any real solution beyond: encourage your players to play to theme and trust that the good players will help.

There will always be people who treat your setting as set dressing that only applies when they feel like it. That goes beyond matters like PC/NPC discrimination.

[faraday]

@auspice True, true. And heck, if there's one thing I'd be glad to have a disconnect about, it's erring on the side of "people being less horrible". (Shocker, I know.)

[Arkandel]

@pyrephox said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

In general, I'm more comfortable with playing fantasy prejudices than real world ones.

That's the key though. No one will get triggered because your PC says all shavs need to be driven out of the land, because none of us is a shav iRL (... I think). It's only a controversial matter at all because some people who've come out, or who have faced actual racism, or who've been mistreated based on their gender might not want to encounter it.

Fantasy (and sci-fi) racism is pretty safe in comparison, but not all settings get to use those tropes.

[surreality]

@auspice Another thing on this is encouraging people to incorporate this material within their own poses, within reason, and this can strongly reinforce these elements within a theme.

Even if I'm not chill with people trying to make my play experience all about sexism, odds are good I'm going to reference it in my own poses in small ways: people picking up and leaving the table when she sits down, people giving her a wider berth on the street, some day she comes in and complains about having a harder time finding qualified crew, maybe a few other women hiding a tiny smile of pride about the existence of a 'Ms. Captain' even if they're still wary, and so on.

Again, it's possible for that to go too far -- as in, into that 'pity me' attention-whoring space -- but that tends to be easy to spot, and can be nipped in the bud as needed.

[Apos]

I dunno man, I think the vast majority of people just can't play themes like that well. Any kind of character with flaws that invite antagonism really has to be played like a potential antagonist, and assuming you have a collaborative game, that requires embracing an extremely collaborative mindset to avoid issues.

Every character like that, any time they give a line that can provoke conflict, it really should be done with the mindset of, 'What does this let the other PCs do?' Does it let them react in a way they find fun or entertaining, or build a solid story? What kind of scene are they hoping to have? What are the other players looking for from the RP? Would the antagonism from the character be completely contrary to the existing scene, and limit their options? Can you reconcile the differing comfort levels of each of the players involved in the scene?

If a player can't answer those kind of questions, and the game is not a PVP centric game, they should not be playing those characters. And let's be real, the number of players that would even think in those terms is pretty small, and most people just wanna play an obnoxious trope, stir up some trouble for their own fun, and give zero fucks about how annoying or upsetting it is for everyone else.

[Pyrephox]

@arkandel said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

@pyrephox said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

In general, I'm more comfortable with playing fantasy prejudices than real world ones.

That's the key though. No one will get triggered because your PC says all shavs need to be driven out of the land, because none of us is a shav iRL (... I think). It's only a controversial matter at all because some people who've come out, or who have faced actual racism, or who've been mistreated based on their gender might not want to encounter it.

Fantasy (and sci-fi) racism is pretty safe in comparison, but not all settings get to use those tropes.

This is true! And, honestly, in the case of real-world-ish settings, I tend to downplay discrimination /unless the purpose of the game is to engage with it/. Like, I wrote up a campaign setting for steampunk Call of Cthulhu at one time, where nationalism, colonialism, and classism were key themes, with the characters meant to be on the receiving end of a lot of that. But, of course, it was a horror game, and tabletop. I don't know that I'd ever encourage real-world prejudices and discrimination in a "real world" setting in a MU*. Not unless, again, the PCs were on the receiving end of it, and intended to fight back or defy it.

That said, if I did play a historical game, as a /player/ I'd want to see that reflected at least in the setting, if not in the PCs, or I want it explicitly excised from the setting. Like a file that says, "Yes, we know the actual Jazz Age was filled with racism, sexism, etc. For the purposes of this game, none of that should be assumed to be a factor in the daily life of PCs." That doesn't make a lot of strict, IC sense, but it's a sacrifice made so that more people can have fun. And since it's a game, that's the point.

[surreality]

@apos said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

And let's be real, the number of players that would even think in those terms is pretty small, and most people just wanna play an obnoxious trope, stir up some trouble for their own fun, and give zero fucks about how annoying or upsetting it is for everyone else.

I may have just been lucky, but my experience is the opposite of this. I've run across a few horrible sorts that go the obnoxious trope route, and there's no question that they're a problem. They're also a problem that stands out in a very glaring way, and it's a way that obscures a lot of people who are behaving exactly as described as the ideal -- which isn't as readily noticed, because those players are integrating with the game in a healthy way that doesn't negatively impact anyone's experience there to make them a topic of conversation in the first place.

[Arkandel]

@pyrephox said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

That said, if I did play a historical game, as a /player/ I'd want to see that reflected at least in the setting, if not in the PCs, or I want it explicitly excised from the setting.

I think my only caveat for historical games - unless, of course, it's explicitly stated they are going 'Holywood' with it, which is perfectly fine - is that nothing utterly implausible takes place. So if there's an Asian person in mid-1600s England they should be prepared to get stared at, that sort of thing.

But I don't doubt it's actually safer for staff to build their theme in a way that IC discrimination just doesn't become too much of a thing in different ways. Ultimately it's a tradeoff; does the MU* benefit more from the thematic inclusion of racism or sexism than it loses from potential jerk players ruining things for others?

[Kanye Qwest]

Also, if you want to play an IC bigot, you should really not be taking it personally when other characters confront or disagree with yours. I believe you should probably not be rping about anything that has you upset OOC, but this is just common sense.

If you are going to do a thing IC, don't take it as an OOC insult or problem when other people have their characters react with IC distaste or disapproval.

[mietze]

@Apos, I think it depends on the context. I’ve had mostly really good experiences with my own play in this regard, and the bad ones I’ve had tended to be people who I think would have had issues regardless.

Playing a half-caste on a Fading Suns game was pretty nice. I felt most of the people there gave it good balance. There was a lot of leeway for pc views, which was great. Some enforcement of prejudice largely by npcs in scenes (not run by me. For some reason using npcs myself to discriminate against my own pc individually seems, I don’t know. It feels off, like the people who use npcs in scene to suddenly attack/Force other PCs to rescue in scene, etc. when the whole group of PCs is being looked askance at/unwelcome, that is a different story and pretty fun).

I do agree with others that yes there are discriminatory PCs that go over the line oocly, but that a just as annoying/bad problem are the people who pick heavily restricted PCs and then throw fits that they are restricted in what they can accomplish or that not everyone comes to fight on their behalf/rescue/defend them.

I think a lot of times people pick these types of PCs because they anticipate being different/rare/unique/easy in to a special place (or in the case of subservient PCs they think it’s a good way to “learn the sphere/group/theme”). Unfortunately to do it well without imposing on other people oocly it takes a lot of ic and ooc work.

Again, I enjoy these PCs a lot. I have no problems with any kind of subject, really—as long as there is ooc consideration and discretion involved. It’s just that there are a lot of people who are incapable/unwilling to take into account other folks’ comfort. Which is why I think it’s important that staff set very clear boundaries around any kind of the classic triggers of RP. (Loss of autonomy via mind control or domination, including slavery, powers, rape, etc)

[peasoupling]

Sometimes, a setting includes some form of prejudice or another. And you make a character, knowing that, because you want to engage with it somehow. Maybe you want to have tragic struggles in your background, maybe you want to be a badass subversive rebel, maybe you want to climb to power behind the scenes since open power is denied to you, etc. Those can be fun character types. And then you hit IC and everyone is really, really nice and egalitarian.

The challenges you thought your character might face are gone, and even their backstory and characterisation seem to ring hollow. Why, those other Taurans still living in the slums according to the setting files are apparently just lazy and insular, since everyone hangs out with Taurans, marries Taurans, and hires Taurans to be Vice President of Marketing like it's no big deal.

In my experience, you don't even need antagonistic PCs to avoid the above, if the decent people PCs acknowledge the setting has its problems and RP accordingly, which is vague, I know, but can make all the difference.

[Faceless]

Delicately and not like an OOC joke. That's how it should be handled.

You can roleplay, discuss, and do all manner of IC things without appearing like some OOC mongrel who has barely been house-trained. It's when people try to twist it into some OOC joke of 'teehee, we're so amusing and controversial!' that's when my inner staffer looks at that ban option. And then uses it.

ETA: And with some forewarning. You shouldn't blindside people with your controversial topics Out of Character; see previous Peeve/Gripe/RB about the person on Arx who tried to involve me in their rape fantasy roleplay.

[bored]

I have no issue with people RPing it.

That said, if staff is doing it, they should definitely ponder the purpose and put boundaries in or structure RP in a way such that everyone is getting their escapism. So if you're going to have oppressed folk you probably ought to have stories about them earning victories too. I feel this is where most games fall down. IE, stories about class and power (L&L) mean a lot less if there's 0 chance of the peasants revolting/la revolucion/etc. If you're doing historic sexism, you better have ways to show the women defying the norms successfully, having other routes of power, etc.

Basically, it's another version of the stars vs. plebs problem, you shouldn't be recruiting human players to portray NPC-like victims, any more than you should be recruiting them to be extras next to the stars.

[ThatGuyThere]

@faraday said in How should IC discrimination be handled?:

It really didn't work out too well. Only rarely did people emit NPCs reacting as historical NPCs would. And the prevalence of progressive viewpoints far overshadowed anything the NPCs did occasionally dish out, leading to a sort of weird cognitive dissonance.

Not that I want to see more IC discrimination on games, I am in the opposite camp in fact and prefer real life conflicts to be left in RL and game conflicts to be based on game things.
But I have to echo Faraday's point. If it is something that requires NPCs to exist it will exist a very small portion of the time since the main times when people would emit NPCs are in plot.

On the specific discrimination thing having that NPCed would make me uncomfortable, either the player is emitting the NPCs reactions to their own PC and while that could be done well, it would also be the same sort of "Pay attention to Me, Make me the center of the scene" behavioutr that we see in other areas like the PC showing up randomly chased by someone, or injured etc. Or other players would be emitting the NPCs being discriminatory and that just strikes me as skeevy.

[Cupcake]

The Taurons may be thugs, but it's really the filthy Sagittarons you need to watch out for.

[Bobotron]

@kanye-qwest

Conversely, if someone is playing an IC bigot, you (the general you) shouldn't go insane OOC when it happens to your character. IC is IC is IC is not OOC. But a huge cross-section of the MU* world can't understand that. Like, at all.

[Arkandel]

@bobotron A part (and I can't tell how large it is) of the population can't handle any threat to their IC status, be it bigotry, base politics or just being made fun of.

Because how dare you.