From The Ashes: Detroit by Night
-
I apologize if I came off strong. Racism is one of my twitchy points. I absolutely hate it and part of that hatred is hating when people try to turn pretendy-funtimes into a battleground for their particular viewpoint even if it coincides with mine.
Even if they only do it inadvertently.
-
@Admiral said:
I've never seen a case of eminent domain used to force people from disincorporated areas to move -into- the city.
I've seen it used exactly the opposite, to force people to move out of the city.To date you are correct, EmDom hasn't been used in this fashion. RL Detroit, ultimately concluded that voters wouldn't accept it (they were right) because it would feel like a major invasion of personal property rights (and it would've been, not that this stopped people from doing it in Kelo.')
Maybe my experiences in major cities differs from yours. I'll give you the strange 'We love our people and want to take care of them so we move them into the city where we can do so' Detroit.
Again, you're reading stuff that isn't there. There's nothing about 'we love our people' in this move, by the city. It's a budget-saving measure. They write-off huge (read: poor, mostly abandoned, high-crime) neighborhoods as total losses, legally divest the land from what is 'City of Detroit' and cease water, power, policing, fire coverage, and all other city and emergency services. In order to avoid people who live in these places having the right to sue the city for not providing mandated services, they move the few hangers on who still live there to other neighborhoods that they're not writing off. There's no love here, and the process is spectacularly horrible for all parties.
What about the 'Werewolf has to be cuddly and safe and no stereotypes allowed!' business?
First of all, once again, you're reading things that aren't there. There's nothing about our Werewolf sphere that's cuddly or safe. What we are doing is making the game a safe place for players. Since we have players who are POC and all manner of minorities besides, we're not interested in character concepts that rely on (e.g.) racist stereotypes. They are a form of aggression against the stereotyped minorities and - frankly - they show zero effort on the part of the apping player.
If you can't imagine a Bone Gnawer except as an alcoholic black guy who's behind on his child support payments? You've got some work to do as a writer. If you can't imagine a Black Fury except as a vengeful misandrist, you've got a damagingly incorrect understanding of what feminism is about, and again, we're not interested - our Black Furies have more depth than that. That shit wasn't actually okay in the 90's either, but it's become a staple of WoD gaming in large part because WoD was written by and for people who didn't know any better - I sure didn't get it.
That's what the 'no stereotypes' thing is about though: protecting players from well-meaning folks who don't even realize that playing a character who perpetuates damaging stereotypes is part of the problem. Hell, usually they don't even realize that the character they're playing is a damaging stereotype. This shit's hard.
Example of Stereotype we do allow: Ahrouns are violent and full of rage. Why? because no actual real-life people are being harmed by the perpetuation of that stereotype.
Or the 'white people aren't welcome in the ghetto' business? I don't recall if that was your game or just discussion we were having about opinions of the ghetto in general though.
I was not party to, nor witness to, any such conversation - I suspect you're bringing this in from somewhere else.
@wizz said:
but it's not like the game creator was implying anyone who played oWoD was racist or misogynist. (Presumably.)
Confirmed. I don't even believe the folks who wrote this are, necessarily, racist or misogynist, either. But what White Wolf wrote down, and what a lot of us play with is damaging stuff, and we don't even realize it... which is one thing when you're playing around a table of white guys and while it perpetuates the invisible damage, it's the kind of drop-in-the-bucket stuff that's not worth worrying about. When you've got actual people of color, actual gay people, actual trans people, etc, playing on your game though? You need to be more aware. It's really fucking hard work, too.
@Admiral said:
I apologize if I came off strong. Racism is one of my twitchy points. I absolutely hate it and part of that hatred is hating when people try to turn pretendy-funtimes into a battleground for their particular viewpoint even if it coincides with mine.
It's totally understandable that this is twitchy-making stuff. We put the notices of the problematic stuff on the wiki so that the pretendy-funtimes don't end up the battlefield. We write, on our sleeve, where we stand on this stuff so that there are no surprises three months in because I hate that shit too.
-
@Sunny said:
@The_Supremes said:
To my mind, though, the 1990s style app process was 'write a novella' rather than 'answer 10-15 questions about your character and show me a sheet.'
Sure, but you're not asking for just a sheet and some questions. This is misleading, as anyone who spent ten minutes (that is being enormously generous) looking at the application process could see.
...
The combination of the 1-5 page background PLUS the questions. One or the other, and if you decide on the questions, bring them down to something that's not going to take a damn essay to reply to. This amount of work is great for an OTT or something with a small group of people, but an actual mush, not so much.What is actually written on my wiki (emphasis added):
Changeling/M/M+: It needn't be very long. Anything from 3-4 paragraphs to five or so pages is sufficient - whatever you feel is appropriate for your intent.
Werewolf: Often that will include a short story or a historical narrative, but it doesn't have to.
You say I've been misleading when I say that the background component is truly minor, because of the above requirements, (which could be more consistently written, I'll admit). 3-4 paragraphs of "this is what this character is" doesn't seem like a big deal, to me. I can stamp that out in six minutes. I'm not looking for the best prose of your life, I'm looking for an understanding of what this character is, that you want to play. And, (and the wiki will be edited to reflect this) the narrative-style backstory is actually optional. I've just found that very few people can give me a working understanding of their character with only answers to focused questions.
So in response to your suggestion that I should choose one or the other: I would choose the questions, then, because those are there for my benefit as a storyteller. I care less about your character's history than I do about how they're going to interact with the TPs, PrPs, and other characters and themes already on grid.
The follow-on to this is your objection to the length of the answers to the questions.
Again, our wiki:
All questions should be answered in 'short answer' format. An essay is too much (although more information never hurts), but more than a single sentence will often be needed...
2-4 sentences per question has been the norm for approved characters. Don't get me wrong: That you see that there's a TON of room for depth in the answers to these questions is a thing I see as a good sign that you're a player who gives a shit about story, but 'essay length' response is explicitly NOT the requirement that I put into place. That is a thing you are reading into this on your own.
@Sunny said:
@The_Supremes said:
That said, I've been running tabletop games for 20+ years and this isn't my first time to the MU* staffing rodeo, either. In my career as GM/DM/ST I've presided over five character deaths. I think I know a thing or two about balancing setting with story.
If you have to throw out how long you've been doing something to prove your point, you don't actually have any business talking.
Actually, you insuinuated that my setting was designed to kill characters off, or in your own words, that 'investment vs. . risk is not balanced.' That's a newbie story teller mistake you identified and that this isn't my first rodeo becomes absolutely germane to the issue. Claiming Appeal to Authority fallacy only works if there's no logical link between someone having credentials and the issue at hand - the issue at hand was whether or not I know how to balance investment vs. risk.
@Sunny said:
@The_Supremes said:
I mean, it's WoD, of course a character /might/ die. If I understand you correctly, you're basically asking about the risk vs investment balance. The danger a character faces is a function of their actions. If you want to play a character that lays low, doesn't make waves, and withdraws from threats rather than confronting them your character can be very, very safe. If that's your style of character, though, I would suggest that they probably wouldn't go near Detroit in the first place, in our setting.
This is the response to 'it looks like investment vs risk is not balanced'. OK, then. These statements make a whole lot of assumptions that don't actually follow the questions I asked and the statements that were made, and for you to get a condescending, insulting tone with me is ridiculous. Your ideas can go fuck themselves.
then, if you're still interested in answers to your questions, I suggest you re-phrase them, as I responded to the statements I saw.
@Sunny said:
@The_Supremes said:
I'm also curious what part of the app process you object to, in particular, so that I can review. Feedback is always a welcome thing.
I'm being critical because there are things about the game that really look interesting and I'd like to play -- the setting / premise is GREAT.
Thank you, both for the critique and the compliment. I worked really hard on the game for a couple of years before I opened it up.
But between the ridiculous House Rules and the condescending attitude in response to valid questions pretty much squashed that. So I do appreciate, at least, being given enough of an impression to ensure that I'm not going to waste my time.
No condescension is intended. You simply were in error when you reported things about my game, I sought to correct those errors, did so again in this reply. I'll be blunt: you sound like you're responding to phantoms of MU*s past, rather than to my game, itself.
I can't speak to specific house rules you object to, but it's not like house rules are a new thing. WoD's canon systems were - by the authors' own repeated admissions - never meant to play together under one roof. House rules are a necessity of so many disparate systems, every site has them. I do you the favor of writing mine down to the best I am able.
-
I hate quote wars. I hate them so much. So this will be my last post in this thread.
@The_Supremes said:
EmDom hasn't been used in this fashion. RL Detroit, ultimately concluded that voters wouldn't accept it (they were right) because it would feel like a major invasion of personal property rights (and it would've been, not that this stopped people from doing it in Kelo.')
Let's look past the 'could it happen in real-life angle'. In the World of Darkness cities don't care. They don't want to help the people. They're like Gotham in, well. The TV series Gotham. If anything they'd boot people out and take their homes in-city. The opposite of what your game describes. But it's your game, and if you declare 'the city takes care of people!' thats fine. City of Hope was equally... hopeful.
Again, you're reading stuff that isn't there. There's nothing about 'we love our people' in this move, by the city. It's a budget-saving measure. They write-off huge (read: poor, mostly abandoned, high-crime) neighborhoods as total losses, legally divest the land from what is 'City of Detroit' and cease water, power, policing, fire coverage, and all other city and emergency services. In order to avoid people who live in these places having the right to sue the city for not providing mandated services, they move the few hangers on who still live there to other neighborhoods that they're not writing off. There's no love here, and the process is spectacularly horrible for all parties.
You are aware that the potential for lawsuits is much, much higher when you relocate people than it is for if you just quit giving them utilities, right? But it's your game, again. You're welcome to create whatever reality you desire. You could even say that Mages blew up the Twin Towers if you wanted.
First of all, once again, you're reading things that aren't there. There's nothing about our Werewolf sphere that's cuddly or safe. What we are doing is making the game a safe place for players. Since we have players who are POC and all manner of minorities besides, we're not interested in character concepts that rely on (e.g.) racist stereotypes. They are a form of aggression against the stereotyped minorities and - frankly - they show zero effort on the part of the apping player.
I'm sorry, but POC? That's the sort of thing that I'm talking about. I've got black friends. I know black people who play MU*s. There's a few who post here on this very board. The ones I've known personally haven't been offended by poorly portrayed black/asian/native american/mexican/south american/whatever characters. They're mature adults who realize that a poorly portrayed X could easily be a poorly portrayed Y. The color of the character's skin has nothing to do with the quality of it and by denying people the right to play those 'stereotypes', you simply project your personal viewpoints on race into the game itself and, perhaps a bit ironically, only enforce perceived inequality. However, I don't claim to speak for a whole ethnicity/anyone of another ethnicity/anyone else, not even white country folk like myself. And you're absolutely free to bar stereotypes and restrict what you like... but I'd just like for you to be aware of the silliness of it.
If you can't imagine a Bone Gnawer except as an alcoholic black guy who's behind on his child support payments? You've got some work to do as a writer. If you can't imagine a Black Fury except as a vengeful misandrist, you've got a damagingly incorrect understanding of what feminism is about, and again, we're not interested - our Black Furies have more depth than that. That shit wasn't actually okay in the 90's either, but it's become a staple of WoD gaming in large part because WoD was written by and for people who didn't know any better - I sure didn't get it.
Most Bone Gnawers I've played with have been white, funnily enough. And most Black Furies have been 'progressive types who don't hate men but are simply very pro wo-man'. I don't recognize that playing a black hobo is any worse than playing a white hobo. I don't recognize that playing a man-hating Black Fury is any different than playing a pro-woman Black Fury. It comes down to the individual and in any decent gaming circle people playing characters that others find offensive generally find themselves ostracized in short measure. The act of restricting them will drive off a lot of otherwise sensible players who will view your policies as draconian.
That's what the 'no stereotypes' thing is about though: protecting players from well-meaning folks who don't even realize that playing a character who perpetuates damaging stereotypes is part of the problem. Hell, usually they don't even realize that the character they're playing is a damaging stereotype. This shit's hard.
If someone plays a damaging stereotype? Feel free to educate them. Make sure they're aware. If they still insist on playing it then let them. And let them reap the consequences of it.
Example of Stereotype we do allow: Ahrouns are violent and full of rage. Why? because no actual real-life people are being harmed by the perpetuation of that stereotype.
And that's fine.
Confirmed. I don't even believe the folks who wrote this are, necessarily, racist or misogynist, either. But what White Wolf wrote down, and what a lot of us play with is damaging stuff, and we don't even realize it... which is one thing when you're playing around a table of white guys and while it perpetuates the invisible damage, it's the kind of drop-in-the-bucket stuff that's not worth worrying about. When you've got actual people of color, actual gay people, actual trans people, etc, playing on your game though? You need to be more aware. It's really fucking hard work, too.
It doesn't have to be hard work. It really doesn't. If you just trust your players you'll find that the vast, vast majority of them will make you proud. There will -always- be bad apples. And if they're not playing Sambo the dancing Negro, they'll be playing something else more insidious and creating a negative atmosphere for your game all the same.
But this is just my thoughts on it. I honestly wish your game well. I'd love to see you succeed. More games is better. As it stands I'm not interested in your game due to the policies and it is my belief that those policies (the race things. The relocating stuff won't really bother anyone but me. I'm weird like that.) will substantially lower your potential playerbase and cause your game to be far less awesome than it could be.
I wish you luck and godspeed, sir. I'm done.
-
@The_Supremes said:
You must be new around here, or around these boards in general, so I'll tell you a couple of things you'll want to know if you want your game to reach out and succeed.
First, Sunny's probably one of the nicer people around here. She's got far more experience running a MU*, as far as I can tell from your resume (I know I do, and she's got some on me, I think). When she says the application process seems deceptive, and is more involved than you attest to, that is a somewhat influential opinion. Whether it is right or wrong is mostly irrelevant.
Second, if you're advertising here, then you likely want to attract interested people to try your game out. As you've been around online games like MUSHes, I hope you'll concur that these games are part-setting, part-policies, and part-cult-of-personality. So, if you hope to reach your goal -- getting players from here -- adopting a personable, inviting air is a good idea, whereas a defensive, standoffish, or otherwise off-putting air might be counterproductive.
Third, if you haven't been around MUSHes for a few years, you're likely a stranger here. If you're a stranger here, realize that you're entering a community that has old hats, as well as new ones. Going back to my second point, it might behoove you to be personable and inviting, rather than critical of others' opinions.
Finally, if you could not tell from warnings, there are some folks here that take pleasure in digging their claws under your fingernails for the hell of it. There are others that will criticize your game to death for our own agendas and purposes. Separating the constructive criticisms from the unconstructive ones will save you a great deal of pain. Also, attempting to defend yourself here is an exercise in futility. Most members here will independently investigate on their own, no matter what people post (myself included). When you respond, however, that may give those independently-minded people a basis to rule out your game.
Sidenote: the location of the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent watershed eminent domain case was New London; I could not tell if your citation to Kelo was calculated to refer to the location or the government entity involved, but thought I would add some clarity (and to demonstrate nitpickiness).
My suggestion: loosen up on the application process. A lot. Players these days are far more tolerant of policing once they have their PCs, rather than weeding out people prior to the approval. This is mostly laziness on the part of players, I suppose, but the trick from your perspective is to get the customers in the door.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede +1
-
@Ganymede said:
@The_Supremes said:
You must be new around here, or around these boards in general, so I'll tell you a couple of things you'll want to know if you want your game to reach out and succeed.
New to these boards, but I gather these boards are filling the niche left by WORA's demise?
First, Sunny's probably one of the nicer people around here. She's got far more experience running a MU*, as far as I can tell from your resume (I know I do, and she's got some on me, I think). When she says the application process seems deceptive, and is more involved than you attest to, that is a somewhat influential opinion. Whether it is right or wrong is mostly irrelevant.
This is a curious statement, to me (emphasis added for why). I can't do anything to address concerns that are not based in fact, aside from addressing that they are not based in fact.
Second, if you're advertising here, then you likely want to attract interested people to try your game out. As you've been around online games like MUSHes, I hope you'll concur that these games are part-setting, part-policies, and part-cult-of-personality.
This is absolutely the case, yes.
Third, if you haven't been around MUSHes for a few years, you're likely a stranger here. If you're a stranger here, realize that you're entering a community that has old hats, as well as new ones. Going back to my second point, it might behoove you to be personable and inviting, rather than critical of others' opinions.
You haven't come out and said that I come off as critical of others' opinions, but I'm hearing that in your tone here, is that fair?
Finally, if you could not tell from warnings, there are some folks here that take pleasure in digging their claws under your fingernails for the hell of it. There are others that will criticize your game to death for our own agendas and purposes. Separating the constructive criticisms from the unconstructive ones will save you a great deal of pain. Also, attempting to defend yourself here is an exercise in futility. Most members here will independently investigate on their own, no matter what people post (myself included). When you respond, however, that may give those independently-minded people a basis to rule out your game.
This is useful for me to know, thank you. Mostly I'm just concerned when I put in the work to put stuff in writing and it gets quoted incorrectly. Every community has different levels of fact checking, but by your statement above perhaps I'll let folks sort it out on their own.
Sidenote: the location of the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent watershed eminent domain case was New London; I could not tell if your citation to Kelo was calculated to refer to the location or the government entity involved, but thought I would add some clarity (and to demonstrate nitpickiness).
Well if we're demonstrating nitpickiness...
Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al. is the case we are both referencing. I've always heard it short-handed as Kelo. But yeah, that's the one.
My suggestion: loosen up on the application process. A lot. Players these days are far more tolerant of policing once they have their PCs, rather than weeding out people prior to the approval. This is mostly laziness on the part of players, I suppose, but the trick from your perspective is to get the customers in the door.
I'm curious how much more you would want it loosened up, and this was the primary reason that I tried to address Sunny's report as I couldn't tell if her objections were about her mistaken-as-reported understanding of our app process, or if she was objecting to the app process as it stands in-fact.
What do you think a good model of an app process looks like, if something that takes 10-30 minutes of work is too much?
-
@Ganymede said:
When she says the application process seems deceptive, and is more involved than you attest to, that is a somewhat influential opinion. Whether it is right or wrong is mostly irrelevant.
Ganymede, you are a smart and sharp lady, but that is simply false, here or on WORA. I haven't been around much longer than @The_Supremes and I don't feel like I've seen anyone take anything anyone says as a given or drop an opinion and walk away unchallenged. We're a grumpy and fractious lot.
There's maybe a lot of pressure to conform to popular thought sometimes, with this thread and this game in particular for whatever reason, but essentially telling this person to sit quietly and play nice is unfair and untrue to the wild, bitchy spirit of this place.
For the record, this has been a pretty civil back and forth and trying to squash it like that is really the only ugly move I've seen so far.
You could have left it at this:
My suggestion: loosen up on the application process. A lot. Players these days are far more tolerant of policing once they have their PCs, rather than weeding out people prior to the approval. This is mostly laziness on the part of players, I suppose, but the trick from your perspective is to get the customers in the door.
And left a much better taste in my mouth, is basically all I'm saying.
^_______^
(@_____@)
---|---
/\ -
I absolutely do not criticize just to be a bitch . I was incredibly frustrated because I and some friends were actively looking for a place to play Changeling, checked out your game, got excited about the setting...and then ran smack into the brick wall of 'that is too much time to invest on a game that seems to put more emphasis on it being a dangerous, character killing environment'. Yes, bad things happen, it's the WoD. Nobody is going to contest that, but when something goes out of the way to say that when combined with a difficult (and you can say it isn't all you want, but coming up with a couple of pages in background and answering some potentially difficult questions does not take 30 minutes for us narrativists) app process is a dealbreaker.
We can all deal with stupid House Rules, every game's got them. My game's going to have them. They're secondary. Still, let me tell you, making birthrights 'real' is what I would consider a stupid House Rule. It's not a dealbreaker, but I will never not grit my teeth and roll my eyes. It's okay; it's not my game, they're clearly stated, and I can easily tell whether I can live with them or not.
I don't know you.
Nobody around here knows you. It does not matter if you have an article on your wiki that says that you are experienced at balancing risk and reward and people don't have to worry. It is absolute fact that all we have to go on is what is written. If you are repeatedly being misunderstood across a wide spectrum of people, the problem isn't them. Looking at your app process in the context of I do not know this staffer, I have no reason to believe that I am not wasting my time.
To maybe bring the point home a bit, I'm working on a game right now. Our plan is to not require backgrounds or approval at all; character creation includes broad sweeping character-story choices (born on the streets, nobility, etc) much like, say, GW2 has (but with more options). People will stat themselves, and they will go play. They will have a flag set on them, and at some point someone will come along, review their character, and stamp it with a final approval or go 'hey, yo, let's talk, your being a hobo and your etiquette being over 9000 don't make sense' and work it out.
This is still going to be too much work for some people. These people are not bad players, they are not people you would rather not have on the game. These are people with busy lives, jobs, children, and a couple of hours a week to play. They aren't obsessive about it any more. They partake in the hobby in a healthy fashion. Making policies that favor the crazy people like me over the sane people like @mietze or @Ganymede is insane.
I would not at all advocate going as open as this for an oWoD game. It would be horrible and I would end up lighting people on fire and then stabbing them in the face. Virtually speaking, of course. That doesn't really work for an oWoD game. But where my game is sitting at one extreme, the app process on your game as described and quoted here by you is at the other.
Given that you folks on the game seem pretty up on GNS theory (it's actually outdated now and has been replaced by an interesting model, for all that the creator is a dickwad), the narrativists in general are going to see that app process in a vastly different fashion than you do.
Last but not least, take your fallacy talk and shove it. Again, you're incorrect. Yes, it's a newbie move. No, you trotting out your resume is not related and on-topic. There are plenty of people out there that have been doing this longer than you that still make horrible, stupid choices because they don't actually understand the implications of what they're doing. Worse, they are often entrenched in their ways. In some regard 'I have so much experience' beyond a certain point is actually a negative, because that means you've had that much longer to not only learn bad habits, but to have engrained them so deeply into your mind that there is no way to ever change them.
-
FWIW, I found this games email'd application questions to be less onerous and annoying then the questions asked on Sheltering Skies. I got bit on a few of those and found them annoying, where all of the questions on FTA seemed pretty reasonable, and I was even applying for something on the restricted list.
Just saying. I know mushes these days tend to be lax about apps, but I'm fine with Q&A apps (though I think it should be done online and not over email) -- and, personally, I didn't find this set of questions really all that hard a barrier to applying.
Anything that lets me apply without having to write a narrative background like was required in the old days. I hate those like something fierce.
-
When I originally objected, the narrative was a requirement still.
-
I don't often name-drop, but Sunny is one of the exceptions. There are many reasons: she's been around a long, long time; she has operated a game; she has witnessed the utter destruction of games; she has played in the genre as long as I have (which is pretty fucking long); and she's a kind and thoughtful player that I personally find delightful. Most importantly, I'm not alone.
I'm not asking The Supremes to sit quietly. I'm telling them that they are confronting a player that others will listen to. This is not to suggest for a moment that her opinion is any more or less true than The Supremes' explanation; this is to suggest that if one drives Sunny to give what equates to a negative review, that's a blemish. And the reason why it's important in this case to listen rather than defend is because of appearances, which is important to the advertisement.
This genre operates by credibility and appearance. This is why "the truth" is irrelevant. This is also why defending the game and its policies is largely pointless, especially when one is simply advertising for activity. In short, I'm not suggesting that The Supremes shut up and conform; I'm suggesting that The Supremes pick and choose carefully how to respond and what to respond to.
That said, I've taken a look at the wiki page, and, regarding the Werewolf section, I concur with Sunny. I am of the opinion that banning "stereotypes" is as prejudicial as the laws and policies that remain prevalent in the real world. I respect the sentiment behind them, but think that the policies are contrary to the spirit of inclusion and respect that the game apparently wishes to foster.
I want to play a man-hating "feminist" Black Fury stereotype; it is fun for me to play through how that mindset will help or hinder her pack. I want to play a Hispanic Bone Gnawer janitor with a huge family, so that other werewolves can see his Rage when his family is attacked. When it comes to offensive stereotypes, the issue isn't what the character is, but who is playing them. And you're really not going to learn who your good and bad players are until you get them in the door.
How to loosen the system? Minimize the application requirements to a simple set of questions that can be answered via bullet-point sentences. Let the players play. Address issues as they rise.
-
To sort of add onto what @Ganymede said, I haven't just witnessed the utter destruction of games, I've actually been part of the problem on several occasions. I have done so much stupid stuff that I've gotten my 5000 mistakes out of the way.
And to clarify as well, I run an OTT Amber game. The amount of work that I require of my players for their characters is astronomical. It's ridiculous. It is so bad that not everyone is done with it and I started the game in September. But one, folks know me, and two, they know I'm not going to kill their character without them either disappearing on me (YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE cough @Glitch @Cobaltasaurus cough). Neither of these facts apply in your case. That's the sad fact of the matter.
That said, I do hope nobody is not playing on this game because I objected and have questions, or don't like how I'm being addressed. One of my favorite internet people is playing there and has given @The_Supremes a very positive review. Don't take what I've objected to as a blemish on the place, please.
If I were asked I probably wouldn't recommend this game, but I wouldn't recommend against it, either. In this day and age that's probably a resoundingly good review.
-
Re-ordered for rhetorical impact:
@Ganymede said:
This genre operates by credibility and appearance. This is why "the truth" is irrelevant.
@Sunny said:
I don't know you.
But one, folks know me, and two, they know I'm not going to kill their character without them either disappearing on me. Neither of these facts apply in your case. That's the sad fact of the matter.
This is really what this all boils down to, too, it would seem. I think @Ganymede and @Sunny nail it there. This is, actually, why we have the 'you can do better than stereotypes' disclaimer up front.
@Ganymede said:
I want to play a man-hating "feminist" Black Fury stereotype ... When it comes to offensive stereotypes, the issue isn't what the character is, but who is playing them. And you're really not going to learn who your good and bad players are until you get them in the door.
You're absolutely right that stereotypes are just tropes, and tropes - as they saying goes - aren't inherently bad things. In a skilled writer's hands, they're brilliant tools. I believe that someone could play an character that's built off offensive stereotypes well enough, thoughtfully enough, and compellingly enough, that it paid off in the long run.
But I don't know you.
And I'd rather get to know someone before I let them go out on a limb, because just as there's a list of horror stories about this site and that site as long as anyone's arm, there's a list of horror stories about players, and cliques, and cultures, of equal length. And you're right, I'll still have to put out fires. But this isn't just about flood-filling a game with apps. This is about finding players who see the conversation we've had here and decided that this is worth a shot.
The big message I'm trying to send here is: No, you don't know me, but I give a damn. I have a particular storytelling style, and have particular storytelling strengths and weaknesses, same as anybody. The game I run isn't going to appeal to everyone, and that's okay.
I don't mind that folks bristle at the 'no stereotypes plox' policies. I engage with the objections because it's feedback, and having these conversations is valuable to me. It makes me think about why, and how much this stuff matters to me.
And, importantly, it's not just, as @Ganymede so eloquently put it, "the truth" not mattering, it's anything the FNG says not mattering, either - because it's just talk. And there isn't a single thing out there beyond talk that can be offered - I mean, we're talking about online text-based RPGs... it's talk all the way down. My interactions here aren't about defending my policies, they're about explaining my policies. My questions aren't about challenging people's opinions, they're about understanding people's positions - and through that my own.
And along the way you learn a little bit about who I am, and maybe that helps you with the decision. Because the guy with the #1 bit's personality is kinda a big deal for these kinds of things, and lord knows all of us who've been at this a while have been stung more than once.
-
You're probably incorrect to assess that you don't know me. I probably know you, and have probably bumped into an alt or two of yours long ago. That's been my experience recently.
Even so, you probably won't. The message to me -- intentional or not -- is that the game's staff don't trust the players to play their characters, stereotype or otherwise, well. They've prejudged them, which, although reasonable, runs contrary to the idea of being inclusive or combating prejudices (presuming that this is part of the reason the game is not letting the stereotypes on in the first place).
If these are the policies from on-high, that's fine. But they are, in my opinion, the wrong sort of policies to adopt, especially based on the proffered explanations.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said:
Even so, you probably won't. The message to me -- intentional or not -- is that the game's staff don't trust the players to play their characters, stereotype or otherwise, well. They've prejudged them, which, although reasonable, runs contrary to the idea of being inclusive or combating prejudices (presuming that this is part of the reason the game is not letting the stereotypes on in the first place).
Exactly. Sometimes to ban 'stereotypes' also kind of exotifies the very people you're nobly trying to "protect."
So. Do you ban smart asians? Hot asian women who are petite? In the kinfolk backgrounds you accept, will you deny any that include the following: rape, abuse, breeding exploitation, forced "marriage", ect (all very canon stereotypes for that class)? If you can't have a street person who happens to be black and a Bone Gnawer, do you also ban the trailer trash white folks--I have seen far more of THAT than black PCs of any type on a MUSH and I've been playing MU*s for 20+ years now? (I'm biracial, but was adopted into a family with strong West Virginia roots, so. Sometimes what people portray makes me giggle, sometimes not. One half of my family is very much coal mining stock stuck in generational Appalachian poverty and illness. )
I would also say, quite bluntly, that the dangerous alpha male who may lose his temper in an uncontrolled violent rage but has been gifted with it in part for a higher and in some cases spiritual cause while still being compelling and good in the sack is a very, very harmful 'stereotype'.
There is a lot of ugliness in Werewolf (at least the oWoD version, I'm less familiar with the new). So what? It can be compelling storytelling. Do a lot of people fuck it up? Yeah. But they'll fuck up the hippies too. You're just not really going to weed out stupid or problem people via background and what you force people to play (or not).
-
-
@mietze said:
Exactly. Sometimes to ban 'stereotypes' also kind of exotifies the very people you're nobly trying to "protect."
Fair point. I don't agree with it, but it's an interesting thought.
So. Do you ban smart asians? Hot asian women who are petite? In the kinfolk backgrounds you accept, will you deny any that include the following: rape, abuse, breeding exploitation, forced "marriage", ect (all very canon stereotypes for that class)?
If you can't have a street person who happens to be black and a Bone Gnawer, do you also ban the trailer trash white folks--I have seen far more of THAT than black PCs of any type on a MUSH and I've been playing MU*s for 20+ years now?
Clarification: We do not say you can't have a black Bone Gnawer from the streets. We say that this character needs to show me more depth and understanding than "I heard my white, conservative, upper-middle-class grandparents talk about black people once, so here's an ebonics-spewing, gunslinging, had-no-father-in-his-life, caricature of black people as a Bone Gnawer concept." I'd judge the white trailer trash harshly too, if that's all there was or if the character concept was a pile of Jeff Foxworthy punchlines.
I would also say, quite bluntly, that the dangerous alpha male who may lose his temper in an uncontrolled violent rage but has been gifted with it in part for a higher and in some cases spiritual cause while still being compelling and good in the sack is a very, very harmful 'stereotype'.
It very much is, leading into your follow-on point:
There is a lot of ugliness in Werewolf (at least the oWoD version, I'm less familiar with the new). So what? It can be compelling storytelling. Do a lot of people fuck it up? Yeah. But they'll fuck up the hippies too. You're just not really going to weed out stupid or problem people via background and what you force people to play (or not).
Not entirely, no. And with one exception, these aren't outright bans, they're me alerting you that I'm looking at these things when you show me your app. Bone Gnawer? I want to see that you've thought about your character's poverty beyond the harmful 'magical poor people' tropes that WW wrote in. Black Fury? This is a tribe about feminism, not misandry. Uktena/Wendigo? Show me that you're paying attention to more than just Johnny Depp's Tonto.
Here's the only outright ban we have for social reasons: Romany Silent Striders, mostly because the ST is aware that most of the stereotypes and cultural understanding surrounding them are founded in spectacular, ongoing, worldwide oppression and I do not have the chops as a historian, nor the time as a scholar, to bring myself to a place where I can judge an app on its merits for handling that material.
Is that erasure? You betcha, and I own that.
But I would rather be owning my erasure, than try and pretend that this isn't really problematic. There's other SS lore that can be used if SS are your thing.
-
I doubt you'll find anyone on this board who wouldn't want to forget anything related to Gypsies in the CWoD.
That said, if your statements are not bans, why mention them at all? Weigh each application as you see them come in. This will make the game seem more inclusive.
-
Same reason I've been having this conversation: I believe sharing MORE information about policies is useful. The people who don't care won't read the things anyway, and I've been around the block enough to have seen a LOT of unimaginative, problematic bullshit. Letting people who are also tired of these worn out tropes know that I'm sick of them too is part of our branding, you could say.
EDIT: Adding to this: I think the confusion was about what would actually earn you a #NOPE. It's not "black and poor" it's "harmful stereotype of black, poor people as character concept." I think the two got conflated somewhere.
