Gray Harbor Discussion

[juke]

I'm not saying I don't understand it. People want a diverse game. But I'm with @Kaiju, personally. This issue is the source of weird feelings because it turns something that is a fact of life for many people into a character gimmick/bulletpoint/angle/accessory/niche/whatever other words were used for it above, and it's effing weird for people to be territorial about something like that. Being an amputee isn't a plot point in a story that belongs to one person, it's a thing that happens to people.

The big-picture concern (I assume) is, 'but what do I do if half of my game's PCs are suddenly amputees' and that sort of cascades into the conversation about whether or not 'uncommon' concepts should be restricted in PC populations (example: Force Users on a Star Wars game). Some people say yes. Some people say no. (I am in the 'no' camp, because I like fun, but ymmv.) I am sure MSB could do 50 pages of circular arguing on the point, though. I think an individual character's relationship to their own circumstances, physical and emotional and otherwise, is what makes them come to life. The variables just give them framework.

Gray Harbor does seem to exist on the edge of a hell mouth full of monsters or something, anyway. A couple of people missing limbs would definitely not surprise me. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[Tinuviel]

It's also important to remember that even as special as PCs can be... they're not the majority of a place's population most of the time.

[mietze]

I have to admit that the specific disability quota is really offputting to me. Just as offputting as a game saying "we have too many asians" (I have in fact heard this said before elsewhere!) And I have seen limitations on non-straight pcs too, though this was in the 90s.

[Tinuviel]

@mietze Aye. Like I get "let's have fewer elite hackers" or "can we have not so many detectives from major cities." I get limiting concepts, often that's appropriate or at least there's a legitimate basis for such things. But limiting a character's nature..? Ugh.

That said, I do sort of understand that one might want to limit things that are inaccurate. I want to limit people playing characters where they're "the disabled one," "the gay one," or "the Asian one," but just limiting gay or Asian characters altogether seems as stupid as this.

ETA: The above paragraph is more an understanding that a staffer or two may have seen one too many "my character is missing a limb and that totally defines everything about their personality." The same as mental illness was portrayed in media until very, very recently. Fetishisation = bad, but blanket moratoria lacking in detail = stupidpants.

[Goldfish]

@Tinuviel You have a point. Slippery slope fallacy and all. (If someone could link that awesome fallacy image I found here once. Epic.)

At that point, it breaks down into do you trust the staff? Do you cosign their vision? Do you have friends who do and can you tolerate the staff bullshit to play with them. And so on.

ETA: I didn't see that there was a new page of discussion! So I play a lot of characters with disabilities. I don't fetishize them. (I don't think I do. If someone has receipts, I'll accept them. But I know it is not my intention.) Even after a decade of playing these concepts, I put in my work. I research, I read personal stories, when I had a character with a similar issue as a friend, I talked to him. Not to mention all the experiences I have personally bore witness to or heard about.

I do my very best to approach each of these character with respect to other players that I don't know and can't see. And while the concept might be born as: nWoD Hunter who uses a wheelchair. From then on, it's character first. Who is this person? How does this affect them in the day to day? In a scene in a coffee shop? While fighting a monster? And how does it not matter? It doesn't in the coffee shop. But the monster might tip his ass over. Then what?

Point is. I try. I try to approach it with thoughtfulness. That's it.

[Tinuviel]

@Goldfish said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

Slippery slope fallacy and all.

I'd hardly call it a fallacy in this instance. They've apparently restricted "British" applications before, so it's not unreasonable that any time there is an "influx" of a certain type of character, they'll restrict it.

@Goldfish said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

At that point, it breaks down into do you trust the staff? Do you cosign their vision? Do you have friends who do and can you tolerate the staff bullshit to play with them. And so on.

Eh, it doesn't break down to anything as grand as that. As it has been explained here, it's a stupid idea. So I'm going to point at it and call it stupid. I don't care what they do, if it's stupid I'm going to call it stupid.

[Deleted]

Any restriction based on disabilities is cringe-worthy as fuck. You can say 'We want fewer outsiders/fewer of this profession/fewer of this archetype' but when you start designating that people can't have X or Y disability that's some nonsense. What happens if someone loses a limb on grid? What happens if someone apps onto the game who has that disability and prefers to play their characters with it?

Meh. It's just cringy.

[A. Meowley]

I really do hope that the Gray Harbor staff reconsider their restriction of amputees, for similar reasons as others have touched upon. It's perfectly understandable for them to decide they don't want certain concepts - a town of 18,000 doesn't really need more than one tattoo parlour, I mean honestly... But being an amputee isn't a concept. It's an aspect of one's character that may or may not flavour their personality and cause challenges or unexpected perks, but it does not wholly define who they are.

No other character concept becomes less special or interesting because two or more characters share a condition or disability.

[mietze]

Yeah, honestly, I would not have a problem restricting non-local pcs. It just doesn't read the same to me as disability restrictions. I cannot really put my finger on why. maybe the exotification of it? I am sure this was meant well but it really makes me super uncomfortable.

[Sunny]

I think because it kind of reduces amputees to just being that, like it's the thing that defines them, rather than it just being a character trait. People aren't their disabilities, and anything that leaves the impression that they are can be uncomfortable. Absolutely do not think that this was intentional or is malicious or bad in intent or anything, but I do think it's a little insensitive.

[A. Meowley]

@Sunny

Precisely. I don't think it's an actively malicious choice at all, although being inadvertent doesn't make it less discriminatory.

Something to be reconsidered, I hope!

[Lotherio]

This is spiralling one sided a little. I mean if we're pondering what if's ... What if someone on staff or one of their loved ones are an amputee?

I'm a vet, I kind of get tired of seeing another ptsd vet apped on games I play. Its like some cool stereotype that everyone wants to try their hand at.

[Deleted]

@Lotherio That is a very slippery slope.

What if I don't want to see people with my RL profession? Or people with my RL disabilities? Or with my RL anything. We can't start denying people their characters based on our own personal hangups. I see people misplaying specific stuff I do -all the time-. I roll with it. Unless it's an offensive racial stereotype or something we need to just trust our fellow players to show respect to their own character concepts.

I will guarantee you that the person you see playing a PTSD vet has put a lot more thought into their character than you have into their character. And if you do see someone behaving in an obnoxious, offensive way? Politely inform them. Educate them.

For instance. I didn't know 'panface' was a racial slur. I used it. My roommate corrected and informed me and now I never use that term anymore. Trust people on games a little more.

[Auspice]

@Admiral said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

Unless it's an offensive racial stereotype or something

Gonna point out that people being insensitive about mental health/disabilities falls into the 'or something' here IMO. And I think Lotherio is sort of referencing that. In his mind, people playing PTSD (a serious condition) as a 'cool stereotype' is being insensitive about a serious mental health issue.

And I can wholly understand that.

[Tinuviel]

@Auspice While I agree with the sentiment, outright 'restricting' the idea of playing a mentally ill character is still kinda stupid. Putting these character ideas under closer scrutiny I can definitely get behind, as with all potentially confronting ideas.

That said, it's not about whether the policy is right or wrong. If the staff want to throw their hands up and refuse to deal with certain types of characters, that's fine. We aren't going to change their minds or whatever, but we can point out problems with it and call it stupid.

[Auspice]

@Tinuviel said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

@Auspice While I agree with the sentiment, outright 'restricting' the idea of playing a mentally ill character is still kinda stupid. Putting these character ideas under closer scrutiny I can definitely get behind, as with all potentially confronting ideas.

That said, it's not about whether the policy is right or wrong. If the staff want to throw their hands up and refuse to deal with certain types of characters, that's fine. We aren't going to change their minds or whatever, but we can point out problems with it and call it stupid.

Oh, I wholly agree with that. I'm just saying that making a caricature of mental illness shouldn't be OK. That was the point Lotherio was trying to make, I think. He's been frustrated and upset by people who think it's 'cool' to have PTSD as their character quirk.

Kind of like how it's been discussed before that people who go 'Oh, I like to keep my desk clean because I'm so ODC teehee' are upsetting because it's incredibly insensitive and rude to people who legitimately have OCD. PTSD isn't a character 'quirk' and it's not something to just slap onto a character to be 'cool' or even something to make the end-all-be-all of a character.

Just like, as said earlier: profession is different than nationality. mental illness !=who your character is. It can be part of what shapes them, yes, but when you're looking at a lineup and it's like 'We have the bartender, the librarian, the teacher, the gardener, and the major depressive.' ......one of those does me a concern as a character concept and should, as you say, come under closer scrutiny.

[Tinuviel]

@Auspice The problem with judging characters from the outside is that we often just don't know how deep their layers go. Often we see stereotypes or "the mentally ill one" because we're only seeing one layer. So it's up to staff to really keep an eye on shit like that, not us.

[Auspice]

@Tinuviel said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

@Auspice The problem with judging characters from the outside is that we often just don't know how deep their layers go. Often we see stereotypes or "the mentally ill one" because we're only seeing one layer. So it's up to staff to really keep an eye on shit like that, not us.

Well, this whole discussion is based on staff reviewing characters.

[Tinuviel]

@Auspice Sure, but it's based on our perception that aforementioned PTSD character is only using it as a 'quirk'. Sometimes that's true, but sometimes it's just our inability to see deeper.

But at the same time... I don't really care. You want to play "the gay one"? Fine, whatever. It's a game, you're playing a trope. Whatever. I'd much rather people try to do something interesting and get it wrong than just play the same "basic white guy" over and over.

[peasoupling]

As long as my boat captain can have a parrot, I guess I can work with an eyepatch instead of a hook for a hand!

They do seem to be restricting some things, like an excess of strip diner tattoo parlors, which make sense, but in some cases I'm not sure I get the reasoning behind it. Mechanics, for example, are closed. Independent working mechanics with their own shops, sure, but what if you want to make a character to get a job at an existing shop? I'm not sure how many there are, but some of these restricted concepts seem to limit the possibility of forming crews or having a filled out workplace.

It doesn't really bother me, since I've no idea what I'm making and the more they narrow down my choices the better. I continue to suck at making characters, so!