Gray Harbor Discussion

[Sparks]

@Jeshin said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

@Kanye-Qwest

I'm open to better comparisons, do you have any?

Not KQ, but gonna answer anyway!

If you're excluding an ethnicity on geographical grounds ("people who look like that exist in this world, but they're from a faraway nation which, for various thematic reasons, we don't want PCs to be from at this point in the story"), it can be justifiable. It's probably still not great if that ethnicity happens to align with a player's iRL identity, but it can make sense on simple geographic grounds; it's unlikely, for instance, that you would've historically encountered an aboriginal Australian in Siberia in the 1700's, so I can see a game set in Siberia in the 1700's going, "Sorry, we're not going to allow this concept."

However, being gay, lesbian, trans, nonbinary... that's not tied to ethnicity or geography or really anything. Even in cultures where it wasn't acceptable to be those things, historically, it still never stopped people from being those things. It may have stopped them from presenting as those things openly—the nobleman who is gay, but forces themselves to conceal it and takes a wife to have children, etc.—but it did not stop them from being those things. Look at the military surgeon, James Barry, for instance.

It's far, far harder to justify "there are no QUILTBAG (or whatever acronym you prefer) people in this setting" as a result; while it's fair to say you would not likely have found an aboriginal Australian in Siberia in the 1700's, it strains credulity a lot more to say there were no gays or lesbians in Siberia in the 1700's.

I'm guessing that's what KQ meant by saying it's not a good analogy.

[Arkandel]

@Sparks Another way to also look at it is that characters are exceptional anyway, and focusing on fitting into a game thematically should be what's important to begin with.

In most cases it shouldn't matter - it's the players who're the problem, not the characters, because it's their preconceptions that get in the way.

So anyway, if you run a horror MU* set in the Far West and someone plays a black person the game doesn't suddenly became about slavery; those extradimensional monsters don't care, human flesh tastes the same to them despite the packaging. The emphasis can stay where it ought to be unless a player tries to derail the conversation into being what they want instead - and that's a greater problem to which race is just a trigger.

The same thing would apply to someone playing a character with a different gender identity, sexuality, etc than the norm.

Now if it's not the players who're in the way but staff... then that's a whole different bag of worms.

[Ghost]

This topic is currently a minefield of bias.

Setting bias aside, there are settings where various demographics don't make sense, and others where it does, regardless of the popularity of said demographic.

Example: You're going to have about as few likely LGBTQ characters represented in a MUSH that takes place in 1941 Berlin as you are going to have allowed Neo-Nazi characters in Fights n' Tights.

What's interesting to me is that the focus of the discussion is about fitting the popular/biased demographics into the scenario, but (not that I'd want to play one) demographics in opposition to said popular/biased demographics aren't welcome.

Interesting experiment could easily be performed on a Superhero game...

[Quinn]

I find it baffling that people will say a demographic doesn't make sense when I can assure you there are all types of people everywhere during all parts of history. There were certainly black people out west during cowboy days that probably had some thoughts about slavery. There were definitely non-straight people in 1941 Berlin. Pretty sure Brokeback Mountain probably could've been set during old western times and still been valid.

[Roz]

@Ghost said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

Example: You're going to have about as few likely LGBTQ characters represented in a MUSH that takes place in 1941 Berlin as you are going to have allowed Neo-Nazi characters in Fights n' Tights.

I'm confused at this example. Do you think queer people didn't exist in Germany in 1941?

Anyways I will gladly accept the accusation of bias in regards to favoring representation for marginalized communities and not representation for genocidal hate groups. I am biased, I admit it.

[Ghost]

@Quinn said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

There were definitely non-straight people in 1941 Berlin

Oh, I'm sure there were! However a story about trying to write about living life as that character would please in an environment where they had to constantly risk being discovered and thus sent to a death camp would be less than enjoyable. Not that anyone would want to really RP "Hey, let's write in the Nazi era of Berlin!" as a game concept, but realistically...it would be shit.

On this particular topic, when it comes to LGBTQ, I think it's easy to assume that people matching those demographics existed during the era, but whether or not those demographics could be roleplayed in the open as accepted while maintaining historical integrity wouldn't be very feasible.

[Roz]

@Ghost said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

@Quinn said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

There were definitely non-straight people in 1941 Berlin

Oh, I'm sure there were! However a story about trying to write about living life as that character would please in an environment where they had to constantly risk being discovered and thus sent to a death camp would be less than enjoyable.

It might be enjoyable to someone? People like to write about different kinds of tension. It sounds like it wouldn't be something you'd enjoy, but that's not a universal. But in any case, this point:

On this particular topic, when it comes to LGBTQ, I think it's easy to assume that people matching those demographics existed during the era, but whether or not those demographics could be roleplayed in the open as accepted while maintaining historical integrity wouldn't be very feasible.

...is actually an entirely different conversation than the one people were talking about. It's definitely come up on the board in the past for people to chew over, talking about the value and feasibility of flexing history to set certain oppressions to the background, but it's not really related to the points that were being discussed. Which is more "these people have existed everywhere in every point of history, even if they haven't been publicly presenting as such."

[Ghost]

Let me put it this way...

Say a game wants to "realistically" recreate WW2 in the invasion of Normandy. The game is designed because the game-creators want to play in an era of realism during WW2 that captures the era, military hardware, squad tactics, etc.

While it may not be a popular decision with certain members of community, historical fact is that whites and non-white units were segregated during WW2. IIRC in the British Army soldiers could be prosecuted if caught having gay sex, and capture by the Nazis was horrible for everyone around.

Would non-white and queer concepts exist during WW2? Of course. However no one wants to RP eras where segregation and discrimination were fact. However...the thought exercise is to ask the following question:

"Is it bigotry if a person wants to run a historically accurate WW2 game and does not allow black officers, mixed-race units, or openly gay/trans soldiers during the game?"

I think that it would be unfair to call that person bigoted if what theyre trying to achieve is historical accuracy.

Which is why we play in mostly fictional environments, because playing historical realism in the past would be a minefield of bullshit.

[Meg]

Feel free to disagree as you want, but I do think wanting to run a game based in an era where they can exclude people of color and LBTQ+ people does have a basis in bigotry.

I'm not saying you are a bigot if you want to run that game, but I am saying I think that action is bigoted and has a basis in bigotry.

There's my hot take for the day.

[Ghost]

@Roz said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

...is actually an entirely different conversation than the one people were talking about. It's definitely come up on the board in the past for people to chew over, talking about the value and feasibility of flexing history to set certain oppressions to the background, but it's not really related to the points that were being discussed. Which is more "these people have existed everywhere in every point of history, even if they haven't been publicly presenting as such."

Okay, sure. I hear ya, but I also think there's a heavy weight of bias in play that lends to the assumption of prevalence.

What's truly at play is simply that people want their own personal demographics to not be excluded. No one wants a game, even fictitious, denying them access to play a demographic that they personally identify with.

I'm just saying that if said setting didn't allow for a certain demographic without good reason doesn't really automatically make it bigotry. I think there's some reasonable wiggle room.

[Roz]

@Ghost No, I already got the point you're making, which is about historical realism in presentation. My point is that the conversation prior was about allowing certain identities to exist at all, even in an entirely historically accurate way. Not for them to exist in an open, ahistorical way. It's the difference between "you can't play a gay person on this game" and "the historical realities of the time period mean that that character concept will face the obstacles and oppression that were seen in that day."

The conversational thread prior wasn't about whether or not people should be forced to bend their setting to be ahistorical. It was about the idea of not allowing certain fundamental types of identities to be played at all, sometimes despite them definitely existing.

[Ghost]

@Meg said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

Feel free to disagree as you want, but I do think wanting to run a game based in an era where they can exclude people of color and LBTQ+ people does have a basis in bigotry.

I'm not saying you are a bigot if you want to run that game, but I am saying I think that action is bigoted and has a basis in bigotry.

There's my hot take for the day.

Counterpoint:

To some degree I agree with you. It's reasonable to ask "Why the focus on an era that would deny these character types?" However, I know way too many military realism dorks that be like: "* Ennnhhhhh, I'm not racist but if this is supposed to be a military realism game it's weird that a Samuel L. Jackson PB is an officer.*"

This is why I think BSG was fucking rad. Their military set up gave zero fucks. Multicolor. Multilifestyle. I wouldn't want to personally run a "historical realism" game myself because the boundaries of holding to history are too constricting.

[Meg]

@Ghost i'm taking no counterpoints or questions at this time. thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[Lotherio]

@Quinn said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

There were certainly black people out west during cowboy days that probably had some thoughts about slavery.

Just curious what others think.

What if someone wanted to do a western ranchers Sheep Wars/Cattlemen/homesteader conflict theme/game But everyone was literally apping in ex 10th Cavalry members to be experts in Native Relations? Does the game runner change demographics to be a Buffalo Soldier centric and instead focus on Indian Wars themes instead, limit apps someway to fit the meta they planned, or just let players in explaining there will be no focus on military and/or racial issues of that magnitude?

Again I'm only curious. As an aside 10th Cavalry would be fun but like anthro in supers genre, players would play it 20+ shades of wrong that it would probably be insulting with so many layers of implicit bias and prejudice.

[Ghost]

@Roz said in Gray Harbor Discussion:

The conversational thread prior wasn't about whether or not people should be forced to bend their setting to be ahistorical. It was about the idea of not allowing certain fundamental types of identities to be played at all, sometimes despite them definitely existing

I apologize for derailing, then. Moooooove along. I was just self-checking "Under what circumstances would denying these demographics be reasonable" and all I came up with was "historical accuracy". So I went bleh blah blah historical accuracy and was sharing my brain. I derailed. Mea culpa.

ON POINT: I think it would be a poor decision for a MUSH, given the number of LGBTQ+ mushers, to deny agency to those player concepts or create settings that refuse them. I think it's risky with playerbases and popularity. I also think that the social politics of demographics in canon characters is a bias minefield that people arent ready to handle in any way that is truly open-minded, which is a particular danger for superhero games.

[Bad at Lurking]

Regardless of staff intent, when I see 'No queer/black/trans', etc, I just keep walking. I understand that a creator can make those choices for reasons that seem valid and non-biased to them and might not have any ill-will towards those groups at all, but I still don't want to play in the all white/hetero/cis settings. Rightly or wrongly, doing so would make me feel like part of the problem, and I'm not okay with it.

[krmbm]

[Please Delete]

This post is deleted!

[Snackness]

Maybe this could get forked to another thread? It’s WAY off topic.

[Ghost]

@RDC Theoretical/rhetorical question:

"Is it acceptable to write a setting where <insert demographic> characters are allowed but due to an authoritarian setting there are existing discriminatory laws about what behavior is or isnt permitted publicly?"

Example: In V for Vendetta (going for movie reference since most people have seen it) there are many references to forbidden love which resulted in acts of heroism that wouldn't have been impactful at all if not for the authoritarian horror of the setting. The toilet-paper written story of the actress with the Scarlet Carsons for example, or another being Dietrich (played by openly out Stephen Fry) heroically taking on the regime despite having a basement full of contraband.

None of these would have been nearly as important to a good story had the setting not been written as something that mushers would find revolting. If V for Vendetta were originally a MUSH, it would have said: "...takes place in an alt-history version of England were homosexuality and non-Anglican religion are outlawed during an era of few civil rights." I think some mushers are distanced enough from their characters to see this as challenging and daring, whereas others would view it as a personal insult.

My stance is that I am not 100% into these "pie in the sky" settings in some cases because it's the challenges of these settings that keep ideas and inspiration fresh.