simonsays
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 49
Preferred Game Systems: Shadowrun, GURPS
Favorite Species of Monkey: Howler
|
Post by simonsays on Aug 16, 2016 17:21:10 GMT -8
I have been running a Grand Pendragon Campaign in Greg Stafford's amazing King Arthur:Pendragon system. This game has been going for about a year and a half and we've gotten about 14 years in; a couple of years passed Uther's death. I've also signed up for Bad Streets at Gateway, which was described as a Starsky & Hutch style game by Jib (I think?) last week. The reason I bring up both of these seemingly disparate settings is the inherent challenge faced by the GM when dealing with undeniable social mores of the setting.
In Pendragon, I am constantly faced with the tension brought about by the undeniable misogyny of the time; with women being, at best, prized possessions and at worst; rape victims & chattel. I had to, very early on, draw some lines about where I would sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of fun. We've settled on no women knights but allowing some small autonomy of females if they chose to embrace pagan matriarchy. But since all PCs are Knights, their interactions with women are still only through marriage and some court intrigue. Of course there have been a few moments of the PCs being confronted with the cruelty visited upon women by certain villianous NPCs or forces (cursed Saxon dogs!). If I were to slavishly and unashamedly cleave to historical accuracy, it would be thematically correct to allow just as much rape and pillage by the PCs, especially pre-chivalry. It goes without saying, I certainly hope, that I have deviated sharply away from such potential scenarios. My wife herself has been a sounding board for me in this regard and I believe we've been walking the line fairly well. It certainly helps that all characters have actual stat blocks tracking their own personality traits, such as Chaste vs. Lustful and Merciful vs. Cruel. My players and I have discussed that it's important that we emphasize female disenfranchisement in the early Uther and Anarchy phases so that the social changes brought about by Arthur's eventual reign will have more meaning to our PCs.
When I signed up for Bad Streets I realized I ought to familiarize myself with the setting materials. Last night I bought the first season of Starsky & Hutch and pretty much enjoyed the hell out of the first episode. The action is simple and fun, the humor is tongue in cheek and charming. I totally understand the draw of the setting. The one thing I did notice and was not as prepared for as I thought I would be, was the bold-faced racist stereotypes permeating nearly every scene. I wasn't offended, any more than I am when watching Mickey Rooney insult all Asian Americans in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Both are classics but not timeless, rather products of their times, when viewed through our prejudice-sensitive modern context.
My question is this, how much can you remove certain cultural mores from a setting, in order to not feel dirty, before you denature that setting? I don't want JiB to think he's got some trigger-sensitive player about to sit down at his table in September. I fucking LOVE the Huggy Bear character in Starsky & Hutch, despite him being a shameless stereotype. In fact, his modern version, in the 2004 Owen Wilson/Ben Stiller movie was played by Snoop Dog who some might say is a living, breathing stereotype. I truly am just curious what you all think of this somewhat complex issue. Thank you for bearing with this lengthy topic suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Aug 16, 2016 18:14:31 GMT -8
You change as much as you need to for everyone to have fun. History is full of crappy people being crappy to other people. If that's what you're after, you don't change anything. Otherwise, don't be afraid to mix it up. It's not a homework assignment. Think of the possibilities of Huggy Bear recast and played by Weird Al Yankovic, for example. How about Dolemite played by G. Gordon Liddy or Boss Hogg played by Michael Clark Duncan.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Aug 16, 2016 18:33:24 GMT -8
Alas, poor Michael... I could even forgive you for Daredevil...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2016 8:01:34 GMT -8
You change as much as you need to for everyone to have fun. History is full of crappy people being crappy to other people. If that's what you're after, you don't change anything. Otherwise, don't be afraid to mix it up. It's not a homework assignment. Think of the possibilities of Huggy Bear recast and played by Weird Al Yankovic, for example. How about Dolemite played by G. Gordon Liddy or Boss Hogg played by Michael Clark Duncan. Greatwyrm hits on the main point...everyone should have fun. That is what playing games is all about. In the end the fun of all players is more important than historical accuracy. Pinnacle addresses this in some of its titles such as Deadlands and 50 fathoms, pointing out that the events that create the setting open up possibilities for historically subjugated populations; e.g Former slaves owning pirate ships or Native American nations gaining power. That is not to say that bigotry is magically gone from these settings, it can easily be a driving force behind antagonist motives or part of a pc backstory, but it does not to be a major part of the flavor of the game. Groups are more than capable of having fun without making racism, misogyny, or other bigotry a main focus. This being said, if one wants to create some atmosphere in line with the many terrible things throughout history, I would touch base with all my players to ensure that folk are comfortable that certain issues may come up. Why would I want to make my friends and fellow gamers uncomfortable when minor setting changes could address things? I don't need to include things like rape for the sake of story as there are plenty of ways to show the misogyny/cruelty of the world in other ways. There is no reason to be a slave to historical accuracy...its a game. The other thing I would do is ensure that I have done my homework rather than fall back on incorrect stereotypes. If I was playing an old west game I would do a bit of homework regarding the native people near the setting locations to better show the differentiation between groups. Maybe some are aggressive to settlers for past slights while others seek peaceful trading/coexistence? Groups with unique motives and personalities are far more interesting than one dimensional peter pan Indian stereotypes....a bit of research can create a more vibrant world to play in.
|
|
|
Post by mook on Aug 17, 2016 12:02:39 GMT -8
Great post because it can be such a tough call, but I think the path of "as long as everyone's fun is the first priority" is the best. I've actually been thinking about a very similar thing, since the PCs in my next con game are 1%er outlaw bikers, a la "Sons of Anarchy." Patched lady outlaw bikers in the real world: 0*. Biker chapters of mixed race: effectively 0. So, the pre-gens are all white dudes. Total Aryan sausage fest. The first words out of my mouth as I set down the character sheets will be, "So, these are the pre-gens. Feel free to change up their gender or ethnicity." I mean, sure, it's straining disbelief to have a biker chapter that looks like a Benetton ad, but whatever. We wave the magic wand, pretend some of the PCs are special snowflakes, and get on with the mayhem.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Aug 17, 2016 12:07:04 GMT -8
The other thing I would do is ensure that I have done my homework rather than fall back on incorrect stereotypes. If I was playing an old west game I would do a bit of homework regarding the native people near the setting locations to better show the differentiation between groups. Maybe some are aggressive to settlers for past slights while others seek peaceful trading/coexistence? Groups with unique motives and personalities are far more interesting than one dimensional peter pan Indian stereotypes....a bit of research can create a more vibrant world to play in. +100 Stereotypes come about because of trends that one group notices in another, whether they are physical, cultural, or just perceptions and misconceptions. If you decide to play with some stereotypes (whether historic, or made-up... you know, the "stupid" orc), having a PC that bucks that stereotype can be interesting/fun to play, for some players... hence the prior conversation with player to see if that appeals to them.
|
|
tomes
Supporter
Hello madness
Posts: 1,438
Currently Running: Dungeon World, hippie games, Fallout Shelter RPG hack
|
Post by tomes on Aug 17, 2016 12:33:35 GMT -8
The first words out of my mouth as I set down the character sheets will be, "So, these are the pre-gens. Feel free to change up their gender or ethnicity." Definitely that's a way of doing it, and you may have ideas of where you want the game going re Aryan biker gang. The only downside to telling the players to "feel free to change..." is that players may either feel uncertain, or uncomfortable bucking against the pre-set game, or other players (and provides the opportunity for a player to do the "I know you want to be Indonesian, but I'm a racist Aryan motherfucker!"). Now, that's not always our responsibility as other players or the GM... we hope to play with "adults" who can communicate. But I'd list that as a hope, not a given. :-) My take would be more of starting with a set of group-answerable, leading questions that define the setting... i.e. something like: This allows the players to choose race. But also allows them to choose something completely different. This allows the group to have the rivals be a different race, different county, different income level, etc. But also one of a hundred other things. Maybe something really cool we haven't thought of. I especially love it when a game asks these questions, so players can choose their own direction, however also provides some pre-set scenarios in case they aren't those kind of players. E.g. you could have "Racist Aryan biker gang" as a per-set option they can choose, instead of answering the questions (or it shows the questions already answered in a specific way). That said, I've been playing a bunch of indie games, so maybe I'm just being led astray by peace-and-love-ganja-smoking hippies!
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Aug 17, 2016 13:23:51 GMT -8
We'll definitely discuss this on a future show. Probably this Friday.
|
|
simonsays
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 49
Preferred Game Systems: Shadowrun, GURPS
Favorite Species of Monkey: Howler
|
Post by simonsays on Aug 17, 2016 16:33:22 GMT -8
I'm glad there's been response to this topic. I definitely agree that fun is paramount; I just wanted to know how different GMs and groups may have found consensus on these issues and how fluid that line between high stakes and group comfort might be.
I would like to bring up Pendragon again because the social stats (Personality Traits & Passions) are 100% quantified within the game system and do allow for PCs to be deeply flawed and in certain cases even villianous but these actions and sensibilities do have actual game mechanics involved with them. So for instance, a knight may have very high stat in Trusting but that can be modified by a specific distrust of a certain group or race; such as Saxons or knights of a neighboring county or kingdom. The character would then be far more likely to react in the moment in a distrusting way towards that group. Passions are far more powerful than traits and can actually enhance skills in certain situations, such as in battle against a group the character hates or in defense of an individual they love or have loyalty to. Some GMs view these traits and passions as a way to control their players, and some certainly do so. Greg Stafford describes them as a way to navigate very complex social situations and rely on them during specific times of high stress to help create a framework to create interesting and sometimes tragic stories. I've found it really helps min/maxers actually roleplay, since every social situation, every decision really, has a potential to optimize their character socially.
|
|
simonsays
Initiate Douchebag
Posts: 49
Preferred Game Systems: Shadowrun, GURPS
Favorite Species of Monkey: Howler
|
Post by simonsays on Aug 17, 2016 16:51:53 GMT -8
Great post because it can be such a tough call, but I think the path of "as long as everyone's fun is the first priority" is the best. I've actually been thinking about a very similar thing, since the PCs in my next con game are 1%er outlaw bikers, a la "Sons of Anarchy." Patched lady outlaw bikers in the real world: 0*. Biker chapters of mixed race: effectively 0. So, the pre-gens are all white dudes. Total Aryan sausage fest. The first words out of my mouth as I set down the character sheets will be, "So, these are the pre-gens. Feel free to change up their gender or ethnicity." I mean, sure, it's straining disbelief to have a biker chapter that looks like a Benetton ad, but whatever. We wave the magic wand, pretend some of the PCs are special snowflakes, and get on with the mayhem. Im super excited to play in your game at the con, Mook. still pending but my fingers are crossed
|
|
radzap
Apprentice Douchebag
Up the irons!
Posts: 64
Preferred Game Systems: AD&D 1st Ed.
Favorite Species of Monkey: DK
|
Post by radzap on Aug 17, 2016 22:48:54 GMT -8
I had this same reservation about running a game set in Ian Fleming's world of espionage. The complications are self evident...but hey, Archer seems to pull it off pretty well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2016 6:52:10 GMT -8
I had this same reservation about running a game set in Ian Fleming's world of espionage. The complications are self evident...but hey, Archer seems to pull it off pretty well. "Do you want misogyny Lana? Because that's how you get misogyny!"
|
|
radzap
Apprentice Douchebag
Up the irons!
Posts: 64
Preferred Game Systems: AD&D 1st Ed.
Favorite Species of Monkey: DK
|
Post by radzap on Aug 18, 2016 9:28:32 GMT -8
I had this same reservation about running a game set in Ian Fleming's world of espionage. The complications are self evident...but hey, Archer seems to pull it off pretty well. "Do you want misogyny Lana? Because that's how you get misogyny!" Even better, they named Sterling and Lana's baby Aubergine. Those guys really cut it thin.
|
|
|
Post by uncommonman on Aug 19, 2016 1:42:20 GMT -8
If you want realism in your games you will get uncomfortable playing historical games.
If you want to play a non racist game just do that and remove that part of realism.
And about misogyny, there has ALWAYS been exceptions of powerful women no mather the time and place - play one of those women.
Pre-industrial society wasn't bad for women, or you can say that women didn't have it worse (or better) than men'only different:
Women died of childbirth, men died of unsafe work.
Women where raped during wars, men where killed.
Women didn't have legal independence, men had legal responsibility of the whole household (they where punished if anyone did something wrong)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2016 2:40:17 GMT -8
It strikes me that you miss out on certain types of characters if you make every setting politically correct. Would have of thrones have as many scheming women if they had equal opportunity as their male counterparts? You have to decide which you value more, the setting and all its implications or your moral sensibilities. While we know slavery as abhorrent today, it would be hard to tell a story about plantations in the American south without them. It would be like trying to have a Star Wars game with no empire, you'd notice the difference.
|
|