Don’t forget we moved!
https://brandmu.day/
But Why
-
@mietze I’d love to know why, because I’d love to address concerns. So please do share if it occurs to you why you’d have a negative reaction. I’m sure I’m missing concerns here. I’m only just starting this process.
thank you,
-
@mietze I’d love to know why, because I’d love to address concerns. So please do share if it occurs to you why you’d have a negative reaction. I’m sure I’m missing concerns here. I’m only just starting this process.
thank you,
I think part of it is that you’re attributing it to the “elite nature” of mages, as if being Awakened is why they aren’t sexist or whatever as a society. At least, for me, that’s pretty eh.
-
For me… The tone is off because it’s like it’s LOOKING for all of the ways people can be awful, and making sure to elaborate on all of them.
It’s one thing to write a policy about as a game, and as a theme, we will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc.
It’s something else entirely to actually make mention of whipping your chattel slaves on the plantation and incest as being SPECIFICALLY excluded.
Which, I mean. I absolutely get that if you don’t make it excluded down to nitty gritty that there are some people who will try to do it and then cry foul with: No one said I couldn’t!
But. There are ways to say people can’t be total asshats about things without elaborating down to the details the kinds of asshats you aren’t going to entertain. If I read a disclaimer that had THIS MUCH detail, I’d probably skip the place, too. Because either there is this much detail because staff is thinking WAY TOO DEEPLY about how awful people can be to one another… Or else they’re assuming they’re going to gather a player-base that wants to think way too deeply about it.
I think having a consent policy is important. I think having anti-isms policies is essential. I don’t think any of those policies needs to be quite so vividly explained. Because people who want to do horrible things will ALWAYS find the line of what they shouldn’t do that something in depth will have forgotten to add. You will never be able to elaborate all of the awful things you don’t have any desire or will to have on your games.
It’s not about keeping every single example documented. It’s about blanketly saying there will be NONE of it tolerated, and then enforce that as needed, and the broadest sense and scope of zero tolerance on being a shitty person is enough elaboration of the ‘why’.
We're all mad here.
-
I guess I wrote that defensively. I worry about bothering people who care deeply about history and don’t want bad things swept under the rug. I don’t want to be accused of trying to rewrite women and minorities out of history.
I’m going to think more about how to convey this. Thank you again.
-
Which, I mean. I absolutely get that if you don’t make it excluded down to nitty gritty that there are some people who will try to do it and then cry foul with: No one said I couldn’t!
You know, I actually don’t find this to be true. The truth is, you can have a 46 page document with every known instance…and the people who wish to play that type of thing are still going to do it. So it’s not that that is troublesome to me.
-
@Polk Of course! Like. To be fully clear, I don’t think at all that it was the tone you intended to have. I think you’re trying your best to make sure you run a respectful and intentional world. And that’s a GOOD thing. You’ll get there with the wording.
-
@Polk the people who need to have absolute historical accuracy (sometimes just in general, sometimes as a justification for wanting to play a bigot or have that be an absolute focus of their RP that they cannot stray from even if their character is not bigoted) will not want to play on your game anyway. Or any game, probably. In my experience it’s really often much less of a headache to kick people off who can’t leave it alone (absolute historical accuracy) because their constant pontificating on the public channels or arguing “playfully” oocly in every scene will drive a lot of people away.
-
@mietze See I’m thinking about the opposite. I don’t want to annoy the people are keenly aware of injustices in the past.
The people you’re talking about, yeah. I can spot THEM a mile away. I’ve moderated political forums in the past. I know ALL their tricks, ALL their games, and I see right through their bad faith ‘just asking questions.’
But yeah. This was very useful.
-
I think the first thing maybe is to take this out of a format of a lecture. I don’t mean a lecture in a the pejorative sense, but like…a lecture, given by the authority/professor/headwiz to the audience. I don’t feel that gets off on the right foot. Yes, there will be some players that are very ignorant of history, but there are going to be plenty of your peers or even more educated (or they’ll certainly THINK themselves to be) and may take this as a special, irresistible invitation to argue. But also, unless you are a scholar of American history and the subsets of the groups you’re trying to represent, don’t underestimate your ability to get it wrong as you’re trying to educate the less educated audience. A lot of the figures you name kind of have a more…complicated history. Especially Susan B. Anthony. I do think that’s one of the things that bugs me actually, because a white suffragette who did good things for a great many people but still left a unified movement with black suffragettes because she and Elizabeth Cady Stanton did not believe that black men should receive the vote before white women did.
Is that important to a game? No, not really. But that’s one of the pitfalls of a lecture type statement that’s opening yourself up to things like that. To me, I see a guy centering a white woman with the people of color crammed together as a list of people that’s almost like an afterthought. Oh yeah, them too. I know that’s not your intent and I believe you when you say you don’t want to whitewash things, but you do kind of unintentionally in a way in your statement.
That’s why I think it’s better to keep a statement short and to the point.
“We acknowledge that American history during this time is rife with genocide, racism, antisemitism, sexism, homophobia, and classism and that often times the contributions and experiences of people other than rich white men and people in power has been whitewashed, mythologized, or there has been the attempt to erase it. We acknowledge that in setting this in an alternative reality in many ways, there will be some that feel we are doing the same. We respect those feelings. But as a setting choice that we will enforce, we are setting up a scope and framework for play where discriminatory play will not be part of the on screen RP. (or at all, if you’re not permitting that to be in in the backgrounds or not), and because of that we acknowledge that not everyone will wish to RP here.” Or whatever.
It feels like you’re trying to prevent people’s discomfort, but look. There ARE going to be moments of it on any historical game especially right now when we are seeing yet another resurgence of bigotry based violence and laws being passed.
-
I played on an alt-history game set in the 1800s fairly recently. And even though it was a safe place, run by people I trusted, and also a closed game which meant a more selective group of people, I’ll just be straight up honest, there were many times where I wrestled internally with my own PC because of the inclusion of historical events in her life that honestly I was not super well versed about and knew my understanding largely came from writings by white English speaking scholars with a sprinkling of women but mostly men. I enjoy wrestling with hard, difficult stuff in my RP. And most of my thoughts and wrestling were internal as i tried to inform how I RPed her BUT I did not want to introduce much of that at all to anyone else because it wasn’t necessary, and again–you /never/ know someone’s background and the last thing I wanted to do with put a stumbling block in front of a RP partner that jarred them. I don’t know that i was always successful at that. I’m not sure I would play an 1800s game in the US with a rando/open game, tbh. There’s a lot of hopeful stuff going on but also a lot of really dark stuff and we’re moving through a very dark period of history right now too.
-
I’m not sure I would play an 1800s game in the US with a rando/open game, tbh.
Same. I love historical fiction. I once ran a Western game. But I don’t think I would do so again having both that experience and the awareness I now have.
The main thing for me is - it’s fine to say that the PCs are enlightened for whatever reason (a progressive town, mage society, etc.) but they still have to exist within the wider world. I think that opens you up to either feeling that you’re whitewashing the setting, or risking that you might invoke problematic topics (even unintentionally or tangentially).
-
I discarded the entire idea for a long time since I wasn’t sure it would get ANY interest. But I’ve recently come to believe it will get SOME interest, so I’m doing it.
Worst case, I end up with Evennia WoD MUSH in a Box, and can use it to make something else.
-
Agreed. It’s one of the big reasons for the popularity of fantasy games with an “it kind of looks like a historical period if you squint a bit and tilt your head” attitude.
A game in the 1800s USA will have racism around it somewhere. The Civil War is right there, framing the entire country’s narrative. I don’t mean to sound like a historical purist or anything, but racial issues essentially defined the 1800s in the United States. Without them, it’s not the 1800s, or it’s not the United States.
ETA: It’d be like, to my mind, setting a game in 1940s London and straight up not mentioning the war.
Set it in an alt-history USA, so you get to define what happened and how the Mage society brought about something more progressive. Or something.
-
-
Fortunately I’m likely going to have months to have this rattle around in my head, since I have a lot of coding to do.
-
You know, I actually don’t find this to be true. The truth is, you can have a 46 page document with every known instance…and the people who wish to play that type of thing are still going to do it. So it’s not that that is troublesome to me.
I agree with you on this. I actually think that the more you enumerate the things that aren’t allowed, the more asshats will look at the list and find things that aren’t on it but are still horrible, and then point to the list and say that it wasn’t on the list.
I like broad, blanket policies, with a few examples if necessary.
@Polk One thing you might also consider is a social contract for your game: enumerate the things that are baked into the setting and won’t be questioned, the things that can be argued over ICly, and the things which simply won’t be allowed OOCly.
Formerly known as Seraphim73 (he/him)
-
@Roadspike I agree with you that rules lawyering with the “Just asking questions” crowd is a trap.
I adopt Rule #1 from Poker to MUSHes. In poker, the Floor Manager is allowed to make any ruling that is in the best interests of the game.
This goes to that other thread on “due process” and all that. That’s not what’s needed for maintaining a healthy community.
As for a social contract, definitely going to ponder that one.
-
it’s all about rule 0, tbh, and if people have significant differences on what constitutes “being a dick” then it’s likely they shouldn’t be playing together
-
@Faraday
In Star Wars, the Empire are the bad guys. People can play as them if they want but no one is mistaking them for the heroes.In fantasy stories the Knight born into privilege and the Princess born into power are seen as the good guys while they ride their majestic white steed past the peasants dying in the streets.
You’re also correct about the wild-west was a terrible setting that glorified some of the worst people in history. Cowboys, real cowboys were the working class of cattle ranchers but the genera of Cowboy stories paints corrupt, mass murdering cops, thieves, and outlaws as the heroes of the story.
There are very few Wild West or Fantasy settings where the protagonist is in any way a good person. They are usually the lesser evil, at best.
It’s the propagation of the belief that the worst examples of humanity are the heroes of the story I have a problem with.
Maybe I’m just a liberal snowflake but I am sick and tired of bad people being held up as icons and getting away with doing terrible things while people cheer. I don’t see how anyone could enjoy pretending to be one of those vile people.
-
@De-Villefort I really don’t know what to say to you at this point, except but why.
But why are you constantly ascribing historical facts to fiction as if the fiction was itself fact? You’re literally trampling on the definition of words here, and I’m at a loss.
MU* RP is fiction. We are not rewriting history. We are not reenacting history (the events in the RP are not events that take place on Earth). We are not copying history and everything that transpired within it, so far as I know. We are not literally becoming people who want to do evil things by becoming a Baron. I’m not going to go enslave my neighbors into being my serfs as soon as I’m done with scene 492. I don’t even have those thoughts.
I’m seriously questioning your ability to keep IC and OOC separate, at the minimum.
