SJW RPG And Other Acronyms

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness is coming out again, released by Palladium Books. You know, TMNT&OS was the first Palladium game I ever played -- even before I got into Robotech. It was a Palladium game, which means the mechanics were ... ehh, but it was fun, and really - that's all that mattered at the time.

They picked perhaps one of the worst streaming groups to announce this, however -- it's a group that's veering heavily on the Right, and is definitely not LGBT friendly. I won't go into too much detail, except to say that it's enough I'm not going to back the Kickstarter, and I won't be picking up the book.

Palladium, of course, has had a history -- between calling gays and trans folk 'sexual deviants', and being fairly racist in some of their game books (RIFTS Africa being an example), there's a lot there to keep people away from Palladium if they care about that kind of thing.

In the 80s, when I was a teen?  I didn't know better.  AIDS wasn't an epidemic yet, and there wasn't much to tell you about being gay, or trans, or anything else for that matter - sex ed wasn't still way behind, and I was pretty damn naive. I didn't really know what being 'gay' meant, and had no idea what 'trans' was - didn't know what a lesbian was, and had no idea what being bisexual meant (let alone non-binary, gender fluid, or anything else for that matter). There were the odd gay jokes - but the fact was I didn't 'get' them that much, either. All I knew was being gay meant kissing people of the same sex -- and really that's about it. Adults in this day and age really have no excuse, and there's enough out there that proper sex-ed should be taught in schools.

So what's this got to do with gaming?

Let's start with something simple: there's certain communities that make people who enjoy OSR look real bad. They the kind of people who complain about people who want to allow wheelchairs in D&D (why not? They existed as far back as ancient China). They complain when women are given positions of power in games and aren't treated as cheesecake. They complain when there's 'too many' people of colour in fantasy games, or the games focus on groups that aren't your typical European White groups. They're the people who complain when a company makes a game and says 'what if Europe failed to colonize the Americas?'

They complain about SJWs 'ruining' gaming. As if allowing for the full spectrum of the human experience in gaming is, somehow, 'bad'.

These are the people who made 'the red list' -- a list of gaming companies who 'put politics into gaming' - by, you know, making gaming about more than white guys. They come up with all these excuses as to why gaming shouldn't open its doors to other groups -- that it's checking off the list, that it's taking away from real roleplaying, that it's 'SJW nonsense' or catering or whatever.

Here's the thing. Gaming's come a long, long way from its roots in the 70s. That's not a bad thing. And you can totally go old school with dungeon crawls and whatever. I like old school gaming to a certain degree -- where you have to be on your toes, where insta-death can be a thing, where you roll your attributes and hit points and there's no 'death saves' or whatever. Where a Level 1 PC group can run into a nest of 100 goblins.... to me that's fun.

However, I also think the table should be open to everyone, and the game should reflect that diversity. A campaign setting that puts you in Africa and has you deal with the different cultures and mythologies of that continent? Sure. Not a single white guy to be seen? No issue. Oh, how about black people in middle-ages Fantasy Not-Europe? Sure, why not? That's not far-fetched. Oh, there's gays? Non-binary? There's trans folk? Sure, why not? There's people missing hands, or blind, or confined to a wheelchair, and don't want to have this simply 'fixed'? Why not?

What's wrong with running the gamut, and allowing everyone to feel welcome at the table?

"Politics has no place at the gaming table."

I'm sorry, but it's always been at the gaming table. It just happened to be politics you agreed with.

Dungeons and Dragons. Had Christian Saints and had Devils and Demons named from Christian mythology. (Yeah, Baalzebub, etc? Totally mythology). They had holy knights, and cleric spells which pulled from miracles. That is political -- it puts Christianity into the game and sets it above anything else.

The vast, vast, vast majority of characters were white, and male. The women were in chainmail bikinis or were the damsels in distress needing to be rescued. And let's not forget that in AD&D 1e, women were not allowed to have more than 17 Strength.

That's political.

And the main goal in gaming? Going into other lands, slaying the natives en masse, and taking their stuff, if not outright conquering the region and setting up shop there as a ruler. The opposition? Primitive, backwards, evil creatures that breed like rabbits and who are inherently evil and the anathema of civilization.

That's political.

And these people wonder why that's called racist? They don't see the parallels? They say 'it's just fantasy' and that people are reading too much into it?

D&D, from the get-go, was a colonial RPG. Humans were the best, the majority of the characters were white, and male, there were strong Christian symbolism in the game, and you went out and crushed other civilizations who were too barbaric to live and took over their lands.

We've come a long way from that, but too often I can still see the roots. And when a game company veers away from that baseline, people scream about the company giving into SJWs or bringing politics into gaming.

It's always been there.

Those people who 'can't identify' with non-white or non-male characters in a game? How about the people who can't identify with playing white, male characters? Aren't they allowed to feel represented too?

I had the excuse in the 1980s that I didn't know better. Palladium had less of an excuse, but again 80s, not much education out there. In the modern age? There's absolutely no excuse for dealing with a gaming mentality stuck in the 80s and 70s when it comes to representation and accepting minorities and the LGBT community. Simply acknowledging these people exist and that it's okay shouldn't produce this kind of hue and cry.

That's my beef.
And if you don't want it at your table -- fine. Don't have it at your table.
But shut the fuck up about it existing, and other people wanting representation.

Just because these people don't want it doesn't mean 1) it shouldn't exist, and 2) nobody else should have it, either.

Or, on the other hand - sure, tell us. It tells us what games we shouldn't be buying - because any company that supports that kind of mentality doesn't deserve to be in the business.

First Time

Samantha:  I've decided to try running D&D.  This is my first time running an actual campaign, and a friend of mine wanted to play D&D, so I pulled out the BECMI set and decided to give it a go.  It's a really simple system, which is good for me, because I'm not as good with running stuff as Kit is, and it's got that nostalgia thing going for it.

There's been a little trouble with the group, but hopefully it'll gel over time.  Some of the characters are working well together, others - not so much.  And tonight, my sister in law let me have it about not enjoying the game.  :<

I'm trying not to let it demoralize me.. I mean, she complained about a game system she enjoyed playing under Kit.  So I don't know.. I'm trying not to feel like I'm just a sucky game master.  We'll see though.

I guess we'll see.. but right now I don't feel like running anything anymore.

Light, not Shadow.

Samantha:  So, my brother's starting his first Blue Rose game.  He owned the 1st edition for quite some time, and he's been looking forward to the 2nd edition game ever since he saw it coming out on Kickstarter.  For those who don't know - this is a Romantic Fantasy game - you play Romantic Heroes. This means you're the good guys.  Not the 'troubled sort-of good guys' or the 'gray guys' or the 'anti-heroes' or anything like that.  You're the good guys.  End of story.

One of the players kinda missed that - thought his character might hunt down some fleeing bandits and kill them because of a flaw he has.  My brother warned him - he does that, he gets a Corruption point.  That's kinda a signal you're doing something wrong - you don't want any of those.  Well, the character went off, killed people, rolled, and got a Corruption Point.  Then found out just how shitty those things are.  Since it was the first session, my brother allowed him to step back and get a do-over.  He beat the bandit and dragged the guy back to the camp as a captive.

Yeah, the game rewards you being big damn heroes, and it punishes you to hell and back if you start doing evil shit.  We're good guys, act like it.  I didn't make a kill bot, or someone who wiped out the enemy in the first round or blew everyone away or whatever.. because the game doesn't want that.

So.. anyway..

My boyfriend was invited into the game.  I was really looking forward to seeing what he was going to play, and my brother was curious too.  He makes interesting characters, and we were really hoping he'd make some kind of paladin, or something.

Didn't happen.

He wanted to make a "mage".  You know, spell-tossed.  But they don't have spell tossers in this game.  Not really.  "Adepts" are kind of close, in that they get some kind of animistic / shamanic / psychic kind of abilities, and those tend to take a heavy toll on the person.  So right out of the gate, things weren't going well.

Then, he got some shitty die rolls for his attributes, re-rolled, and got worse.  An offer was made for another re-roll so he could get, maybe, better than average, but he declined.  Well, okay - it isn't the end of the world, each time you level you can increase your attributes, so you can kind of build the direction you wanna go.  It isn't horrible - it just means your character's more of a normal person rising up to be the hero, rather than starting there.

So he came up with a cool idea.  You take an Adept, make it a character that can create and use psychic weapons, and there you go.  I could build an entire thing around that - in fact I did.  Her name was Lilith, and she was a psychic-knife using assassin.  Note 'assassin' there - not someone I'd use in Blue Rose.  Instead, I'd probably have made her a duellist - someone who defends the honour of others, because that's kind of the way the game runs, you know?

But he dropped the idea, saying if he was going to be using weapons, he might as well have made a warrior.  And.. isn't that kind of missing the point?

So he's not playing.

And it's kind of sad, because I think he'd have enjoyed the game if he'd let himself.  But he kept looking at the negatives, and not the positives.  You get to be a hero, you get to do good, and feel good about it, and there's not this moral ambiguity.  The game's not made for moral ambiguity.

You get to stand in the light, be the good guy, do right.  The game doesn't want you going around and killing people, you're trying to save lives, rather than end them.

A mage, using fireballs and lightning bolts and such isn't helping people in this setting.  It's hurting people.  And the game tells you this - it's in the setting, it's in the mechanics, it's part of the core of the game's very being.

And.. the game asked the players to make relationships - bonds with other people, whether they were other PCs, or NPCs or enemies or friends or whatever - to connect yourself to the people around you and to the world itself.. and that was apparently too hard.

So, it feels like he didn't even try.  That this idea of there being a world of light and goodness, and being a part of that, and striving to work towards that, of being connected to other people, in a positive way, from the get-go, was too much.

It's a shame.  Because when we got to playing, the ideals came out quickly, and it worked.  We were the heroes.  We saved the captives, and we didn't kill anyone.  The questions were asked:  'Were they forced to capture people?'  'Should we take lives?'  And those were the right questions.  And now that we have the captives, they get to wander off to prison, and then get put on trial.

If this were D&D, everyone would have been killed, and.. well, sure, it's satisfying to just kill everyone off, get the XP, and carry on - but this isn't D&D.   You don't just murder people - if they're breaking the law, you try to bring them to justice.  That's what makes us civilized.

And it was kind of cool.  I'm looking forward to the next session..

I just wish he was there with me.