Politics interfering with gaming

[woodelf]

No. My group's passionate about a lot of things but when it comes to politics and religion, that stuff is personal. I mean I could guess which way people lean in my group but I don't explicitly know - which I think is a good thing. Put it this way, I'm glad we don't have any "preachers" on either of these topics in our group. As on these boards, the discussion of such things can only cause conflict and then grief.

Can only cause conflict and grief? Discussions of sensitive, world-shaping topics can never lead to (1) understanding of someone else's POV, (2) enlightenment or broadening of view, or (3) a change of opinion? Wow, i guess the legislature can cut out the whole debate part, and just vote on every bill the minute it's proposed.

 

[Patrick O'Duffy]

I only game with friends, and to be blunt, if a person has beliefs that are that diametrically opposed to mine, I don't think I could get to the point where I'd be friends with them in the first place.

Word.

 

[Patrick O'Duffy]

Speaking as someone who's been a roleplayer for more than 20 years, I consider politics far more important than gaming. Gaming is make-believe fun; politics is real goddamn life.

I wear my politics on my sleeve, and I will not game with someone who fundamentally disagrees with my poltical beliefs. Hell, I'm generally barely civil to someone who fundamentally disagrees with me unless I have to be. This is what's important to me, not gaming.

As for people who think gaming is more important than politics... I can't even begin to understand you.

 

[fusangite]

Speaking as someone who's been a roleplayer for more than 20 years, I consider politics far more important than gaming. Gaming is make-believe fun; politics is real goddamn life;

I wear my politics on my sleeve, and I will not game with someone who fundamentally disagrees with my poltical beliefs. Hell, I'm generally barely civil to someone who fundamentally disagrees with me unless I have to be. This is what's important to me, not gaming.

As for people who think gaming is more important than politics... I can't even begin to understand you.

A political value treasured by most people is social and political pluralism -- you know, a society of people of differing ideas, backgrounds and faiths can live together in harmony. Some of us think this facilitates dialogue and mutual understanding.

Moderator edit: Please, we don't need personal confrontations here.

 

[Insight]

I have had politics of a sort interfere with my gaming, but it turned out to be a very good move. Our gaming group regularly met at a couple's house. Of the couple, the wife was very much "in charge" of things. I have no problem at all with that.

The problem was that she was a militant feminist, and required that everyone share her beliefs. I believe that I am a very egalitarian person. I believe that men and women are equally good and equally susceptible to temptation, evil, all that stuff. To me, the differences between men and women are social ones, not physiological or mental ones.

Anyway, the problem arose when I (the GM) proposed a new campaign in which the main villain was the Queen of the local kingdom. Queen being a woman, obviously. Well, this raised all sorts of hell. Why does the villain have to be a woman? Why does the woman have to be evil?

To me, evil Kings and Queens are equally passe as villains. I could go either route and it's as cliche as the other. The truth is that the Queen was really a Blue Dragon, but of course, none of the players knew that.

Because of this intolerance, I scrapped that campaign, but also came to the realization that these people just weren't someone with whom I could game for any length of time. I can't be in a situation where my creativity as a GM is going to be curtailed. I got out of there and never looked back, and it was the best decision I could have made.

 

[Patrick O'Duffy]

I guess your particular brand of politics isn't about that.

moderator edit: Escalation does not help. Please stop.

 

[pogre]

At least mine isn't about making smarmy, passive-aggressive personal attacks. I can be proud about that.

and we're heading for a thread closure....

I can read your passion and others, but I still think non-politically charged advice could be garnered from here.

Listen, I'm interested in responses to the original question - I GM a very politically diverse group, but we get on pretty well at the gaming table. We're all good folk, with varying view points and we usually attempt to keep things smooth at the table. Perhaps because I'm somewhere in the middle comments don't get to me so much.

BTW - I am not slamming P O'D. at all here! He just posted last

 

[Akrasia]

Speaking as someone who's been a roleplayer for more than 20 years, I consider politics far more important than gaming. Gaming is make-believe fun; politics is real goddamn life.

I wear my politics on my sleeve, and I will not game with someone who fundamentally disagrees with my poltical beliefs. Hell, I'm generally barely civil to someone who fundamentally disagrees with me unless I have to be. This is what's important to me, not gaming.

As for people who think gaming is more important than politics... I can't even begin to understand you.

I agree that politics is vastly more important than gaming. But that doesn't mean that you can't 'bracket' the 'far more important' concerns in certain 'less important' social situations. If I'm in a bookstore talking about fantasy fiction with the store keeper, should I direct our discussion towards the weighty political affairs of the day? Or can we simply 'bracket' those issues in order to talk about the recent novels we've read -- even if I think that certain political affairs are more important than the merits of RR. Martin's most recent novel?

Also, as someone very concerned with political matters -- indeed, as someone who writes about political philosophy professionally -- I would think that only hanging out with people who agree with me would be stifling. My political views have evolved greatly over the years. I'm open to the possibility that people who disagree with me might nonetheless be rational and decent people. The soundness of my own views could only be strengthened by understanding their positions.

Of course, what 'disagreement' means needs to be specified. I'd have trouble associating with people who reject the notion of universal human rights and the basic principles of democratic government. But above that minimal threshold, if someone is intelligent and respectful, I'm interested in talking to them, whether they be a social conservative, democratic socialist, libertarian, or whatever.

 

[Umbran]

and we're heading for a thread closure....

:Moderator:
If it gets any worse, yes.

I've edited away a couple of places where folks were getting a touch too personal. If anyone has any questions or problems, please send me an e-mail. My address is available in a thread stickied at the top of the Meta forum.

Pogre is quite right - there are passions involved here. So take time to think before you post. There's good advice to be had here, if you take time to listen.

 

[Chimera]

I don't even understand how anyone manages to call a person with radically different (i.e. opposed) politcal & ethical positions a "friend" - an aquaintance, yeah, but "friend"?

For my part, I don't buy into the ideological zeal that requires me to think of someone with a different opinion or belief to be my "enemy".

Sure, there are some issues where it just leaves me shaking my head that people are stupid/crazy/ignorant/evil enough to believe what they believe, but it sure doesn't help me to "go evil" myself on them about it. It certainly isn't going to help change their minds.

None of that requires me to compromise my own position or beliefs.