Politics interfering with gaming

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, many years ago I played in a game with a DM/Player (we took turns) who had just about the opposite political view to mine own. We would argue about politics away from the table, because we both enjoyed arguing about politics. Sadly, I have not seen the person much lately, last I heard from him he had come much closer to my side of the political fence, more because he hates some of the politicians concerned than a change in his political viewpoint. (I hope that is vague enough for the forum rules.) Someday I hope to argue politics with him again.

It is possible to be friends and game with a person who's politics disagree with your own, just keep it away from the table.

The Auld Grump

 

[Chimera]

Why is that a bad thing? IMO ONLY those who feel that strongly truly have what I consider "beliefs". What others consider a "fanatic" I consider a person who actually believes in their cause.

(Quite a bit written, then deleted to avoid the need for Moderator Intervention over the whole "Political Discussion Issue.)

Let's leave it at my last line:

The danger of the fanatic is that reason is lost. At this point, Insanity begins.


I cannot answer your other question of me without getting into specific examples, which would be contrary to the rules of this board.

 

[MavrickWeirdo]

Just to put in my 2cp (before the thread is closed).

I consider myself a Liberal

One of the people I work with is a conservative (in his own words) and he enjoys getting into political rants. Most of the time I try to not get pulled in, occasionally that doesn't work.

On the other hand, there was one day he went out of his way to help me out at work. Without his help I might have been fired.

and even when he calls me a "damned hippie" he says it with a smile.

So sometimes it's a matter of taking the bad with the good.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Yeah, this thread is heading for closure, almost surely. I'm not sure if there ever was a time when people of differing opinions could disagree politely, and yet still hold their views strongly. I would like to think that people (on both ends of the spectrum) haven't decided that the other side is so much the enemy that even assocating with them makes them feel squeamish. The art of politics and of democracy requires civility. My fear is that the last few hundred years of democracy will run their course - and the downfall will come from people not being able to work together to stop it. Liberty requires letting others have their say, too, whether you like it or not.

 

[Tsillanabor]

snipity-snip Liberty requires letting others have their say, too, whether you like it or not.

Quoted for truth. I have VERY strong political beliefs, but I don't consider the other side evil, I just think that they have different priorities. I like to compare it to arguing about music-unless you are factually in error, there is very little 'right' or 'wrong' involved. My favorite musicians are great lyricists. My wife prefers a good vocal range. Neither of us are wrong, we just have different priorities.

 

[GQuail]

Why is that a bad thing? IMO ONLY those who feel that strongly truly have what I consider "beliefs". What others consider a "fanatic" I consider a person who actually believes in their cause.

That's perhaps a bigger question that ENWorld's rule prohibit answering specifically. Buty in the context of D&D, as per this thread: because we get together to play a game with each other. The last thing you need on top of late players, someone whose misplaced their character sheet, players who keep making a joke about your oddly-named NPC rather than take him seriously, delays while people find the right dice and all that is someone telling you that unless you're explicitly for their political views, you're against them, and thusly a terrible human being who must be reminded of this fact every session at least one.

D&D, at heart, provides me with escapist fun, and I suspect that's how most people view it as well. Forget work, forget your late electricity bill, forget the news article that got your blood boiling, forget the fact one of your friends has dumped his girlfriend and gone out with another friend's ex: you can kill some kobolds, charm some dukes, explore an untapped elemental plane, or whatever, and not have to worry about the "real" world for a bit. Politics at the table, especially with someone whose rabid in a belief one way or the other, risks turning your sessions from "escapist fun" into "another place where arguments happen"; and as HellHound made clear in his first post, that ain't fun to be a part of.

Sure, my friends and I discuss politics all the time: but at an RPG sessions it often feels silly to me, like suddenly opening up your newspaper to find Garfield has joined Delta Force and is hunting time-travelling Commie-Nazis. And, IMHO, the fact that D&D players often have somewhat suss social skills to begin with only gets worse when someone makes a politics reference: I mean, you've smelt those guys at cons who seem to be allergic to soap, how do you feel knowing they have the right to vote?

 

[GQuail]

The only person we dropped from a group due to politics wasn't really due to politics, but from their inability to leave politics out of the game.

Quoted becuase this is the crux of the issue, I feel. I hang out with people I disagree with on all kinds of issues: one of whom I also have been going out with now for two years. The problem becomes when any conversation with that person has to include a reference to such politics: and even if you agree with it, it can grate after a while.

 

[Umbran]

Why is that a bad thing?

Because it isn't really true. There can be more than two sides. Not being on your side does not imply that I am on the other side. Nor does it imply that my efforts will aid the other side.

Basically, this sort of position buys into the idea that all things are dichotomy, and only one of the two side the believer feels are the important players are going to have their way. It denies the possibility of a compromise, or that some third position might come to be the way things are.

Simply put, it is a bad thing because it is overly simplistic. And overly simplistic positions are poor sources for solutions to complex problems.

 

[Tsillanabor]

I like to call it dogmatic politics. The belief that I am ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and your position has no merit whatsoever.

 

[Henry]

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"?

Of some of the people I game with, we give one another birthday gifts, we visit in the hospital when we're sick, we give a car ride if in a jam, we go see movies together, we listen and sympathize on personal problems, we wish each other luck if going for job interviews, we help one another move if asked, in some cases we'd back each other up in a fight -- if those aren't traits of friendship, I'd be hard pressed to say what is. And political leanings are going to get in the way of THAT? If someone were a complete ass, that'd be one thing, the reason I couldn't be friendly with them, but just because they see a different way to a common good than I do, I'm not letting it eat me up.