How to Tell if Your Fun is Wrong

[EzekielRaiden]

I don’t have a dog in this fight but one of the best games I’ve DM’d was Way of the Wicked by Fire Mountain Games.
<snip bad characters doing bad things>
Who decides what a reasonable person thinks is acceptable?

As others have said, it's not something that can be nailed down simply; that would defeat its purpose. It's a composite of common knowledge, community standards of conduct, the limits of what we expect a typical adult human being to be able to think or do (e.g. we don't expect a typical human adult to be able to see through walls or factor a seventeen-digit number in less than one second, but we do expect them to avoid unnecessary risk and consider alternative courses of action), and other relevant factors. As with many "tests" in legal proceedings, it inherently cannot be pinned down to an explicit formula, because that would create both exploits and overreach.

As for Way of the Wicked:
Were your players on board for the stated premise and accepting of the concept as delivered? It sounds like yes, which means they were engaged.
Were your players there by consent, and able to withdraw or address concerns with reasonable speed as they arose? It sounds like yes, which means they were willing.
Were you and your players treating one another with respect and not deriving joy from causing harm to one another, or other peripheral participants? It sounds like yes, which means they were being (within reason) positive.

Your group roleplayed horrible people doing horrible things. That is, and should be, pretty clearly distinct from using speech or performing actions that apply to real, living people, whether present or not. Such gaming naturally isn't for everyone, in exactly the same way that games with a highly sexual or graphically-violent tone are not for everyone. A reasonable person would be presumed to either be on board (and thus the game is for them), or be able to depart once they realized they weren't on board--and failure to let them do so would be demonstration of at least one of the above things failing to be upheld (positivity, willing consent, sincere engagement).

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I go with Matt Colville on the wrongfun thing about Bad Players:

Every Bad Player is the perfect player for some table out there. It's okay if it's not your table.

 

[TheSword]

As others have said, it's not something that can be nailed down simply; that would defeat its purpose. It's a composite of common knowledge, community standards of conduct, the limits of what we expect a typical adult human being to be able to think or do (e.g. we don't expect a typical human adult to be able to see through walls or factor a seventeen-digit number in less than one second, but we do expect them to avoid unnecessary risk and consider alternative courses of action), and other relevant factors. As with many "tests" in legal proceedings, it inherently cannot be pinned down to an explicit formula, because that would create both exploits and overreach.

As for Way of the Wicked:
Were your players on board for the stated premise and accepting of the concept as delivered? It sounds like yes, which means they were engaged.
Were your players there by consent, and able to withdraw or address concerns with reasonable speed as they arose? It sounds like yes, which means they were willing.
Were you and your players treating one another with respect and not deriving joy from causing harm to one another, or other peripheral participants? It sounds like yes, which means they were being (within reason) positive.

Your group roleplayed horrible people doing horrible things. That is, and should be, pretty clearly distinct from using speech or performing actions that apply to real, living people, whether present or not. Such gaming naturally isn't for everyone, in exactly the same way that games with a highly sexual or graphically-violent tone are not for everyone. A reasonable person would be presumed to either be on board (and thus the game is for them), or be able to depart once they realized they weren't on board--and failure to let them do so would be demonstration of at least one of the above things failing to be upheld (positivity, willing consent, sincere engagement).

Lets set aside the issue of consent. If it’s non-consensual it is by default wrong before you even roll a dice. More interestingly It has already been suggested that irrespective of consent and willing participants, some activities are wrong.

You’re suggestion seems to be if it applies to real living people then it crosses a line. I can think of many many comedians that tell jokes about real people. Is watching them wrong.

Others have suggested that it doesn’t need to be about specific people for it to be wrong. Some things are just plain unacceptable.

My point was that one persons unacceptable is another persons run-of-the-mill. There are tables that wouldn’t enjoy human sacrifice in WotW. Others would take it in their stride. Many people like a villain, and most of us like watching them.

I’m familiar with the idea of the hypothetical reasonable man. I have my law degree too. It’s a good system for establishing what would be reasonably foreseeable for a tort. It’s a terrible way to determine matters of taste. Which is what this really boils down to. Personal taste.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Lets set aside the issue of consent. If it’s non-consensual it is by default wrong before you even roll a dice. More interestingly It has already been suggested that irrespective of consent and willing participants, some activities are wrong.

So, you agree, then, that there are certain behaviors one can engage with at the gaming table that are by default wrong, no matter what? Because that was the whole point. If you concede there's at least one, you've given me the only point that matters. Everything else is just enumeration.

You’re suggestion seems to be if it applies to real living people then it crosses a line. I can think of many many comedians that tell jokes about real people. Is watching them wrong.

Comedy and parody are distinct from roleplaying, and should be subject to different limits. But even then, do you not agree that certain kinds of comedy targeting individual people are unacceptable? For example, mocking the habits of the recently-deceased, especially if they died by suicide. Robin Williams comes to mind. Or mocking the struggles of people with mental disabilities, for a different example.

Consider how harmful, and coercive, the "oh lighten up"/"if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"/"god, such a prude, where's your sense of humor" defense is. That is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Others have suggested that it doesn’t need to be about specific people for it to be wrong. Some things are just plain unacceptable.

I mean, yes? Imagine telling jokes using racial epithets at the table. That's hardly going to be an acceptable thing...pretty much anywhere. Again, this is why we have a "reasonable person" standard, instead of laying out a laundry list of unacceptable things. No list can ever be absolutely perfect, and no matter how much work you put into the list, SOME people SOMEWHERE are GOING to game it to hell and back, whether "dancing on the line" type or "hah, I can censor you because what you said technically violates the letter of the rule!" type.

My point was that one persons unacceptable is another persons run-of-the-mill. There are tables that wouldn’t enjoy human sacrifice in WotW. Others would take it in their stride. Many people like a villain, and most of us like watching them.

Again, I don't think this is the case. For many things, yes, certainly. But some things really are beyond the pale in almost all circumstances. I mean, you yourself just said that coercing people into playing something is verboten in all cases; you admit there's at least one behavior that is genuinely unacceptable at ALL tables, no matter what. If there's at least one, you can't argue that for all things, some tables would accept it and other tables wouldn't. There could be others.

I’m familiar with the idea of the hypothetical reasonable man. I have my law degree too. It’s a good system for establishing what would be reasonably foreseeable for a tort. It’s a terrible way to determine matters of taste. Which is what this really boils down to. Personal taste.

And if this were about matters of taste, I agree. But it's not. Using racist epithets to speak about your actual, living friends is not a matter of taste--especially if you don't have any (figurative or literal) skin in the game, so to speak. Perpetuating harmful stereotypes--like Pathfinder's Vistani, who were pretty blatantly written with every harmful stereotype of Roma people--is, some argue, another such thing that is not a matter of taste, but rather a general behavior that isn't acceptable: being actually harmful toward real people.

 

[TheSword]

So, you agree, then, that there are certain behaviors one can engage with at the gaming table that are by default wrong, no matter what? Because that was the whole point. If you concede there's at least one, you've given me the only point that matters. Everything else is just enumeration.


Comedy and parody are distinct from roleplaying, and should be subject to different limits. But even then, do you not agree that certain kinds of comedy targeting individual people are unacceptable? For example, mocking the habits of the recently-deceased, especially if they died by suicide. Robin Williams comes to mind. Or mocking the struggles of people with mental disabilities, for a different example.

Consider how harmful, and coercive, the "oh lighten up"/"if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"/"god, such a prude, where's your sense of humor" defense is. That is the kind of thing I'm talking about.


I mean, yes? Imagine telling jokes using racial epithets at the table. That's hardly going to be an acceptable thing...pretty much anywhere. Again, this is why we have a "reasonable person" standard, instead of laying out a laundry list of unacceptable things. No list can ever be absolutely perfect, and no matter how much work you put into the list, SOME people SOMEWHERE are GOING to game it to hell and back, whether "dancing on the line" type or "hah, I can censor you because what you said technically violates the letter of the rule!" type.


Again, I don't think this is the case. For many things, yes, certainly. But some things really are beyond the pale in almost all circumstances. I mean, you yourself just said that coercing people into playing something is verboten in all cases; you admit there's at least one behavior that is genuinely unacceptable at ALL tables, no matter what. If there's at least one, you can't argue that for all things, some tables would accept it and other tables wouldn't. There could be others.


And if this were about matters of taste, I agree. But it's not. Using racist epithets to speak about your actual, living friends is not a matter of taste--especially if you don't have any (figurative or literal) skin in the game, so to speak. Perpetuating harmful stereotypes--like Pathfinder's Vistani, who were pretty blatantly written with every harmful stereotype of Roma people--is, some argue, another such thing that is not a matter of taste, but rather a general behavior that isn't acceptable: being actually harmful toward real people.

Whether something is offensive or not, is exactly what taste is about. Let’s be clear, talking about what WOC publishes, or what happens in a game store or convention is easy. Those are public affairs... what happens at someone’s kitchen table isn’t so easy.

There are many comedians that push boundaries along taste and decency. If you go to a three comedian billed comedy club with a MC in any given city in England, I guarantee at least one of them will tell a joke that you wouldn’t repeat. There are many jokes that I would find distasteful. Then again I recognize that I shouldn’t be the person who decides if they get told or not.

The problem with the average man on the clapham omnibus being the person who decides what is acceptable taste or not is that if that were the case Queer as Folk wouldn’t have been scheduled on TV in the mid 90’s and Graham Norton wouldn’t have been allowed to present a major TV show then. Because the average man on the bus in the 90’s thought open homosexuality was distasteful.

These things work both ways.

I’m not saying there aren’t things that I would horrified to see presented in a game. I just don’t think deciding what they are is as simple as some people on here suggest. The price of free speech, is that you sometimes have to put up with some things you don’t like.

At that point we’re back to consent, and choosing who you play with.

 

[Lanefan]

Comedy and parody are distinct from roleplaying,

Not at my table.

 

[Blue]

First off, I want to make it clear, fun cannot be wrong unless it is directly at the expense of someone else. This is true for D&D playstyles, and every other situation where the intent is to have fun. Futhermore, as D&D is a game, where the intent is to have fun, this means that there is no wrong way to play D&D if everyone at the table is having fun, and they are not directly harming anyone outside of the table, no matter how abnormal their playstyle may seem to you.

I'm good with this if you move one threshold. D&D is a team game. "Harm ye none" is not quite good enough. A player that does not add at all to the fun of other players, such that the others would have more fun without them there because (a) they add nothing and (b) everyone else aren't splitting their attention to give that person fun, then they are still doing the game wrong.

It is the responsibility of everyone at the table to contribute to the fun of others.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm good with this if you move one threshold. D&D is a team game. "Harm ye none" is not quite good enough. A player that does not add at all to the fun of other players, such that the others would have more fun without them there because (a) they add nothing and (b) everyone else aren't splitting their attention to give that person fun, then they are still doing the game wrong.

It is the responsibility of everyone at the table to contribute to the fun of others.

Yes, I agree completely. If one player isn't contributing to the fun, or is taking away from the fun (typically because of different playstyles or problematic behavior), it is the responsibility of the player causing this issue to find a group that is better suited for them. If they can't find another group, and the original group is willing, a compromise would be necessary to make sure everyone is still having fun and contributing to the overall fun of the game.

 

[GrahamWills]

The definition of direct harm was probably poorly defined in the OP, which is my bad. What I would define as "direct harm" is real harm and indirect harm would be imagined harm ...
If others assumed "direct" and "indirect" to be "at the table" and "not at the table", that's my bad, and definitely not what I intended to say. Does this clear things up? I am aware of how the definition is a bit iffy, but this is more a case of "you know it when you see it" than "strict, always objectively true signs".

yes that cleared it up -- I did have that misconception of your intent, so thanks for the clarification! And I completely agree with the looser definition; hard and fast rules for "what causes people pain" doesn't seem a reasonable thing to expect.

With your clarification in mind, I'd say your your distinction between "real" and "imagined" harm is close enough to my statement that a "a reasonable person would be harmed". If only unreasonable people would be harmed, the harm would not seem real; and vice versa, so I think we're in good agreement.

 

[GrahamWills]

The problem with the average man on the clapham omnibus being the person who decides what is acceptable taste or not is that if that were the case Queer as Folk wouldn’t have been scheduled on TV in the mid 90’s and Graham Norton wouldn’t have been allowed to present a major TV show then. Because the average man on the bus in the 90’s thought open homosexuality was distasteful.

Although you raise an important point on what is "tasteful" or offensive, this is not actually what we are talking about. There is a big difference between "in bad taste" and "causing real hurt to others" which is what we are discussing as the unacceptable limit of fun in a game.

Queer as Folk is an excellent talking point. I believe it first aired at the end of the 90's rather than the mid, but that's beside then point. As far as I can see from reviews and commentary from the time, the average person actually quite liked it, but again, the question of "taste" is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is "did it cause hurt?" and, since it portrayed the gay community, it's interesting to see that the reactions from them were mixed. Some felt it was great to see their culture portrayed that way, others that it showed "ridiculous and dangerous stereotypes". I can't speak to what the average gay UK person would have felt as I'm not a member of that community, but it doesn't appear from my reading that they were definitively hurt by it. But I'm quite willing to believe I'm totally wrong, and if they were hurt by it, then yeah, its would have been better to have done it differently.

I understand that you are trying to frame "badness" in roleplaying games as purely a matter of taste, but I'm not aligned with that way of thinking. I agree with you that judging taste by a "reasonable man" criterion would be quite dodgy, and maybe I am an optimist, but I think most people are capable of saying "that is awful, in bad taste and I hate it, but it doesn't actually hurt anyone so I guess ... go ahead", and so I'm good with a group consensus on what can cause hurt. Yeah, it can fail, and I'm sure people can bring up examples, but it seems a better plan than saying that we're not even going to try.