Piracy And Other Malfeasance

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Yes. And?



No, we don't have to. But a lot of us want to play white hats regardless.

And it is pretty lame to blame that on the marketing, instead of on people not wanting to spend their precious leisure time pretending to be someone who makes the world around them worse.
Are those the only two options? And what do you have that the marketing isn't a significant factor?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No, that is still a Session 0 problem. And, frankly, GM problem -- it is the GM's job to communicate what the campaign is about effectively. Effective communication includes ensuring that the person you are talking to receives and understands the message.
It is such a big problem. Most young gamers (say under 30) just come from an alien viewpoint. They know very little real history, they don't keep up with the news and have only watched a couple mostly animated Tv shows and movies that all gives them a nice "rated G" view of the world. And then add all the silly video games on top of that.

It gets to be pointless trying to explain that my game is "real" or "hardcore" or anything else. No matter what I say, they will just think "oh like that silly rated g cartoon I watch".

Or the players will just lie, say they understand and want to start playing the game.
 

Reynard

Legend
It is such a big problem. Most young gamers (say under 30) just come from an alien viewpoint. They know very little real history, they don't keep up with the news and have only watched a couple mostly animated Tv shows and movies that all gives them a nice "rated G" view of the world. And then add all the silly video games on top of that.

It gets to be pointless trying to explain that my game is "real" or "hardcore" or anything else. No matter what I say, they will just think "oh like that silly rated g cartoon I watch".

Or the players will just lie, say they understand and want to start playing the game.
That is definitely a you problem, not a them problem.
 



payn

He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
This is an interesting observation. I came into the hobby with 3e, but we mostly did our own thing. We didn’t really do any published adventures for quite a while (other than stuff like Forge of Fury). Consequently, I never got inculcated into thinking of my character as heroic by default. I wonder if there are others who share my experience, but more importantly to what extent a survey of play over the years would reflect the adoption of TSR’s code of ethics and the seeming internalization of the code as the default orientation of play in fantasy campaigns.
I came in at 2E and my GMs were very old school. The default play was skill play and I got a lot of side eye looks when I asked about campaign metaplot and grander ideas of accumulation of play overall. To them, playing the game was the point of the game. It didnt matter why the PCs were doing it, they did it because it had to be done to have a game. Each week was just moving from one dungeon to the next. All X were irredeemably evil, not out of spite or some political point, but because the rationalization of it just wasn't important to playing the game. In fact, these motivations and philosophical examination were simple unnecessary complications to, you guessed it, playing the game.

I didnt have much experience with organized play, nor with the satanic panic, so TSR code of ethics is not surprising, but not something I have ever encountered. I did join PFS for a couple years and they had a "no evil" policy. That was largely to stop players from being awful to each other. They allowed a smidge of grey into things, but overall, PCs were folk promoting good in the world. Winning is often conflated with heroic in both the sense of the above skill play and the organized play allowance of certain behavior.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I bet if one wanted to, one could go through official modules and assess the hooks for "heroic expectations" and figure out if/how the game has assumed heroic characters over time.
It's not the modules so much as the Players' Handbooks, which have become more hero-focused over the editions.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yes. And?
And - why should "heroic" be the baseline assumption?
No, we don't have to. But a lot of us want to play white hats regardless.
Fine. Go ahead and play 'em. Nobody's going to stop you.
And it is pretty lame to blame that on the marketing, instead of on people not wanting to spend their precious leisure time pretending to be someone who makes the world around them worse.
The point of fantasy roleplay is to be able to generate scenarios that are larger than real life and do things in those scenarios that you can't do in real life. Right? This doesn't seem controversial.

So why not market the game a bit more along the "play your character as you like" line? That allows (and by implication, endorses) room for you to play your white-hats, me to play my black-hats, and others to play hats of any colour they want.

To answer my own question (and repeat myself from upthread): they can't market it this way due to potential backlash from those who make it their role in life to be offended (a la 1980s Satanic panic people). But that doesn't mean we on the inside have to take that marketing to heart.
 

While I agree in principal... in practice having the players play evil characters is something I have rarely seen end well.

I try to encourage my players to play characters that would work well as the main cast of a movie or tv show. They don't have to be lawful good, but they should have their heart slightly in the right place, and not go murdering and torturing their way through the campaign.

So basically, heroes of some flavor. Even if they are pirates. That means, you can still go robbing the high seas, but without executing, torturing and enslaving everyone you rob.
 


Remove ads

Top