Branimir's Open Letter to Games Workshop

[Shiroiken]

Not abusing people is not politics, and I definitely want not abusing people in my gaming.

That's where the choosing of who you game with comes in. I don't game with people like that, but that's ultimately where the decision is made, not by the company. A bunch of a-holes could get together and game among themselves without bothering me at all.

why is the argument about politics "it distracts from playing the game!"? when I'm down to playing a game I'm focused on playing. this doesn't mean I won't critique the game outside of playing it, I certainly will if I feel the need.

also if that's distracting, imagine someone playing "oh man this game I'm enjoying right now sure has some bad stereotypes about people like me!"

I'm not talking about forums and other social media, I'm talking about at the game, as the author mentions. Outside of the game, feel free to critique however you want. I just don't like it at the table. I can agree about stereotyping, as I've suffered from that quite a bit.

 

[Neonchameleon]

can you provide an example? this feels like a strawman argument.

I'd have said that the entire screed quoted by the OP was a good example of trying to find social injustice in everything up to and including not tolerating the intolerant.

 

[Neonchameleon]

While I don't care about the author or GW, my takeaway is that politics really doesn't have a place in gaming. It's too divisive, drawing people away from the focus of the activity, which is the joy of gaming itself. GW (or WotC or whoever) can put out any statement or viewpoint they want, and even if I disagree with it I can still buy, play, and love the game. I don't judge a company by its political views, but by the quality of the product. I choose who I game with, and if I disapprove of them, I can choose to not game with them.

My take is that to get politics out of gaming you'd have to start by banning all games where you put yourself in the shoes of another and tried to understand where they were coming from - in other words all RPGs. You'd next have to ban almost all historical themed games that enable people to identify with a historical faction. I'm not saying everyone who e.g. plays Germany in Flames of War is a Wehraboo - but far too many are it's a good place for them to network, and to recruit semi-openly. You'd also have to police any sort of colour schemes of course - and you couldn't paint minis in human skin tones. You'd then have to ban a lot of board games - starting with Monopoly for being based on an explicitly political Georgist game to show how bad monopolies were and then for making the political decision to strip the more explicit parts of that.

I think you might be able to get away with chess, backgammon, and most card games. Probably also some German boardgames (Puerto Rico is out for slave trading of course). But that's how extreme you'd have to be to get rid of politics in gaming.

 

[Immeril]

I think you might be able to get away with chess, backgammon, and most card games. Probably also some German boardgames (Puerto Rico is out for slave trading of course). But that's how extreme you'd have to be to get rid of politics in gaming.

Chess was historically used to teach war strategy, so...

 

[Sadras]

My take is that to get politics out of gaming you'd have to start by banning all games where you put yourself in the shoes of another and tried to understand where they were coming from - in other words all RPGs. You'd next have to ban almost all historical themed games that enable people to identify with a historical faction. I'm not saying everyone who e.g. plays Germany in Flames of War is a Wehraboo - but far too many are it's a good place for them to network, and to recruit semi-openly. You'd also have to police any sort of colour schemes of course - and you couldn't paint minis in human skin tones. You'd then have to ban a lot of board games - starting with Monopoly for being based on an explicitly political Georgist game to show how bad monopolies were and then for making the political decision to strip the more explicit parts of that.

I think you might be able to get away with chess, backgammon, and most card games. Probably also some German boardgames (Puerto Rico is out for slave trading of course). But that's how extreme you'd have to be to get rid of politics in gaming.

This post reflects this disconnect many of us are having with the other side.
It has oft been said we play as a form of escapism from RL, and here you are advocating that RL is very much a part of our fantasy games. Your perspective for me is harmful to the player base.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This post reflects this disconnect many of us are having with the other side.
It has oft been said we play as a form of escapism from RL, and here you are advocating that RL is very much a part of our fantasy games. Your perspective for me is harmful to the player base.

And your perspective to me is a denial of what is actually there. I am saying that our fantasy games come from and are informed by reality. This is not aspirational, it is just how things are. I'm not intending to advocate anything there so much as to point out the incredibly obvious.

To use an example of just how flat out wrong your perspective sounds to me it has often been said that people go to the theatre or movies as a form of escapism from RL. Here I am pointing out that plays and films are based in RL - and that nothing from something now despised like a blackface minstrel show to something almost universally loved like the original Star Wars: A New Hope (or just Star Wars as it was then) is even remotely non-political.

Your perspective for me is harmful not just to the player base but to the ability to create and play interesting games.

 

[macd21]

This post reflects this disconnect many of us are having with the other side.
It has oft been said we play as a form of escapism from RL, and here you are advocating that RL is very much a part of our fantasy games. Your perspective for me is harmful to the player base.

RL is very much a part of our fantasy games, whether you like it or not. It’s just that you haven’t noticed, because the default narrative And imagery in these games doesn’t impact you, whereas it does others.

The perspective of “RL shouldn’t be part of my escapist fantasy” is inherently harmful to the part of the player base that is excluded or (worse) negatively depicted in that fantasy.

 

[Morrus]

This post reflects this disconnect many of us are having with the other side.
It has oft been said we play as a form of escapism from RL, and here you are advocating that RL is very much a part of our fantasy games. Your perspective for me is harmful to the player base.

That’s literally because you can.

I can’t imagine what it feels like to be in a game where your ethnicity is consistently portrayed as inferior in some way (as savages, for example). So it’s easy to just not even notice it.

(I mean, I get annoyed at English people portrayed in American media as weak and ineffectual fops, but obviously that’s hardly the same thing, not remotely comparable, and we’re not discriminated against).

There’s a word used to describe exactly the thing you just described: “privilege”. That’s exactly what it means. The ability to be unaffected by these issues to the extent that one doesn’t even want those affected by it to talk about it, because that affects them.

 

[Sadras]

My take is that to get politics out of gaming you'd have to start by banning all games where you put yourself in the shoes of another and tried to understand where they were coming from - in other words all RPGs.

@macd21 and @Morrus. This line specifically is my issue.
When EVERYTHING is deemed political, even the act of roleplaying, you might as well call all books of fiction, movies, EVERYTHING political. If that is how you want to define it, sure have at it, just do not expect that perspective to not cause fractures within the player base.

 

[Panda-s1]

That's where the choosing of who you game with comes in. I don't game with people like that, but that's ultimately where the decision is made, not by the company. A bunch of a-holes could get together and game among themselves without bothering me at all.

I'm not talking about forums and other social media, I'm talking about at the game, as the author mentions. Outside of the game, feel free to critique however you want. I just don't like it at the table. I can agree about stereotyping, as I've suffered from that quite a bit.

okay, really, I don't think this is as big an issue as people make it out to be. I've been spending the past few days reeling with what's going on in the D&D community (and it doesn't help I've been posting on these forums), but I also had a 3 hour session of D&D today where I didn't once bring up these problems with everyone else.

but really, it helps that I'm already kinda used to this. you say you've suffered from stereotyping so I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

I'd have said that the entire screed quoted by the OP was a good example of trying to find social injustice in everything up to and including not tolerating the intolerant.

huh. hmm. yeah, fair point lol.

Wehraboo

oh boy, I didn't realize there was a word for this. my one brush with people like that was the one time in War Thunder I took my Bf109 into realistic mode and people in chat brought up how great this one Nazi propaganda song was, meanwhile I'm sitting there silently like "yeah uh I just think this plane is kinda neat, can we not make this weirder than it already is?"

...actually wait no, I knew a few ww2 reenactors at the game store I went to who did German army cosplay, and it always lingered in everyone's mind how seriously they took it.