Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 8238969" data-attributes="member: 75787">I think the main argument against this point of view would,d be aimed at the escape capsule for indirect harm. The OP suggests that if playing a game causes indirect harm to someone else, but is fun for everyone at the table, then it is good. Many people would disagree with that point of view.One problem with that discussion is that it depends on the difference between indirect and direct harm. Suppose that a game being played objectifies women and makes them purely an accessory for the male characters. If all the players are male, and like that objectification, then any harm is indirect, and so this qualifies as “good fun” by the OP rules.Now the original post sort of walks back it’s original position and says that racist games are direct harm, even if no one involved is offended. That, to me, seems like indirect harm, but the OP labels it direct harm.&nbsp; The examples of potential bad tropes given are very tame an innocuous — they don’t really tests the premise.Overall, I’d just drop any qualifiers and say that you&nbsp; if your game was viewed by any reasonable person, and it would cause them pain, it‘s bad/wrong. I understand that “reasonable” is very much left up to debate, but there’s no way to get around that issue. Precedence and sound judgement need to be your guide.So, for example, even when playing in historical games, I use the term “Romany” to describe a certain culture, even though using historical terms would neither upset anyone at the table or cause anyone direct harm. But many (not all, but many) people from that culture would be hurt by my use of that historical term, so I don’t do it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gorgon Zee, post: 8238969, member: 75787"] I think the main argument against this point of view would,d be aimed at the escape capsule for indirect harm. The OP suggests that if playing a game causes [B]indirect[/B] harm to someone else, but is fun for everyone at the table, then it is good. Many people would disagree with that point of view. One problem with that discussion is that it depends on the difference between indirect and direct harm. Suppose that a game being played objectifies women and makes them purely an accessory for the male characters. If all the players are male, and like that objectification, then any harm is indirect, and so this qualifies as “good fun” by the OP rules. Now the original post sort of walks back it’s original position and says that racist games are direct harm, even if no one involved is offended. That, to me, seems like indirect harm, but the OP labels it direct harm. The examples of potential bad tropes given are very tame an innocuous — they don’t really tests the premise. Overall, I’d just drop any qualifiers and say that you if your game was viewed by any reasonable person, and it would cause them pain, it‘s bad/wrong. I understand that “reasonable” is very much left up to debate, but there’s no way to get around that issue. Precedence and sound judgement need to be your guide. So, for example, even when playing in historical games, I use the term “Romany” to describe a certain culture, even though using historical terms would neither upset anyone at the table or cause anyone direct harm. But many (not all, but many) people from that culture would be hurt by my use of that historical term, so I don’t do it. [/QUOTE]

Verification