-Isms in Campaign Settings?

[Jürgen Hubert]

What is your stance on -Isms, such as Racism and Sexim, on campaign settings? Is it something you would rather not deal with (especially if you or one of your players has suffered from you in the real world), or do you think they have their uses in designing a setting - either to make it more "realistic" or because it creates role-playing opportunities?

For example, I am currently developing a fantasy setting called Urbis, which loosely parallels the 19th century in many respects. And I have decided that many societies, especially those based on Europe, are fairly sexist (if not quite as much as those of the real Victorian Age) - women are generally considered to be less intelligent or suitable for stenous and/or dangerous work. I think including Sexism provides for some interesting opportunities in setting design and adventures that equal opportunities for both genders wouldn't allow - but I can understand if people feel otherwise.

And then there is Call of Cthulhu. By default, it is set in the 1920s - a period where both Sexism and Racism are commonplace. Do game masters deempathize these aspects to allow for a wider range of character types, or do they leave it in to make the game more realistic?


What are your thoughts on these issues?

 

[sjmiller]

In my current campaign the major villains are the dwarves. They are practitioners of monotheism, xenophobia, a bit of monomania, and are rulled by a theocracy. Sexism, racism, deism, nationalism, and a host of other things are part of what makes a game (and life for that matter) interesting and challanging. Without the bad, the good have nothing to vanquish.

 

[WayneLigon]

Normally it's never been much of a concern of mine. Adventurers tends to eventually move only in their own societies and circles with little contact or regard for the larger society they may ostenciably be a part of because they have little or nothing in common with the larger common run of society. Almost always, they tend to form some sort of attachment based solely on merit, with no regard to the common social conventions of the society they came from.

After a certain number of adventures or time spent away from 'normal' society, the conflict becomes 'adventurers vs normal society'; they have to deal with whatever predjudices that their normal run of folk has, plus the distrust for these people who are outside of society.

 

[diaglo]

... Sexism, racism, deism, nationalism, and a host of other things are part of what makes a game (and life for that matter) interesting and challenging. Without the bad, the good have nothing to vanquish.

kinda do the same thing.

schism is one ism i definitely use with games that have religion involved.

 

[Lanefan]

Intelligently handled, all kinds of -isms have a place in game design...with the probable exception of mainstream sexism, if you want to keep your female players. If nothing else, having extremist factions within mainstream societies can provide lots of adventure opportunities...e.g. a Dwarvish cult devoted to the extermination or enslavement of all non-Dwarves, etc.

Badly handled, though, -isms can blow your game up real good...

Lanefan

 

[AuraSeer]

Realism is entirely subjective. Never include anything solely because it would be "realistic."

There are plenty real-life things we leave out of games because they're inconvenient, annoying, or just not fun to RP-- like bathroom breaks, or waiting in line at the DMV. We only play those when they're important to the story, right? I chuck all the unpleasant -isms on to that same heap, and dig them out on the rare occasion they'd make the story interesting.

As long as sexism or whatever is an important theme in your campaign world, or even a cool story hook for one character, then by all means keep it in. Just don't stick it in under the "realism" label. (If you really wanted to be realistic, you'd be playing in a gameworld that's exactly like reality-- and what kind of fun is that?)

 

[BlackMoria]

All the -isms is what makes a campaign interesting.

All my campaigns have featured them. They are there for the players to ignore or to use in whatever fashion (like trying to change the predjuices of a small group of people to an entire society). But they are there nonetheless, even if the characters don't actively confront the issues.

 

[pawsplay]

I doubt most authors, in the 21st century,are likely to present 19th century sexism "realistically," whether that is their intention or not. There are arguments about what the state of sexism is in the world of today. The question is, can you present a story that is interesting and makes sense?

 

[frankthedm]

What is your stance on -Isms, such as Racism and Sexim, on campaign settings? Is it something you would rather not deal with (especially if you or one of your players has suffered from you in the real world), or do you think they have their uses in designing a setting - either to make it more "realistic" or because it creates role-playing opportunities?

For example, I am currently developing a fantasy setting called Urbis, which loosely parallels the 19th century in many respects. And I have decided that many societies, especially those based on Europe, are fairly sexist (if not quite as much as those of the real Victorian Age) - women are generally considered to be less intelligent or suitable for stenous and/or dangerous work.

The state of woman's affairs are about what they were pre-Sufferage.

Males IMC are about as sexist as they are in real life.

Female humaniod NPCs tend to have lower STR scores.

Society [which IMG has LN tendecies] expects the gender tasked with bearing children to do thier gods given duty.

The main birth control has a 5% chance per dose of rendering the taker barren / sterile.

Women are not expected to get killed on the battlefield because they are expected by most societies to add to the next generation. Men are more expendable.