Thursday, April 18, 2024

At Arm's Length

Though I write most often about my House of Worms Empire of the Petal Throne campaign – understandable, I suppose, because of its longevity – it's not the only RPG I'm currently refereeing. Another is the Barrett's Raiders Twilight: 2000 campaign that began in December 2021. Though quite different in many ways, I realized the other day that there's actually one significant point of overlap between House of Worms and Barrett's Raiders: they both occasionally feature some unpleasant realities. In the case of House of Worms, those realities include slavery, torture, and human sacrifice, while in Barrett's Raiders they include all the usual horrors of modern warfare (not to mention the unique horrors of nuclear warfare). 

I've sometimes been asked about how I handle such things in my campaigns, particularly those in House of Worms. Even before the recent unpleasantness, Tékumel long had a reputation – somewhat undeserved in my opinion – for being a particularly brutal setting that included lots of aspects of pre-modern societies that, while perhaps "realistic," are usually glossed over, if not outright excluded from games like Dungeons & Dragons. The same, too, could be said of almost every RPGs whose setting is a time of war or strife, whether that setting be pre-modern, modern, or futuristic. How does one referee a campaign that contains such dark elements?

As with most aspects of my refereeing, I don't have any systematic answers, only anecdotes and examples. However, looking back over what I have done does, I think, provide something approximating an overarching philosophy that might be of use to others referees whose campaigns deal with such things. For example, let's look at a ubiquitous and indeed foundational aspect of most of the cultures of Tékumel: slavery. Abhorrent though it is, slavery is commonplace throughout history. Indeed, there's scarcely a human society that hasn't practiced slavery at one time or another. Though a fantasy setting, Tékumel draws on several real-world cultures for inspiration, like ancient Egypt, the Aztecs, and Mughal India, all of which practiced slavery, hence its inclusion in Empire of the Petal Throne. 

The player characters of the House of Worms campaign are thus all members of a slaveholding culture and do not question the practice. Their clan owns slaves and at least a couple of PCs have had personal slaves who became important NPCs (though one was later manumitted and adopted into the clan). Despite this, slavery has never been important part of the campaign. It's part of the "furniture" of the setting, something that's undeniable there, but that we've never really dwelt upon, because the focus of the campaign has always been on adventure, usually out in the wilds, far from any Tekumeláni civilization. 

Similarly, the major cultures of Tékumel all approve of human sacrifice to varying degrees, as have many cultures on Earth. The god most of the characters worship, Sárku, accepts such sacrifices as part of his rituals and so priestly characters have occasionally been involved in them, too. The same is true of the torture of prisoners, which is seen as a legitimate form of interrogation in Tsolyánu and elsewhere. So, again, these deeply repugnant elements of the setting have appeared from time to time, but they've never been its focus. When they have appeared, such as during attempts to invoke divine intervention (for which there are rules), we'd simply acknowledge it and move on – the equivalent perhaps of the cinematic "fade to black" of old. 

I could cite plenty more examples from both House of Worms and Barrett's Raiders, but I trust that's not necessary. What I have come to realize is that, unless it's absolutely relevant, I don't spend a lot of time going over the finer details of all the unpleasant things that happen in my games. This includes combat, by the way, which, as players of many old school RPGs know, is generally very abstract. Now, there are indeed times when the precise nature of a horrible injury is relevant – this has come up several times in the Twilight: 2000 campaign – and, in such cases, I don't shy away from the gory details. However, as a general practice, I avoid doing so, because my games are meant to fun escapes rather than luxuriating in the darker corners of the human soul.

I offer my experiences not as a universal prescription. Each referee and player will draw his lines in different places and that's as it should be. I personally feel that there's generally nothing wrong with including unpleasant realities in one's roleplaying so long as everyone's on the same page in this regard. I don't fault anyone who wants to keep his games "family friendly," but neither do I condemn anyone who wants to venture farther into the shadows. One of the things that's great about roleplaying is that it's a flexible enough entertainment that it can accommodate both approaches – and more besides – without any difficulty. 

30 comments:

  1. The last sentence of the OP is true: RPGs are as flexible as film or literature, affording a variety of genres and tones. When running a horror game, I focus on everything unsettling. In my action-adventure games, even with the same players, I gloss over the uncomfortable stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm firmly of the opinion that - your post notwithstanding - you cannot separate the horrific parts from the rest of the material: For example, D&D's Dark Sun setting quite prolifically features things like genocide, slavery, and cannibalism. Removing such things would no longer make it be 'Dark Sun', and that or just 'downplaying' these aspects sounds dishonest, at the least. It might be better to just create a new post-apocalyptic setting, without those encumbered parts being present right from the start of the design. (something akin to the post-judgement-day Terminator universe might be a good approach).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I quite agree, actually. That's why I'd never consider *removing* unpleasant elements from a setting, even if I often choose not to emphasize them. Dark Sun is a very good example of this, since nearly everything about it, as a setting, hinges on past and present nastiness.

      Delete
    2. Hrm. Perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly enough, or maybe we just use the same reasoning/arguments but come to different conclusions. We seem to agree you cannot remove the bad parts from the setting. But my conclusion was that it might be best if such settings were not used (anymore) at all, and we just create a new setting without the nastiness. While your conclusion seems to be to still use the setting (nasty or not).

      Delete
    3. I don't know. Must the game world be sanitized in order to play in it? You can't play Blade Runner because replicants are slaves? You can't play the Allies in a WW2 game because of Nazi atrocities? You can't play in the Victorian Age because of the imperialism of the British Empire?

      In all your game settings, no immorality is permitted to exist?

      Delete
    4. I was about to start off a long tirade here, but decided against it. Perhaps I agree with you here, but :
      >
      > You can't play Blade Runner because replicants are slaves?
      >
      Perhaps ask the people who's great grandparents (or even present-day persons) were/are actual slaves in the real world ?

      >
      > You can't play the Allies in a WW2 game because of Nazi atrocities?
      >
      Ask a Jewish holocaust survivor.

      >
      > In all your game settings, no immorality is permitted to exist?
      >
      Whoever 'The Bad Guys' may be, are quote/unquote 'permitted', just don’t root them in actual real world (historic) events.

      Delete
    5. Did holocaust survivors boycott the Captain America movie set in WW2 because it had Nazis in it?

      I honestly think it would be *more* offensive if all historical dramas are sanitized to eliminate the Nazi's crimes, as you seem to propose.

      "Never forget," right?

      So no Sherlock Holmes games, no Wild West, no 1920s Call of Cthulhu, no Vikings, no Doc Savage, no games set in the modern day like superheroes or Top Secret or Chill... heck, just no games set on Earth ever?

      Delete
    6. Is it really that hard to create some sort of fictional villain (that may or may not want to rule the world), without it explicitly having to be Hitler ? Can't people do some form of fictitious (basically) 'cops & robbers', without it having to be rooted in real-world historic events of the 'invaders vs the native population' variety ?
      Oh, well. I guess this discussion is basically going nowhere here (for either of us).
      Agree to disagree ?

      Delete
    7. But if the fictional villain can't do anything evil that anyone in human history has ever done, then what is the nature of their villainy?

      Delete
    8. Trying to unleash the 'Demons of Hell' on humanity ? Get creative.

      Delete
    9. Completely agree with Etrimyn Cat here. Not sure what “Anonymous” is so afraid of. Nobody need ask a Holocaust survivor or a “descendant of slaves” (of which we nearly all are, if you go back far enough) to play a fantasy role-playing game that isn’t sanitized.

      Delete
    10. But if the demons harm anyone, wouldn't that bring discomfort to anyone who was ever harmed in the real world?

      Delete
    11. And Hell is a religious belief. Aren't you insulting believers in the real world by including Hell in your game?

      Delete
    12. Well, I got no snappy comeback.
      So please, do 'enjoy' your 'game' where you 'play' as Nazi's exterminating Jews. Sounds like a ton of 'fun'.

      Delete
    13. This is a straw man argument. My example above was playing the Allies against the Nazis.

      Delete
    14. So you're saying that 'no-one' is representing the Nazi's here - not even the referee/GM/DM - and whose actions mustn't be 'sanitized' ?

      Delete
    15. So please, do 'enjoy' your 'game' where you 'play' as the demons of Hell torturing innocent children for eternity. Sounds like a ton of 'fun'.

      Delete
  3. For that matter, the entire medieval European setting upon which D&D is predicated relied on the system of feudalism, in which most of the population (including, most likely, the PCs) lived in a state of thralldom to their lord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a vague recollection that Gygax once stated that D&D's implied social setting is closer to the early modern period (16th-17th centuries) than the Middle Ages proper. I've long felt it's actually closer to a pre-industrial 19th century.

      Delete
    2. The original default society of Gygaxian D&D is totally Wild West. Adventuring types make their way to the Borderlands to make their fortune and carve out their own destiny. They bring with them "civilization," conquering, pushing off, or extirpating the savage natives. The Wild West even had its own legends of list cities and hidden treasures.

      There was no single similar point in time in Europe, though England during the Anglo-Saxon invasions come to mind, with the tne Romano-British taking the place of orcs squatting among the ruins of the Empire, again, complete with lost cities and treasures...

      But really, any "society" in OD&D really consisted of little more than a place to go back and spend your loot, and at higher levels, greater factions to serve when you attain name level...

      And based on Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign and its straight up Gorean influences, slavery was a not insignificant factor in the spending of the loot.

      Delete
    3. While I appreciate the theory of D&D as a Wild West setting—and there are many intriguing parallels—the milieu presented in the original rules is clearly intended to be medieval in scope. A Ctrl+F search of the OD&D rules turns up numerous references to the term "medieval." At one point, Gygax even states: "...the scope [of the game] need not be restricted to the medieval; it can stretch from the prehistoric to the imagined future, but such expansion is recommended *only at such time as the possibilities in the medieval aspect have been thoroughly explored*."

      Going further, a search of the AD&D DMG also turns up many references to the term "medieval." Curiously, the first one on page 9, states: "As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, [AD&D] can be deemed only a dismal failure."

      Gygax then goes on, however, to make numerous mention of medieval standards for campaign elements such as economy, social structure, technology, language, and even the average physical strength of a peasant due to "hard labor."

      There is even an entire section on p. 94 called, "Peasants, Serfs, and Slaves," in which Gygax expounds on what commoners in "feudalistic societies" face in terms of social standing and general freedom. He makes no such comparisons to other cultures and/or eras.

      He goes on to describe how such oppressed populations occasionally rise up against their feudal lord, and provides the following guidance: "If a rising does occur, the player character must suppress it as soon as possible" or face the possibility of the revolt gaining momentum and turning into a civil war in the character's demesne.

      I don't mean to trod on the Wild West theory because I like it, but it's purely speculative and doesn't really match what Gygax wrote about the game.

      Delete
    4. The real truth, I think, is that Gygax changed his mind on this topic multiple times over the years.

      Delete
    5. That may be the case, but he refers to the medieval period and the Middle Ages frequently through Unearthed Arcana as well—the last official rulebook he authored—particularly in reference to weapons, most notably in the Appendix on polearms.

      I don't mean to be contentious, but it seems fairly clear from the rules he (and others) wrote that the default setting of D&D is analogous to the medieval period of Northern Europe and England.

      To your original point, the medieval period is notable for its feudal system of serfdom, so the concept of slavery was baked into the game from the beginning.

      Delete
  4. He is clearly glossing over the time period he established in the OD&D rulebooks, which state clearly on the cover: "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames..." Granted, the rules are anachronistic in many regards, but the original game doesn't seem set in Renaissance Europe to me. We often refer to D&D as post-apocalyptic, and that smacks of the time following the collapse of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your general point -- Gygax's intended implied setting (at least in AD&D) reflects the aesthetics of northern Europe in the high middle ages. But the problem is the implied world does not reflect a settled, complex society that works as one finds in real history. I think that is why people make the Wild West analogy. Historical medieval Europe had very few areas that could still be considered "wild" and suitable for exploration in the way implied by just about every adventure TSR published. The economics don't work and the politics don't work, unless a DM really sits down and tries to make a coherent setting. The implication from the rules written by Gygax is that he must have tried to give the Lake Geneva campaign at least some "authentic" medieval flavor, but I think that there have been many other DMs over the last 50 years who have not. I have the impression that D&D as played in Lake Geneva was genuinely not reflective of how most other people else played it, and especially so once we get into what James calls the "Silver Age" of the mid-80s and later.

      Delete
  5. I agree with James Mishler in that I think that D&D models a society similar to the fictional portrayal of the Wild West rather than a truly medieval one.

    Recognising the dark side of culture and society is something that I have generally avoided in my games even SF ones. I can see where it might arise in an RPG set in a specific period of history or more likely a dystopian future RPG (Twilight 2000 being such a game). However as RPG are supposed to be enjoyable, I am struggling to see how these darker elements provide that enjoyment unless the players are liberating or saving people from the darkness.

    How dark topics are handled and presented is clearly a key challenge for any aspiring RPG writer and getting it wrong leads to it being made light of or risks looking schlocky or puerile.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I never glossed over the unsettling or horrific elements in my D&D campaigns, being firmly of the mind that the darker the evil, the more good can potentially shine in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I’ve always been drawn to grittier settings. My own creations are never filled with Lawful Good people working hand-in-hand with happy elves to make a better world. Rather, they’re places where morality is ambiguous, much like our real world. There has never existed a society that described itself as bad or evil. Both sides of a bloody conflict fight for “Good”, as they see it.
    Unfortunately, many distasteful social practices follow suit: political treachery, propaganda, self-righteousness, and worse: slavery, serfdom, oppression, et al.
    I don’t necessarily dwell on such practices, but they are undeniably present and I don’t shy away from them.
    I get we’re talking about fantasy gaming, but without some grounding in the cold realities of life, and of primitive societies, I feel like a setting is indeed “Vanilla Utopian”. Silly. Where the “Good Guys” go on merry romps to slay the “Baddies” and garner their loot.
    I much prefer my players wondering who indeed are the good guys, or if such a thing even exists.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It never ceases to amaze me how some people think they must apologize and genuflect for things they did not do in the real world and even more so for imaginary ones.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The blog entry and subsequent conversation of "problematic" content reminds me of my nascent hypothesis involving the surge of modern cosmic horror (and less so gothic horror) coming from sources new and old. It's essentially conflict-avoidance of a sort - let's not talk about the uncomfortable things, and instead focus on mindless, unknowable, undefinable or irredeemable abstractions of 'evil' instead of the evil things of the present or past.

    ReplyDelete