Minorities, sexual and otherwise, in RPGs

[Michael Hopcroft]

A question someone posed to me on one of the other forums about heartQuest and how it handles yaoi campaigns has led me to pose this question -- are there, in people's mind, a particularly good way for an RPG to deal with a sexual mintory (such as gays and lesbians) or with other minorities, especially given that most of the gamers I've run into are white hetero males?

There are some RPGs in which peopledo things to sentient beings described as "monsters" that we would never see as acceptable behavior when dealing with a human minotiry. Orcs and koblds that exist only to be slain are the prime example that comes to mind. When that approach is applied to humans of "opposing alignment" or"enemy status" it gets even worse. Most D&D paladins behave in ways that most people wpould consider incredibly bigoted and reprehensible in real life.

At the same time, there are certain things many gamers are uncomfortable with -- often things that involve dealing with anything approaching real human emotion in a game.

I'm sure this is a subject on which people have strong opinions. In the games you design and play, are there cliches you go out of your way to avoid? Are there certain things you feel youu have to embarce in game worlds that you would never embrace in real ones -- and do you really have no choice in the matter?

[clehrich]

I can see several ways to go about it, depending on what you want.

1. Setting that is deliberately and overtly restrictive.
For example, my game Shadows in the Fog is set in the Victorian era, where male homosexuality was not only disliked but essentially criminal (see Oscar Wilde's trial).  Female homosexuality is mainly a subject for erotic (male) fantasy, and nobody seems to realize how common it actually is.  Since all the PC's are at least a little "off," a little bit not the way they present themselves, a homosexual character would be a perfect choice.  He'd be very carefully covert about it, of course, but that would add the little frisson of danger that would make the character sit up and work.

2. Setting that is deliberately beyond permissive.
For example, you could have a world or a culture in a world which parallels the ancient Greek structure, where older men were expected and encouraged to have sexual relations with younger men, the idea being to guide and teach them as well as impress discipline upon them.  This would force players to deal with the issue, since it's taken as completely normal in that culture.  Of course, lots of players might not want to play in this game, accomplishing nothing.

3. Setting that is neither, but discusses the issue directly.
For example, you could have a modern-world setting in which you make a point of mentioning that homosexuality is a legitimate option for characters, and then see if anyone takes it up.  You could also have some very "swish" NPC's, or alternatively some very non-obvious gay NPC's, if you want to make the point.

4. Overtly polemical game
You could construct a game, sort of like Emily's feminist experiment game, in which the whole point is to deal head-on with the oppressive situation many gay people face in this country (or wherever).  But this wouldn't appeal to a lot of players, I expect.

Personally, I like option #1, because it allows people to use homosexuality in character design, and make it part of the story.  But it really depends on what you're trying to achieve.

Chris Lehrich

[AndrewDylan]

I like the idea of dealing with these issues in a way that is comfortable for all the players.  Part of the original question homes in on a problem I have with a number of games, that of "good vs evil" tropes in a lot of fantasy games, especially when "good" and "evil" are applied broadly to a given race.  The way I dealt with this in a recent game was to eliminate alignments (it was a D&D 3E game.)  Granted, this also required the retrofitting of a large amount of canon D&D rules, such as making certain spells and magic items obsolete, but it forced the players/characters to think about things from a different perspective than usual.  

This can be done even without eliminating alignment, simply by notifying your players that race is not related to alignment in any way.  (Letting them know is important, lest they attack your tribe of peace loving orcs and then cry foul when you tell them they have violated their alignment.)  This allows for much more interesting games that include hard moral decisions, such as when the (generally good) human nation is going to war with the (generally good) tribe of orcs, because the humans and orcs both feel a given patch of land is rightfully theirs.

There are a number of games that deal with these issues by asking for personality description rather than alignment.  One of the most notable is White Wolf's line, which has Nature and Demeanor rather than arbitrary good/bad distinction.

[pete_darby]

Michael:

Have you had a look at Ron's "Sex & Sorcery"?

Chock full of sex, gender & sexuality goodness... hmm, that came out different than I planned.

[Matt Wilson]

are there, in people's mind, a particularly good way for an RPG to deal with a sexual mintory (such as gays and lesbians) or with other minorities, especially given that most of the gamers I've run into are white hetero males?

I think a good rule of thumb when portraying a minority of any kind is not to offer one stereotype that represents every person of that minority. In play, the characters should meet (for example) Asian people who are both good and bad at math, and who do or don't know martial arts.

You don't have to exclude the sort of person that the stereotype is based on, just offer additional options. Maybe the dude who stole their car was hispanic, but so was the insurance agent.

Make sense?