Song of the week

Jesus Christ, this song is three years old already?  Where do the time go...

Oh.  It's Pink, the song is U + Ur Hand.  Funny titles using letters and symbols in place of words got old right after Prince did it, Pink.

Taboo Subjects Part Two: Politics

Wow, it took forever to get this article together.  I hope that at the very least it will prove to be at least informative.  Let me begin by saying there is something you must keep in mind from the start, and it might seem obvious but it is amazing how easily it is forgotten:

Your players do not always share the same opinions as you.  Crazy, I know.  But it is true.  You could know a person for years and yet you might never know they are gay, or they did time in prison or they are closet anarchists.  It all depends upon the level of intimacy the two of you have chosen to operate on.  I have a friend I dine with almost every Thursday but I know next to nothing about how he feels about a great many political subjects.  By unspoken mutual agreement we have chosen to avoid speaking about such things, or sex, or religion, except in the broadest terms.  I feel that has been the secret to our long standing friendship.  That and his infinite, Zen-like patience.

So when you are dealing with these subjects it is important to bear this simple truth in mind.  Your players might disagree with you on some or all things political; it is important to avoid the more controversial ones or to take a neutral stance.  Your players are in your game to be entertained, not to be swayed by your political rhetoric, either gross or subtle.

But what about satire?  You may ask.  A while back I wrote an article about humor and the fact is most people aren’t very good at writing funny.  I think I have gotten better at it through my Star Trek recaps at The Agony Booth* but even so I would never, ever attempt political satire.  Besides, highly political people can be notoriously thin skinned and might not get the joke.

And then let us address the subject of context.  This may blow your mind, but not everyone on the internet is from the same place as you.  Some are actually from (gasp!) other countries.  Some political figures, incidents and issues might be beyond them because they have their own political figures, incidents and issues to worry about back home.

If all of this sounds blindingly obvious I apologize, but there are some people out there who just might not get it.

So where does that leave you if you want to involve real world personages in your game?  Simple answer: play it safe.  In my Vindicators game I wrote Barak Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron and I wrote them as being competent.  They weren’t idiots, but neither were they statesmen.  There was a crisis and they handled it, end of story.  Sure, I think I jabbed a bit at Hilary Clinton but it was nothing big; she flared up at something one of my NPCs said.  It was there more to give an element of depth to the scene than me picking on the Secretary of State…and it was to make my NPC look good at Clinton's expense.

As to political issues, you need to follow the same route.  Gun control, illegal immigration, drug legalization, abortion, gay marriage?  All are political hot buttons and should be avoided because while to some, or even you, the answers are obvious, a great many issues do have shades of gray to them.  If you are going to choose a political element you had best find one that everyone can agree on, and the only one that comes to mind to me off the top of my head is the horrific plight of child soldiers world wide, kids forcibly drafted into the armies of African warlords.  And let's be honest here; any exploration of that is going to be terminally depressing.

The same goes for tragic events.  I never once mentioned 9/11 in my game, nor did I mention natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.  The reason is often these tragedies become politicized in some way, shape or form.  It is better to create your own natural disaster or inhuman tragedy and try not to copy something that happened in the real world.

So moving away from real world politics, let us discuss politics in an unrealistic setting, such as fantasy or sci-fi.  Star Trek was always doing this, using real world events as plot hooks.  In the Star Trek, The Next Generation episode The Hunted the Angosians have created super soldiers to fight their wars.  Only what do you do with these soldiers once the war is over?

This story reflects the plight of Viet Nam war veterans who, once their war was over, came home to scorn and ridicule.  Considered the veterans of a war America had pretty much lost, no one gave them the respect that was heaped upon the veterans of World War II.  Never mind that a great many Viet Nam veterans had been drafted, that they had not asked to go.  To a public at large they were an embarrassment.

The TNG writers and producers did they chose a political subject that by the time of the episodes airing was some fifteen years old, and while Viet Nam is still a debated topic people by a large realized by then the veterans had been unjustly maligned.  It was safe. So using an older political issue works.  What about dressing up a modern one, like Voyager did with their episode, Critical Care?  This episode was about The Doctor being stolen and used in a hospital where patients are treated in a caste-like system.

Patients were afforded a level of care based on their wealth/status.  The problem is this feels more like an indictment  of the American health care system than anything else and so the story feels overly preachy. The lesson learned here, to my mind, is to use historical political elements rather than modern ones.  And except for exceptions like the one I just mentioned, Star Trek usually made good use of this.  Look at The Original Series' two principle villains, the Romulans:

and the Klingons:

 Both races were meant to be fictional counterparts to the Soviets and Chinese, Communist super powers that threatened the United States during the sixties.  But instead of trying to create Space Russians or the like, Gene used historical civilizations as a basis for both races.  Look at the Klingons; there is this sort of Mongol horde air about them:

And in the first Romulan appearance Balance of Terror there are many references to their politics that hearken back to the Roman Empire. So while the Klingons are expansionist, like the Soviets were in their occupation of various European countries and their efforts world wide to spread Communism, and while the Romulans are mysterious and largely insular much like the West viewed mainland China, there is plenty of wiggle room for the writers to ascribe whatever traits they like on these species and societies.  The idea was to use a couple traits as a starting point, but not to be enslaved by the concept.

Science fiction writers often use this as well.  In his Honor Harrington series science fiction demigod David Weber created The People's Republic of Haven and the Star Kingdom of Manticore.  While Weber might get a bit preachy where the their crippling welfare state is concerned, it is obvious Haven represents expansionist France during the Napoleonic era and Manticore is the plucky British Empire spearheading the resistance.




(SPOILERS)




Heck, later on in the series the Havenite government topples and is replaced by an authoritarian government much like you saw with the French revolution.  Political officers could now be found on ships (much like Soviet Union's naval vessels had political officers on board their ships.).  David Drake, another sci-fi deity,  uses history as a template for his novels.  Quite often the historical settings are unknown to all but those who live in the countries concerned and hardcore students of history.

Of course, you are going to get players who might read unintentional subtext in whatever you present, it is sometimes unavoidable.  Let me give you an example.  On Star Trek, DS9, the two principle aliens (at least the two before the show's rating slipped and they had to prop it up by relying on Klingons, Romulans and a host of aliens from the other side of the wormhole because DS9 was, you know, boring as all hell those first three seasons) were the Cardassians:

and Bajorans:

The Cardassians were a race that had been beaten down and decided to become more militant to resist what they perceived were numerous threats on all their borders.  Ultimately they took over the planet Bajor and subjugated it's people while stripping it's resources, treating them like second class citizens.  After years of terrorist acts the Cardassians ultimately gave the Bajorans their freedom.  You know what this sounds like on the surface?  You know what one interpretation could be?  Cardassia is Israel, Bajor is Palestine.  You see how offensive that might be to some Jews?  Personally I do not think this is the inspiration for the Cardassia/Bajor relationship, but I can see some parallels here.

So that is something you are going to have to keep in mind if you are using any political elements in your game; no matter how hard you try you might wind up offending someone.  It happens.  People, if they try hard enough, can read almost anything in what you write if they try hard enough.  It reminds me of Eddie Murphy's character in Bowfinger, who counts the number of times the letter "K" is used in a script he just read.  He is convinced there is a hidden Klu Klux Klan message there. And when his agent says "It isn't Shakespeare" Murphy takes the words "shake" and "spear" and assumes his agent is calling him a spear chucker.  Murphy is awesome in that scene as the insecure, pampered actor completely divorced from reality.

So there is nothing wrong with employing politics provided you play it safe and use history as a template more than modern day references.  Next month...some time...I will finish up the trio of articles with my discussion of religion in role playing games. 

*Yes, I know, it is a shameless plug.

Song of the week, other stuff

Man, writing part two of my Sex, Religion and Politics trilogy of articles has proven to be a monumental pain in the ass.  If writing about politics without alienating anyone is this tough I hate to think what discussing religion is going to be like.


I will admit when it comes to picking up on stuff I am usually the last one to know.  Case in point: Archer.

Archer is an animated series on FX about a spy organization called ISIS and it's most notable agent, Sterling Archer.  Who is a womanizing alcoholic and who just happens to be the son of ISIS' owner.  While some of the humor is a little gross I find the stories to be pretty damn funny. And I am impressed by the way the writers are able to insure the characters skirt the line between insufferable and likeable.  I checked season two out of the library and have been watching season 4 on FX.

Another series my friend Dave turned me on to is Danger 5.

Danger 5 is about an elite group of agents fighting the Nazis during WWII...At least I think it is during WWII.  There is this sixties vibe coming off the series, from the soundtrack to the way things are shot.  So...are the producers suggesting in this world WWII has lasted until the sixties?  Are they just shooting the series to make it feel like a sixties television series?  Am I over analyzing it?

I suggest you check it out.  You can watch Danger 5 on Hulu for free.

So...Song of the week.  I am in a nostalgic mood this week and I was thinking about songs I just don't hear on the radio any more, not even on classic rock stations.  There was a band called Rainbow, or Ritchie Blackmoor's Rainbow.  Blackmoor had been a guitarist with Deep Purple and Rainbow was very much his project.  He hired and fired maybe a dozen people or more and the band had four front men: Ronnie James Dio, Graham Bonnet, Joe Lynn Turner, and Doogie White.  While the band saw their greatest success with Turner as the front man, my favorite Rainbow song is Bonnet's Since You Been Gone:

Song of The Week

I am a huge fan of The Beatles, and the only reason I have yet to put them up on Song of The Week is my difficulty in picking out which Beatle song.  After giving it some thought the answer became obvious.  Working third shift at hours in which most sane people are sleeping, there is one song that obviously fits me.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you A Hard Day's Night:

Taboo Subjects part one: Sex

There are three subjects that can potentially kill a game or a friendship: sex, religion and politics.  And yet if you want a game with any semblance of reality these three elements in some way, shape or form have to be involved.  Oh sure, you might say.  Star Trek avoids religion so I can avoid it there.  And yet Star Trek doesn't; Star Trek often addresses alien religious beliefs.  It is when they try to deal with human religion/spiritualism that they fail so miserably.

This is the first of three articles where I am going to address these three issues and I will endeavor to 1) keep some semblance of maturity and 2) not offend/alienate anyone.  Today we will discuss sex, and while I realize sex, love and romance are all three different things and you do not need two to get the third, for the purposes of this article I will discuss all three because while it might be okay to discuss romance and love with some people, in games it can be as poisonous as sex.

Before I get seriously into it, this article will have little or no bearing on those games which are focused on romance or sex.  I realize those games exist. I also realize that I am not qualified to discuss them in any great detail.

A while back I wrote an article concerning a Star Trek game I was briefly involved in.  In it I jumped in without doing any homework and I discovered I was on the Love Boat.  Romance was rampant and the adventuring and problem solving was secondary to the relationships.  The GM decided I should not be left out and created an NPC which was supposed to be my character's obvious love interest.  Without talking to me about it.  Combined with the overwhelming flurry of posts between players about how much in love their characters were with one another, I quit.

So I learned a few things from this experience, among them how bad an idea it is to not give potential players all the details regarding a game; players have a right to know what sort of game they are joining.  But other than that I learned a few things, and other facts I was already aware were reinforced.

First of all, and this is the most important.  If your game is going to have a strong romantic/sexual element to it, then warn your prospective players ahead of time!

Second, it is up to the GM to make players aware somehow of their game's maturity level.  In my game I have a rules page, showing the Vindicators game is PG-13.  This means sex is implied, it is not written about.  Any sexual contact results in a fade to black sort of situation. If your game is rated R or NC-17 then it is the job of the GM to make players aware of what they are getting into.  Even so, when it comes to PBEMs it is almost always implied games will not contain adult content unless specified.  Still, it doesn't hurt to drive that point home.

Third, do not create NPCs specifically for the purpose of creating romance for player characters.  Instead, NPCs should be created for the purpose of propelling the plot forward in some way.  They should fill a skill/knowledge/power gap the GM judges needs filling, or they should act as a foil for the PCs.  Or they should act in a supporting manner or be the source of a sub plot.  Creating an NPC you think would be a great romantic sub plot for a PC without discussing it with the player before hand is a very bad idea.

But wait, Tom, you might say.  If you discuss it with the player beforehand doesn't that remove the sense of adventure and surprise?  Sure, a bit.  Part of the GM's job is to provide surprises and excitement.  But when it comes to sex and love no one wants an unpleasant surprise.  What if the PC had different ideas regarding their character's love life?  What if the player thought of their character as being gay and you, the GM, assumed the PC was heterosexual?  You see how things might get awkward?

But Tom, you might say.  Shouldn't the player tell the GM his character is gay?  Why?  It's the twenty first century, people.  If someone wants to play a gay character they should be allowed to. Similarly, if they want to keep that character's sexuality in the closet that's their right, too.

It is best if the players pursue the NPCs, looking for romantic involvement themselves.  Follow their lead.  This does not always mean their efforts should be successful, however.  In the pursuit of love and romance there are no sure things.  Later on, after a considerable time playing with people, when they have become your friends, then perhaps you can dare to produce romantic sub plots for them.


Next, there may be situations where players may decide between themselves they wish for their characters to pursue a romantic subplot.  Let them.  If the two players consent and they seem to be handling it in an adult manner, and if they work within the confine of the game's rules then they should have every opportunity to role play it out.  It is when one player's advances are unwelcome that there may be trouble.  Like the situation between PCs and NPCs, players should really be discussing this sort of thing in advance.  Again, yes, this takes some of the fun of the unknown out of the equation.  It also prevents a player from quitting because they feel uncomfortable.  In one of my games I had two players actively pursue sub plots like this and it made for years of good story telling.  In one case the relationship ended in tears, in the other the PC and NPC got married.  And in both cases the players never, ever made the relationships the primary focus of their characters; they were just one of many facets.

Which brings me to the issue regarding how much such romantic sub plots should impact the game.  In that Star Trek game I was overwhelmed with e-mails focusing on characters saying virtually nothing outside of how much they loved one another.  It was like a Stephanie Meyer book, it was so bad.  It was nauseating for me to have to read that crap.  And then two of those players did the same thing in my game.  Oh sure, some of the posts contained relevant content but a majority of it was insipid dialogue a person had to wade through.

So, what is the solution?  First of all, if two players are writing a post involving a purely romantic scene they should submit it in the form of a joint post.  A joint post produces a minimum of space in the mailing list and if someone doesn't care about it they can skim the e-mail.  If the scene is actually necessary to the plot as a whole then it is up to the romantic interests to reign it in.  They should be aware that not everyone likes that stuff and they should tone it down.  Not every single post should have a character citing an endearment or a statement of how full of love their eyes are or some romantic nonsense like that.  Players should have the good sense to realize their romance might not be to everyone's liking.

Finally, I want to address an issue that came up in a Star Trek game years ago.  A guy wrote a post flashing back to an incident in his character's past.  This incident involved a relationship his male character had with an under aged male NPC of his creation, of how they had been lovers and they had been forced apart.  The player had no idea why some people took offense to this.  This player was an idiot.  When writing such a thing it is important to gauge the mood of player and GM alike.  Consult them, damn it!  Do not assume just because you don't have a problem with sensitive subjects like this your peers share your views.  There is a good reason why this sort of thing is a taboo subject in Hollywood; it disturbs most people.  You remember Indiana Jones?

 

 

Marion Ravenwood claimed "she was just a child" when she and Indy had their affair.  It turns out she was not exaggerating.  I read the book adaptation and Jones slept with Marion when she was only thirteen or fourteen years old.  Indy claimed "she knew what she was doing".  Not the point, Indy.  This was glossed over in the movie, Marion's age during the affair never specified.  What was also cut, what was in the book adaptation, was the fact that Jones had a habit of sleeping with his students.  One slipped out the back door when Marcus stopped by Indy's house to tell him he had the go-ahead to get the Ark.

Adding these elements into the movie would have made Indy considerably less likeable, less heroic, wouldn't they?  So yeah, stuff like this does have an impact on your character and you should really think twice before adding them for fear of alienating your fellow players.  When that guy submitted this flashback it started a storm of posts that caused people to quit, because the GM should have booted the player right then and there, no question.  There should have been absolutely no debate.  A player that stupid, that irresponsible does not belong in your game.  And a player who writes that stuff in a mainstream game should expect other players to forever see him in an unpleasant light and not wish to play with him.  Yes, this Star Trek game was going to have adult content.  There is a difference between writing about adult content and criminal content.

Song of the week

There is this guy, Bruno Mars.  And a while back he released this single called The Lazy Song.

I really, really hate that tune.  And I can't say as I'm crazy about the music video either.  And yes, I saw the alternate video starring Leonard Nimoy and even that was not enough to get me to sit through that song.

So I am channel chasing and came across Mtv2...or 3...whichever one still shows music videos.  And there was this pretty good video/song playing and imagine my surprise when I discovered it was Bruno Mars!  So the guy has a notch in both columns with me now.

Song of the week, other stuff

Well, I hope everyone had a happy and safe New Year.  Mine was pretty uneventful.  Basically it was me watching a bunch of lackluster bowl games.  How does an 8-5 team like Stanford make it to the Rose Bowl, anyway?  I don't care if they won, I'm wondering why the #1 and #2 teams aren't playing against one another.  Then again, I don't get why there are some 31 bowl games to begin with.

Oh.  Right.  Money.  Silly me. At this rate there will be exactly as many bowl games as there are half the number of college football teams.

There won't be any updates for a while.  I am putting together a post regarding sex, religion and politics as they relate to role playing games but depending on the length it might get broken up into three articles.  Or I might break it up into three articles anyway to produce the illusion of me being a prolific writer.  Speaking of writing, I hope to have another Agony Booth article up by Sunday.  After that I am going to write an article defending Star Trek, The Motion Picture.  I feel it is an unjustifiably maligned film and I shall cite my reasons.

Oh, song of the week! Soundgarden was this band who was huge during the nineties, and then they broke up due to creative differences.  The members each went their own ways and then they reformed in 2010.  In 2012, some sixteen years after their break up, they have come back as if they had not missed a beat.  One of their big songs this year was Live to Rise from the Avengers soundtrack: