I want to relate a brief story about a racially problematic thing that happened during a game in which I played via Gauntlet Hangouts and then share my reflections on that event and its wider implications. Before proceeding, I should mention that I am a white man.
Here’s what happened: We were playing a game set in a modern urban fantasy setting. The GM (a white man) created a minor NPC — on the fly, I believe — and described her as a “sassy black woman.” I was stunned in the moment and said nothing, even though I felt this was an offensive racial stereotype. I was not able to address the issue until a roses & thorns debrief at the end of the session. We had a short but fruitful conversation in which one other player also contributed. Fortunately the GM took my point in a relatively non-defensive manner. We eventually came to a consensus that his characterization of the NPC was indeed an offensive stereotype and that reliance on such stereotypes is a lazy way of fleshing out NPCs.
Here are my reflections on what happened:
The X-card isn’t always enough to address problematic content. In my example, the X-card was available, but I choked in the moment. This was a failure on my part, and I am working on getting better at responding to problematic behavior as it occurs. However I don’t think this problem is unique to me. Also a player from a marginalized group may hesitate during game play for legitimate reasons (e.g., fear of being dismissed) and miss the window of opportunity to invoke the X-card. For this reason, I think it would be a good idea to encourage GMs to conduct roses and thorns debriefs at the end of sessions and explicitly encourage players to reflect any content that they feel was problematic in regards to race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability.
Also, I was fortunate in having a GM who did not respond defensively to my feedback. From my past experience calling out white people about racially problematic behavior, I know this is not always the case. As such, I think it would be good to have some basic written advice on how to raise and respond to such issues — for example, the distinction between intent and effect: just because I expressed my discomfort with the GM’s characterization of that NPC doesn’t mean I’m accusing him of being a bad person or having bad motives. Hopefully, this advice will help guide conversations in a productive direction so that the person receiving the feedback will actually understand the problem and can avoid similar problematic content in the future.
Finally, I think what happened in my example is relatively common — that is, it is probably easy for a GM to fall back on stereotypes when they are creating NPCs on the fly. I think it would be useful to compile a list of such pitfalls and ways to avoid them. In the example at hand, just being aware of this tendency and consciously checking yourself: Am I inadvertently reproducing a stereotype? If yes, then switch it up: Instead of another nerdy Asian character, make them debonair and suave!
I’d be very interested in hearing what people think about my reflections on this example. What do you think about these proposals: 1. encouraging debriefs to address problematic racial & other content, 2. creating written advice on how to give and receive such feedback, and 3. compiling a list of common pitfalls & ways to avoid them?
In case it’s not clear, I really loving gaming at Gauntlet and want to see it become even more awesome. I know that Jason and Kate are working hard at increasing diversity. I’d like to see the wider Gauntlet community pool ideas and energy to support this effort so that our community is as safe as possible for old & new members from marginalized communities. Thanks for reading!
White man here! I’m glad you brought up that point with the GM. We’re all trying to improve and we all need some reminders from time to time. Writing with Color (writingwithcolor.tumblr.com – Writing with Color/) is one helpful resource for avoiding offensive racial stereotypes in fiction (including the Sassy Black Woman). I tend to find more resources online relating to creative writing than gaming, but I think there is a lot of overlap. Doing some research is a great way to be intentional about creating a more diverse story while trying to avoid disrespect.
White man here! I’m glad you brought up that point with the GM. We’re all trying to improve and we all need some reminders from time to time. Writing with Color (writingwithcolor.tumblr.com – Writing with Color/) is one helpful resource for avoiding offensive racial stereotypes in fiction (including the Sassy Black Woman). I tend to find more resources online relating to creative writing than gaming, but I think there is a lot of overlap. Doing some research is a great way to be intentional about creating a more diverse story while trying to avoid disrespect.
I second the call for a list of pitfalls to avoid. A list of quick-reference sources for things like accents and mannerisms would also be helpful. If this already exists, I will be forever grateful for a link or two.
I try not to be lazy with my NPCs, but my face is next to the word “privilege” in the dictionary, so they sometimes end up being stereotypes in spite of my best intentions.
I second the call for a list of pitfalls to avoid. A list of quick-reference sources for things like accents and mannerisms would also be helpful. If this already exists, I will be forever grateful for a link or two.
I try not to be lazy with my NPCs, but my face is next to the word “privilege” in the dictionary, so they sometimes end up being stereotypes in spite of my best intentions.
I have already expressed to you in extensive private conversations that I believe you are acting in bad faith right now, Mr. S and I suspect the reason you have posted this here is that you know it will piss me off.
Well, bravo, you have succeeded. It is a Herculean task, and you are to be saluted for that at least.
For anyone watching this space, I, as a queer POC, have had to spend a not-insignificant amount of time proving my diversity bona fides to this random white guy who I have literally never met, who is in violation of G+’s policies by not using his first and last name on his profile, and who is completely immune to: 1) data and 2) copious explanations of our diversity initiatives.
I hope you find this conversation thread very fruitful, sir, and I hope you get every bit of validation you require. But know that I am not spending another drop of energy on you after this. I have spent plenty already, and for nothing because you don’t actually want to hear anyone. You especially don’t want to hear when POC are telling you things. Hmm, I wonder why that is?
I have already expressed to you in extensive private conversations that I believe you are acting in bad faith right now, Mr. S and I suspect the reason you have posted this here is that you know it will piss me off.
Well, bravo, you have succeeded. It is a Herculean task, and you are to be saluted for that at least.
For anyone watching this space, I, as a queer POC, have had to spend a not-insignificant amount of time proving my diversity bona fides to this random white guy who I have literally never met, who is in violation of G+’s policies by not using his first and last name on his profile, and who is completely immune to: 1) data and 2) copious explanations of our diversity initiatives.
I hope you find this conversation thread very fruitful, sir, and I hope you get every bit of validation you require. But know that I am not spending another drop of energy on you after this. I have spent plenty already, and for nothing because you don’t actually want to hear anyone. You especially don’t want to hear when POC are telling you things. Hmm, I wonder why that is?
I think if you find it helpful, do the labour and compile it, share it amongst folks. I also think it’s integral to give someone space to fuck up, too, though. We all resort to defaultism to some extent and have our own biases. Relying on people to Point these things out while also assuming best intentions is part of what makes the table a safe space. Doing a call out-ish thing is probably not great for fostering that kind of atmosphere at the table, I’d wager.
By all means, do the labour of compiling what you think would be beneficial for people running games, more literature toward this purpose is always good. However, it Does seem disingenuous to format it like a vague call out when it’s already been addressed with the person directly. Why not just say “based on my personal experience I think X would be helpful.” And then like, do it.
I think if you find it helpful, do the labour and compile it, share it amongst folks. I also think it’s integral to give someone space to fuck up, too, though. We all resort to defaultism to some extent and have our own biases. Relying on people to Point these things out while also assuming best intentions is part of what makes the table a safe space. Doing a call out-ish thing is probably not great for fostering that kind of atmosphere at the table, I’d wager.
By all means, do the labour of compiling what you think would be beneficial for people running games, more literature toward this purpose is always good. However, it Does seem disingenuous to format it like a vague call out when it’s already been addressed with the person directly. Why not just say “based on my personal experience I think X would be helpful.” And then like, do it.
Fraser Simons Because the point of the original post was to do the vague call-out. Trust me: this person is not actually interested in meaningful engagement on diversity issues. No amount of resources or data or conversation or anything else is going to satisfy.
Fraser Simons Because the point of the original post was to do the vague call-out. Trust me: this person is not actually interested in meaningful engagement on diversity issues. No amount of resources or data or conversation or anything else is going to satisfy.
Jason Cordova I posted my comment for the reasons that I stated it my original post: I wanted to share my reflections on this particular gaming experience and see what other members of the community thought about my ideas. Yes, you expressed skepticism about these ideas in our email correspondences. However, I felt that you often did not respond to the substance of my comments and instead apparently interpreted my comments as personal attacks against you. You have continued that pattern here. You have ignored the substance of my post in favor casting aspersions. In any case, I do not believe that your reaction should prohibit me from sharing these ideas with the wider community.
You accused me of acting in bad faith in your last email to me. I asked you to explain why you were calling my motivation into question. You did not respond. I also provided you with a short bio in the event that your reaction was partly based on your unfamiliarity with me. That apparently did not work.
I am not sure why my G+ handle is relevant to this discussion. It seems that you are raising this issue to make me appear untrustworthy. As I mentioned to you in my last email, I am an attorney who represents survivors of intimate partner violence. I use “Mr. S” because I do not want any irate opposing parties to find me online.
I am in full support of the diversity initiatives that you mentioned to me in our correspondences. I not only expressed my enthusiasm for these initiatives to you but also offered to help in any way that I could. I do not believe that those initiatives are in contradiction with the ideas that I proposed in my original post.
I do not think it is a fair to say that I did not want to hear you. I also put a great deal of effort into our correspondences. I tried to address the concerns or objections that you raised and made different proposals in response. The fact that I did not agree with you does not mean that I did not hear you.
I am deeply disappointed that my attempt at a constructive dialogue with you failed. I suspect your intervention here will also derail this conversation thread and prevent anything productive from emerging. That is not ok with me. Even if everything you suspect about me were true, this thread could have yielded a productive dialogue. In fact, a very interesting resource had already been shared when you jumped in. It’s fine if you question my personal integrity. It’s fine if you don’t want to engage the substance of my ideas. But you should not have sabotaged an otherwise productive discussion on an issue that I still believe you truly value, as well.
Jason Cordova I posted my comment for the reasons that I stated it my original post: I wanted to share my reflections on this particular gaming experience and see what other members of the community thought about my ideas. Yes, you expressed skepticism about these ideas in our email correspondences. However, I felt that you often did not respond to the substance of my comments and instead apparently interpreted my comments as personal attacks against you. You have continued that pattern here. You have ignored the substance of my post in favor casting aspersions. In any case, I do not believe that your reaction should prohibit me from sharing these ideas with the wider community.
You accused me of acting in bad faith in your last email to me. I asked you to explain why you were calling my motivation into question. You did not respond. I also provided you with a short bio in the event that your reaction was partly based on your unfamiliarity with me. That apparently did not work.
I am not sure why my G+ handle is relevant to this discussion. It seems that you are raising this issue to make me appear untrustworthy. As I mentioned to you in my last email, I am an attorney who represents survivors of intimate partner violence. I use “Mr. S” because I do not want any irate opposing parties to find me online.
I am in full support of the diversity initiatives that you mentioned to me in our correspondences. I not only expressed my enthusiasm for these initiatives to you but also offered to help in any way that I could. I do not believe that those initiatives are in contradiction with the ideas that I proposed in my original post.
I do not think it is a fair to say that I did not want to hear you. I also put a great deal of effort into our correspondences. I tried to address the concerns or objections that you raised and made different proposals in response. The fact that I did not agree with you does not mean that I did not hear you.
I am deeply disappointed that my attempt at a constructive dialogue with you failed. I suspect your intervention here will also derail this conversation thread and prevent anything productive from emerging. That is not ok with me. Even if everything you suspect about me were true, this thread could have yielded a productive dialogue. In fact, a very interesting resource had already been shared when you jumped in. It’s fine if you question my personal integrity. It’s fine if you don’t want to engage the substance of my ideas. But you should not have sabotaged an otherwise productive discussion on an issue that I still believe you truly value, as well.
Fraser Simons I am not sure how you are using the term “call out.” I use that term to simply mean “raise an issue with someone.” I do not advocate for confronting other players in a hostile fashion. That said, I am reluctant to say that expressions of anger or hurt are always inappropriate, especially if they are coming from a POC or member of other marginalized groups. If such responses make a white person feel unsafe, then the problem may be that they are being too fragile. In any case, the proposals are meant to provide a framework for a constructive conversation around problematic content, not slam someone for “fucking up.”
You raise an interesting point about assuming the best intentions. I have typically found it useful in discussions about problematic conduct to make a sharp distinction between intent and effect, to the point that intent becomes irrelevant. I think this topic may be worth further discussion.
You characterize my post as “disengenuous” apparently because you believe it was addressed to the community at large when in reality I was really talking to one person, Jason. This is not the case. The post was addressed to the community and in fact was intended for the community. Also, I would ask that you not jump to conclusions about my intent or state of mind. You write about assuming best intentions. I would appreciate it if you could extend the same courtesy to me.
I agree I should do the labor to help realize my proposals. However, I do not see a problem with also drawing from the collective knowledge and experience of the community. Can you explain why this is a problem?
Fraser Simons I am not sure how you are using the term “call out.” I use that term to simply mean “raise an issue with someone.” I do not advocate for confronting other players in a hostile fashion. That said, I am reluctant to say that expressions of anger or hurt are always inappropriate, especially if they are coming from a POC or member of other marginalized groups. If such responses make a white person feel unsafe, then the problem may be that they are being too fragile. In any case, the proposals are meant to provide a framework for a constructive conversation around problematic content, not slam someone for “fucking up.”
You raise an interesting point about assuming the best intentions. I have typically found it useful in discussions about problematic conduct to make a sharp distinction between intent and effect, to the point that intent becomes irrelevant. I think this topic may be worth further discussion.
You characterize my post as “disengenuous” apparently because you believe it was addressed to the community at large when in reality I was really talking to one person, Jason. This is not the case. The post was addressed to the community and in fact was intended for the community. Also, I would ask that you not jump to conclusions about my intent or state of mind. You write about assuming best intentions. I would appreciate it if you could extend the same courtesy to me.
I agree I should do the labor to help realize my proposals. However, I do not see a problem with also drawing from the collective knowledge and experience of the community. Can you explain why this is a problem?
Michael G. Barford This sounds like a great resource. I can’t wait to dig into it! Thanks for sharing!
Michael G. Barford This sounds like a great resource. I can’t wait to dig into it! Thanks for sharing!
This is obviously a charged thread at this point and I don’t want to jump into the middle of anything. I’m commenting to say that I have gotten an incredible amount of mileage out of the philosophy “praise in public, punish in private” (yes, punish is a charged word…confront might be more appropriate here). I would suggest that it if we want genuine change to occur it might be more productive to have this conversation with the offending GM or player one-on-one, maybe even after a few hours/days have passed. Some judgment is clearly required here…if someone at the table is visibly upset or completely shuts down that’s a different story. Get the help you need, there’s plenty of support here. But I can just about guarantee (from experience) that a call out at the end of a session that’s related to racism, sexism, or any kind of discriminatory behavior jerks the entire table out of that created escapist fantasy and slams them back into reality with startling abruptness. That’s also an easy way to really shake up an MC/GM…Fraser Simons already addressed the need to presume best intentions and give space to make mistakes here.
Also, if the MC from whatever game this was is reading this, hope you’re doing okay. Because it kinda sounds as if you had your players rallied against you after running a session and that had to suck.
This is obviously a charged thread at this point and I don’t want to jump into the middle of anything. I’m commenting to say that I have gotten an incredible amount of mileage out of the philosophy “praise in public, punish in private” (yes, punish is a charged word…confront might be more appropriate here). I would suggest that it if we want genuine change to occur it might be more productive to have this conversation with the offending GM or player one-on-one, maybe even after a few hours/days have passed. Some judgment is clearly required here…if someone at the table is visibly upset or completely shuts down that’s a different story. Get the help you need, there’s plenty of support here. But I can just about guarantee (from experience) that a call out at the end of a session that’s related to racism, sexism, or any kind of discriminatory behavior jerks the entire table out of that created escapist fantasy and slams them back into reality with startling abruptness. That’s also an easy way to really shake up an MC/GM…Fraser Simons already addressed the need to presume best intentions and give space to make mistakes here.
Also, if the MC from whatever game this was is reading this, hope you’re doing okay. Because it kinda sounds as if you had your players rallied against you after running a session and that had to suck.
Mr. S I don’t think it’s possible to stop using stereotypes in RPGs, just like in other creative fields like literature, film etc. Just look at Middle Earth movies and all those childish and fearful hobbits, elitist elves, dwarves with no table manners, not to mention evil Orcs and even Asian/African/Middle Eastern armies so evil that they automatically fight for Sauron. Stereotypes are the basis of every narrative structure because the goal of a good narrative is to challenge them (Look at Tolkien again). Hence, without stereotypes you don’t have a story, or a RPG. It’s not just ‘easy’ for the GM to fall back to stereotypes when creating NPCs on the fly, it’s necessary.
Whether a particular stereotype is problematic or offensive may not depend on intent, but it does depend on context, and very little context was provided by you. You went so far to state that there is a bigger issue here that cannot be solved with methods like the X-card or roses and thorns, already put in place to solve these issues, even if you admit that this particular issue was indeed solved with roses and thorns, and would have been solved even before with the X-card if the OP had used it.
My impression is that The Gauntlet as a community is at the forefront of promoting inclusivity and fighting prejudice. We can always do better, of course, but saying that one person inadvertently used an inappropriate stereotype and admitted it when the subject was raised, tells me that we are going in a good direction.
You say to Jason Cordova that he doesn’t respond to the substance of your comments, but you hardly disclose this substance to the community that you say your comments were aimed at. If the message you want to convey from your experience was at least “conversation helps to eradicate prejudice, let’s do it more”, if not “don’t hesitate to use the X-card like I did”, I would applaud it. But the way you put it reads more like “most people are not doing enough, even if they try, here’s what we should do”. This may not be your intent, but this is the effect I’m getting, and so do others, perhaps, who feel that you act in bad faith.
Mr. S I don’t think it’s possible to stop using stereotypes in RPGs, just like in other creative fields like literature, film etc. Just look at Middle Earth movies and all those childish and fearful hobbits, elitist elves, dwarves with no table manners, not to mention evil Orcs and even Asian/African/Middle Eastern armies so evil that they automatically fight for Sauron. Stereotypes are the basis of every narrative structure because the goal of a good narrative is to challenge them (Look at Tolkien again). Hence, without stereotypes you don’t have a story, or a RPG. It’s not just ‘easy’ for the GM to fall back to stereotypes when creating NPCs on the fly, it’s necessary.
Whether a particular stereotype is problematic or offensive may not depend on intent, but it does depend on context, and very little context was provided by you. You went so far to state that there is a bigger issue here that cannot be solved with methods like the X-card or roses and thorns, already put in place to solve these issues, even if you admit that this particular issue was indeed solved with roses and thorns, and would have been solved even before with the X-card if the OP had used it.
My impression is that The Gauntlet as a community is at the forefront of promoting inclusivity and fighting prejudice. We can always do better, of course, but saying that one person inadvertently used an inappropriate stereotype and admitted it when the subject was raised, tells me that we are going in a good direction.
You say to Jason Cordova that he doesn’t respond to the substance of your comments, but you hardly disclose this substance to the community that you say your comments were aimed at. If the message you want to convey from your experience was at least “conversation helps to eradicate prejudice, let’s do it more”, if not “don’t hesitate to use the X-card like I did”, I would applaud it. But the way you put it reads more like “most people are not doing enough, even if they try, here’s what we should do”. This may not be your intent, but this is the effect I’m getting, and so do others, perhaps, who feel that you act in bad faith.
Stephen Humphreys I appreciate that you chose to engage in this thread under these circumstances. Thank you also for sticking to the substance of the discussion in your post.
As you might imagine, I respectfully disagree with your main point — praise in public, punish/confront in private. My philosophy is: If it happened in public, it should be addressed in public, unless there is a compelling reason not to. I believe in this philosophy for many reasons. If the conversation is delayed, it may never happen at all, in which case a valuable learning opportunity may be lost. If the problematic content affected a marginalized person in the group, remaining silent may be perceived as tacit endorsement of that content and leave that person feeling abandoned by their friends or fellow players. In my particular example, it was extremely helpful when the other player jumped in with his own points — a benefit that would have been lost if the discussion had taken place in private. Do you also think that one should not give critical feedback about gaming technique in roses and thorns debrief?
You mention the particular GM in my example. In case I wasn’t clear before: I never thought that the GM acted out of bad intentions. As I indicated in my OP, I think the GM fell back on a stereotype because that’s a very easy thing to do when you’re creating a NPC on the fly. My point in drawing attention to the stereotype was to make the GM aware of it so that he would have a chance to reflect and hopefully do better next time. It was my impression that he took the feedback in stride, but I obviously can’t speak for him. On a quick side note: This GM was otherwise stellar, a total rockstar, and I would be happy to play with him again.
You express great concern about the effects of addressing problematic behavior at the table. I think we should be more concerned about the effects of the problematic behavior itself, especially if it goes unaddressed. I felt “slammed back to reality with startling abruptness” when the stereotype was invoked. I’m a very privileged white man, so I’m going to be fine. I’m more concerned about players from marginalized communities who may be at our virtual tables. I’m not saying these conversations are always going to be easy (hence the proposals in my OP), but I am saying that they are necessary if we want to create a safe environment for marginalized players.
Stephen Humphreys I appreciate that you chose to engage in this thread under these circumstances. Thank you also for sticking to the substance of the discussion in your post.
As you might imagine, I respectfully disagree with your main point — praise in public, punish/confront in private. My philosophy is: If it happened in public, it should be addressed in public, unless there is a compelling reason not to. I believe in this philosophy for many reasons. If the conversation is delayed, it may never happen at all, in which case a valuable learning opportunity may be lost. If the problematic content affected a marginalized person in the group, remaining silent may be perceived as tacit endorsement of that content and leave that person feeling abandoned by their friends or fellow players. In my particular example, it was extremely helpful when the other player jumped in with his own points — a benefit that would have been lost if the discussion had taken place in private. Do you also think that one should not give critical feedback about gaming technique in roses and thorns debrief?
You mention the particular GM in my example. In case I wasn’t clear before: I never thought that the GM acted out of bad intentions. As I indicated in my OP, I think the GM fell back on a stereotype because that’s a very easy thing to do when you’re creating a NPC on the fly. My point in drawing attention to the stereotype was to make the GM aware of it so that he would have a chance to reflect and hopefully do better next time. It was my impression that he took the feedback in stride, but I obviously can’t speak for him. On a quick side note: This GM was otherwise stellar, a total rockstar, and I would be happy to play with him again.
You express great concern about the effects of addressing problematic behavior at the table. I think we should be more concerned about the effects of the problematic behavior itself, especially if it goes unaddressed. I felt “slammed back to reality with startling abruptness” when the stereotype was invoked. I’m a very privileged white man, so I’m going to be fine. I’m more concerned about players from marginalized communities who may be at our virtual tables. I’m not saying these conversations are always going to be easy (hence the proposals in my OP), but I am saying that they are necessary if we want to create a safe environment for marginalized players.
Mr. S I appreciate your points of view but I’m going to keep my engagement with this topic limited to the two items I mentioned above. My only objective here was to mention that private and/or delayed discussion of these issues is a valid, effective option and to express concern for the well-being of the GM/MC. You obviously have strong feelings on the topic and the incident in question but as you’ve mentioned that you’re okay, I’m going to fall off the thread now.
Mr. S I appreciate your points of view but I’m going to keep my engagement with this topic limited to the two items I mentioned above. My only objective here was to mention that private and/or delayed discussion of these issues is a valid, effective option and to express concern for the well-being of the GM/MC. You obviously have strong feelings on the topic and the incident in question but as you’ve mentioned that you’re okay, I’m going to fall off the thread now.
Mr. S I said I wasn’t going to expend more energy on this, yet here I am…
One of the main reasons I don’t trust you, apart from the fact I have dealt with people like you my entire career, is that you communicate in pages rather than paragraphs. It is a huge tell you are not interested in discussion. Fraser Simons is right: all that was required from you was to simply post up some resources and say “Hey, this is a great resource for XYZ.” The conversation would have taken care of itself from there.
Mr. S I said I wasn’t going to expend more energy on this, yet here I am…
One of the main reasons I don’t trust you, apart from the fact I have dealt with people like you my entire career, is that you communicate in pages rather than paragraphs. It is a huge tell you are not interested in discussion. Fraser Simons is right: all that was required from you was to simply post up some resources and say “Hey, this is a great resource for XYZ.” The conversation would have taken care of itself from there.
Indeed, the way you communicate doesn’t reflect that you want to have a conversation about these things, it is structured as an argument for proving your point – which assumes bad faith to begin with. I do not think anyone here advocates against the substance of your position.
Impact vs intent is a thing, I for one feel like an online game in a fictional world are low stakes in which to mess up, even still. These course corrections happen literally all the time in our games. Someone resorts to defaultism unbeknownst to them and someone else says “hey, could this be X instead?” And it’s changed, it’s that simple. The X card is used and received without judgement. Subverting these things happens almost every game I’ve partaken in. It’s great.
That space to mess up and the way in which it’s brought up at the table is important, maybe paramount, because of us withholding judgement. What you’re doing does ascribe judgement. Everyone at the table is responsible for their own fun. If there was a POC there, their reaction, whatever it may have been, would have been valid and I’ve no doubt the facilitator and community would have taken it seriously. To say intent never matters when you’re the one primarily facilitating a fictional world is preposterous. Especially when the person has offered safety tools for correcting such things to begin with.
Is it ok to resort to defaultism and caricatures of people? No, of course not. You don’t have to prove your point. If you did actually want to help out this person you’re so very fond of and would love to game with again, you could have just compiled the tools to help them and the community, as I said.
Instead you wrote, literally a structured argument as to why you think this is necessary in a community that already has a procedure in play and safety tool widely used to avoid such things already. Vaguely calling out this person and then bringing up white fragility (a micro aggression) and saying a closed game was a public grievance does not make it seem like you’re actually interested in helping anybody overcome these difficulties. Rather that you encountered defaultism and would like to attach and associate that with the entire community, even though the situation was handled well and resolved.
I get that you think you’re being completely reasonable and logical and that you believe you’re right—but everything you’ve said and how you present it does not say you’re looking to have a conversation, it says you’re looking to prove a point, that is not synonymous with what you say your intent is.
Anyways~ everyone agrees resources to help is good, so this conversation is pointless.
Indeed, the way you communicate doesn’t reflect that you want to have a conversation about these things, it is structured as an argument for proving your point – which assumes bad faith to begin with. I do not think anyone here advocates against the substance of your position.
Impact vs intent is a thing, I for one feel like an online game in a fictional world are low stakes in which to mess up, even still. These course corrections happen literally all the time in our games. Someone resorts to defaultism unbeknownst to them and someone else says “hey, could this be X instead?” And it’s changed, it’s that simple. The X card is used and received without judgement. Subverting these things happens almost every game I’ve partaken in. It’s great.
That space to mess up and the way in which it’s brought up at the table is important, maybe paramount, because of us withholding judgement. What you’re doing does ascribe judgement. Everyone at the table is responsible for their own fun. If there was a POC there, their reaction, whatever it may have been, would have been valid and I’ve no doubt the facilitator and community would have taken it seriously. To say intent never matters when you’re the one primarily facilitating a fictional world is preposterous. Especially when the person has offered safety tools for correcting such things to begin with.
Is it ok to resort to defaultism and caricatures of people? No, of course not. You don’t have to prove your point. If you did actually want to help out this person you’re so very fond of and would love to game with again, you could have just compiled the tools to help them and the community, as I said.
Instead you wrote, literally a structured argument as to why you think this is necessary in a community that already has a procedure in play and safety tool widely used to avoid such things already. Vaguely calling out this person and then bringing up white fragility (a micro aggression) and saying a closed game was a public grievance does not make it seem like you’re actually interested in helping anybody overcome these difficulties. Rather that you encountered defaultism and would like to attach and associate that with the entire community, even though the situation was handled well and resolved.
I get that you think you’re being completely reasonable and logical and that you believe you’re right—but everything you’ve said and how you present it does not say you’re looking to have a conversation, it says you’re looking to prove a point, that is not synonymous with what you say your intent is.
Anyways~ everyone agrees resources to help is good, so this conversation is pointless.
Mr. S I think Stephen Humphreys has a very valid point regarding the “praise in public, punish/confront/address in private” philosophy. I’m a Mexican (living in Mexico) and I’m pretty aware that here we have very poor habits regarding inclusion and discrimination, but I of course don’t blame the people, is a culture we grow in and I myself can’t tell when I’m crossing the blury lines (the obvious offenses I can indentify of course and I’m obviously strongly against).
So I imagine myself in the place of the GM in your example, and would feel very bad about being exposed in public to my mistake…and then reading this post on the comnunity!
Heck I was even hesitant to comment in this thread, afraid to screw up with something I may say!
So, I want to learn about this issues, but I believe that a private chat is more educative than a pointed finger in public.
Mr. S I think Stephen Humphreys has a very valid point regarding the “praise in public, punish/confront/address in private” philosophy. I’m a Mexican (living in Mexico) and I’m pretty aware that here we have very poor habits regarding inclusion and discrimination, but I of course don’t blame the people, is a culture we grow in and I myself can’t tell when I’m crossing the blury lines (the obvious offenses I can indentify of course and I’m obviously strongly against).
So I imagine myself in the place of the GM in your example, and would feel very bad about being exposed in public to my mistake…and then reading this post on the comnunity!
Heck I was even hesitant to comment in this thread, afraid to screw up with something I may say!
So, I want to learn about this issues, but I believe that a private chat is more educative than a pointed finger in public.
Fraser Simons Mike Espinoza Well said on both accounts.
Fraser Simons Mike Espinoza Well said on both accounts.
Thanks Mike Espinoza – your thoughts echo mine. As a non american / non English native speaker I would probably make some of these mistakes. I would expect to be told about them during the game using the X-Card or Roses and Thorns, or just plain old comment. I would try to understand and would try to correct the course.
What I would not expect would be called out in a community forum. Frankly all the resources are great, but cannot replace table understanding, communication and plain old politeness.
Thanks Mike Espinoza – your thoughts echo mine. As a non american / non English native speaker I would probably make some of these mistakes. I would expect to be told about them during the game using the X-Card or Roses and Thorns, or just plain old comment. I would try to understand and would try to correct the course.
What I would not expect would be called out in a community forum. Frankly all the resources are great, but cannot replace table understanding, communication and plain old politeness.
Mike Espinoza Hi, Mike. I take your point seriously. I have been called out many times for mistakes that I have made. Sometimes I responded defensively, but I have worked to get over that knee-jerk response and hopefully learn from the feedback. That said, maybe it’s not as bad as you think. Maybe we can do a role-play: If I were to say to you (the GM) during a roses and thorns session at the end of game, “Hey, I really enjoyed the game, but there was one part that made me uncomfortable — when you described that NPC as a ‘sassy black woman.’ I feel like that’s a stereotype that we see on TV and in movies all the time. I don’t really want to promote that here. Does that make sense?” How do you respond? Would you feel humiliated?
Whether you agree or not, I appreciate your response!
Mike Espinoza Hi, Mike. I take your point seriously. I have been called out many times for mistakes that I have made. Sometimes I responded defensively, but I have worked to get over that knee-jerk response and hopefully learn from the feedback. That said, maybe it’s not as bad as you think. Maybe we can do a role-play: If I were to say to you (the GM) during a roses and thorns session at the end of game, “Hey, I really enjoyed the game, but there was one part that made me uncomfortable — when you described that NPC as a ‘sassy black woman.’ I feel like that’s a stereotype that we see on TV and in movies all the time. I don’t really want to promote that here. Does that make sense?” How do you respond? Would you feel humiliated?
Whether you agree or not, I appreciate your response!
Mr. S My friend, he just said he was hesitant to engage with this topic, that he’d imagined being called out in public and that it made him uncomfortable. Your decision to then engage him with this topic in public and ask if he would feel humiliated is questionable, even presuming the best of intentions. This is the point where I’m going to take your advice and make sure I’m making a welcoming space for minorities by asking you (politely I think) if we could end the conversation now? No need to reply or get heated…we can all just stop talking.
Mr. S My friend, he just said he was hesitant to engage with this topic, that he’d imagined being called out in public and that it made him uncomfortable. Your decision to then engage him with this topic in public and ask if he would feel humiliated is questionable, even presuming the best of intentions. This is the point where I’m going to take your advice and make sure I’m making a welcoming space for minorities by asking you (politely I think) if we could end the conversation now? No need to reply or get heated…we can all just stop talking.
Yan Périard Hi, Yan. So I think we may agree with each other. One of my ideas is to encourage GMs or facilitators to hold roses & thorns debriefs at the end of a session and also encourage players to reflect any problematic content during such sessions. The point is precisely to let the GM or other player know if there was a problem so that they can try to “correct the course,” as you say. Currently, roses and thorns is not part of the “tools of the table” on the Gauntlet website. See: http://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/tools-of-the-table.html. I think it would be a good idea if it was made part of that suite of tools.
It sounds like you believe it was impolite of me to retell the example of game play in this public forum. I wanted the conversation to be rooted in a specific, real-world example, instead of a made-up hypothetical. At the same time, I did not want to divulge anyone’s identity. I thought using the specific phrase but leaving out other clues would strike an appropriate balance. In retrospect, I might have left out the specific problematic phrase. Thanks for this feedback.
Yan Périard Hi, Yan. So I think we may agree with each other. One of my ideas is to encourage GMs or facilitators to hold roses & thorns debriefs at the end of a session and also encourage players to reflect any problematic content during such sessions. The point is precisely to let the GM or other player know if there was a problem so that they can try to “correct the course,” as you say. Currently, roses and thorns is not part of the “tools of the table” on the Gauntlet website. See: http://www.gauntlet-rpg.com/tools-of-the-table.html. I think it would be a good idea if it was made part of that suite of tools.
It sounds like you believe it was impolite of me to retell the example of game play in this public forum. I wanted the conversation to be rooted in a specific, real-world example, instead of a made-up hypothetical. At the same time, I did not want to divulge anyone’s identity. I thought using the specific phrase but leaving out other clues would strike an appropriate balance. In retrospect, I might have left out the specific problematic phrase. Thanks for this feedback.
Mr. S – Then would it have been more effective just asking for this?
Hey fellow Gauntleteers, I would like to have “Roses and Thorns” added to the “tools of the table” page? I find it a great support tool to help discuss tone and gaming session content. What do you think?
Then we discuss actively the merit of a tool and why it is useful or not. This is no longer a personal discussion, but really a “Gaming Engineering Process” exchange.
Mr. S – Then would it have been more effective just asking for this?
Hey fellow Gauntleteers, I would like to have “Roses and Thorns” added to the “tools of the table” page? I find it a great support tool to help discuss tone and gaming session content. What do you think?
Then we discuss actively the merit of a tool and why it is useful or not. This is no longer a personal discussion, but really a “Gaming Engineering Process” exchange.