[Basic] Disadvantage of the Week: Social Stigma

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Also, I'm coming at this from the perspective of a publisher. I firmly believe that more customers would be put off by a game that takes a no-holds-barred, tell-it-like-it-was stance on real-world ugliness in what's supposed to be a fun pastime than would be put off by a game that dials back historical realism a bit for the sake of being less ugly and more fun for gaming. Traditionally, GURPS has had a kernel of gamers who like stark realism, but I don't particularly believe that they're the majority in 2020.

Well, this makes me think of the common dilemma between two strategies: try cast a broad net and compete against the best broad-net rivals attracting fans from the overall public, or specialise in a niche and cater to the kinds of people who favour the product for its peculiar features (casting a narrower net but hopefully also not needing to compete with the 'big fish' and having a higher efficiency per cast).

Personally I have an impression making retcons to the system which would plaster over things which I know from personal experience to have existed and still exist, or casting those things in an unnuanced, black-and-white light, is the kind of action that favours the former over the latter.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Even if you don't want to cater to realism, in terms of drama, stories run on conflict and heroes are often defined by overcoming obstacles. Real-world ugliness makes for good conflict and good obstacles.

If your group can handle it, sure.

On the other hand, I've seen several people whose fantasy was playing someone who logically should have had some sort of obvious Social Stigma given the setting, but the player did not have the maturity and/or good enough mental health to properly handle being put in that situation. Forcing a Social Stigma on such a person for the sake of realism and/or "good obstacles" only leads to hurt feelings and a splintered group in my experience.

[TGLS]

I don't know how workable it would be, but maybe something in could be added to Social Stigma's description in Basic Set noting that the GM should use judgement when bringing in social stigmas, and wiping them clear off the map is acceptable.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by WingedKagouti

If your group can handle it, sure.

On the other hand, I've seen several people whose fantasy was playing someone who logically should have had some sort of obvious Social Stigma given the setting, but the player did not have the maturity and/or good enough mental health to properly handle being put in that situation. Forcing a Social Stigma on such a person for the sake of realism and/or "good obstacles" only leads to hurt feelings and a splintered group in my experience.

Well, certainly.

It's important to tailor all art and entertainment to your audience. I wouldn't take my little nieces and nephews to see movies or TV shows that most resemble any kind of game I'd want to play or GM. By the same token, I would not be willing to exclusively confine myself to genres, themes, characters and situations that was acceptable to all ages, because that's not the sort of fiction I enjoy.

I note that even children's entertainment, at least many of those works that are not hopelessly shallow and painful for adults to experience, might deal with prejudice, discrimination and injustice. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Harry Potter or the Narnia stories wouldn't really work without what in game terms would be Social Stigma. Or don't you think hyenas in Lion King, Quasimodo in The Hunchback of Notre Dame or the Beast in Beauty in the Beast wouldn't have Social Stigma in the dominant society of their settings?

I figure it's because stories where only card-carrying villains show any sign of the prejudices and tribalism that characterizes human nature are so far removed from reality that the characters and situations are not relatable. In a very real sense, those are no longer stories about people, merely in a fantastic world or different setting, they've become stories about something unrecognizable, somewhere utterly alien.

[jason taylor]

Here are a couple I have:

Clanless: This means originally someone without known relations, but in common usage someone without "kith or kin" to speak for them. Some one who has someone willing to provide legal fees, stand up for them in a private arbitration, stand as second in an affair of honor, or cover their debts is not clanless. Nor is a foreigner if his nation is known and any trouble he gets into can be greased by diplomatic procedure. Even courtesans do not count, they have falllen but usually have someone to speak for them if they ply their trade voluntarily. Likewise someone in organized crime has criminal but not clanless. Being clanless requires having no one to speak for you. A transient with no recorded background (being unrecorded is the key point, known nomadic groups are considered respectable) is the best example of clanlessness other than a lone criminal.

Minor: These are someone who have not passed the rite of passage either for the state (training for militia service) or the clan (whatever it considers proper). It will forbid him the franchise and lower him on the matchmaking network but has few other disadvantages. Usually local provisions are made so that he can have a decent life even if not an equal one. If obviously incapable such a person gets pitiable.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by RyanW

It happened to me, as the GM, before play even began. I tend to be something of a method actor at the tabletop, and I started to have a bit of a slow onset panic attack while merely preparing for one particular villain. Admittedly, it wasn't a run of the mill bigot, but Josef Mengele.

I completely get that. I haven't an issue with any one particular villain (in fact I enjoy it), but trying to make it across the board where I'm not sure which of my npcs are actually good people is tough.

Originally Posted by Icelander

I figure it's because stories where only card-carrying villains show any sign of the prejudices and tribalism that characterizes human nature are so far removed from reality that the characters and situations are not relatable. In a very real sense, those are no longer stories about people, merely in a fantastic world or different setting, they've become stories about something unrecognizable, somewhere utterly alien.

Setting aside the utterly depressing view of life this is, I don't think that something largely removed from reality is unrelatable, otherwise I don't think I could relate to like any fantasy.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Setting aside the utterly depressing view of life this is, I don't think that something largely removed from reality is unrelatable, otherwise I don't think I could relate to like any fantasy.

There's a difference between physics being different (relatable) and psychology being different (difficult to relate to).

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Anders

There's a difference between physics being different (relatable) and psychology being different (difficult to relate to).

I did mean the psychology. From what I've read, fantasy people are generally significantly different in mentality and thought processes from real life humans. When they aren't, the setting just fells like frosting instead of an actual setting. It's actually one of the things I've careful to work through to make it so even human races in my settings can be played as they would in setting.

[jason taylor]

New Money: You got your money from actually working for it. As opposed to getting it from the family. Only applies in cultures that care much about that obviously.

Old Money: Any stigma can have the reverse depending on the cultural prejudice.

Market Dominate Minority: Member of an ethnicity dominating (or rumored to be dominating) commerce disproportionately. Best fictional example, Ferengi in DS9. Poleosotechnic League(not really an ethnicity). Partial example, Mantecorans in Solarian Leage before war in Honor Harrington.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

New Money: You got your money from actually working for it. As opposed to getting it from the family. Only applies in cultures that care much about that obviously.

I like the idea, but it almost feels like this might just be lower Status than you Wealth would normally assume, or maybe a form of reputation among Old Money.