Remove ads

The Politics of Tabletop RPGs

His citation of Dragon Age is frankly even more baffling, though the first game focused on the Darkspawn as a threat it's never shied away from seeing the brutality that people can engage in. FFS one of the female origin's literally has you and your friends taken away to be gang-raped by a nobleman and his subordinates because you're elves and society doesn't care about your lives.

In what world is that possibly hiding savagery?

Treating it as some kind of noble-bright fluffy world devoid of cruelty is so disconnected from canon the only thing that makes sense is that the author is just lying and trying to shove existing works of fantasy into constructed strawmen to justify his malformed understanding of history.
 
Last edited:
10ebbor10 said:
Here's the transcription :
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Pretty much exactly what I expected, to which my response is-

Dude just say you want more rape and torture in your stories. Just say it. It's fine, just say it. Admit you want your stories with more rape and torture.

Because that's what this boils down to. Basically 100% of the time. Nobody in thinkpieces like these actually cares about King Theoden's tax plan, or Toril's ocean current patterns, or where Azreoth grows potatoes vs carrots. Even when people say they want these details, when it comes to these kind of complaints in the TTRPG or online RPG crowd, what they mean when they say "realism" it universally translates to "I want more rape and torture."

The real giveaway here is "It's like someone kind of smoothed over the rougher edges of the human experience. There are exceptions to this, of course. The human kingdoms and empires of Westeros..." Instead of acknowledging the most blatantly obvious reason: that most people do not, in fact, want to tell stories about brutality, this guy bends himself into knots try to justify how pieces of the story are somehow 'missing' by not depicting the GIRTTY REELIZMS of historical human societies. Game of Thrones isn't any more realistic in its worldbuilding than most any other swords and sorcery setting, which most people who've paid attention to the sillier details will realize, the difference is that GOT made a point in reveling in being 'adult' and 'fantasy for people who don't like fantasy.'

Meaning it had a lot of rape and torture.

Just say you think fantasy stories aren't complete without harsher elements like rape and torture. Just say it. Plenty of people will back you. Plenty of RPG groups who want those elements in their stories will play with you. Just say it. Don't bend yourself into pretentious knots where you puff your imaginary pipe and adjust your imaginary monocle while writing thinkpieces that dehumanize the vast majority of characters in fantasy settings and hysterically missing the point of most fantasy settings.

Also "I'm a human supremist" and "these aren't really humans" just come off as code words for 'I'm the kind of player who writes HFY stompfics and calls nonhuman RPG characters 'freakshit.'"

EDIT: wording
 
Last edited:
Kuja said:
Because that's what this boils down to. Basically 100% of the time. Nobody actually cares about King Theoden's tax plan, or Toril's ocean current patterns, or where Azreoth grows potatoes vs carrots. Even when people say they want these details, when it comes to people in the TTRPG or online RPG crowd, what they mean when they say "realism" it universally translates to "I want more rape and torture."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are people actually interested in worldbuilding you know? And elements like this can actually vastly improve a trpg.
 
Lupercal said:
His citing of GOT and the "Empire of Man" (its not called that in fantasy only 40k) from warhams fantasy shows he's, like most HFY "human supremists" actually just a white supremist. With the rest of his argument just cementing him as a wannabe fascist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I will note that the Empire sometimes is called that.

To quote the wiki:

The Empire, sometimes referred to as the Empire of Man, is an electoral monarchy composed of feudal states that is the largest and most important of the Human nations in the Old World. It was forged by the warrior-king and ascended deity Sigmar[3k]​ from the primitive tribes of Human barbarians who inhabited what became the lands of the southern Empire more than 2500 years ago.[2a]​[2b]​
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not commenting on your overal point, I definitely do think this focus on 'human savagery' gives off major reactionary vibes, but this specific word choice is fairly justified.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
I will note that the Empire sometimes is called that.

To quote the wiki:



I'm not commenting on your overal point, I definitely do think this focus on 'human savagery' gives off major reactionary vibes, but this specific word choice is fairly justified.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The wiki is repeating bad fanon. The idea of calling them the empire of man comes from an AH.net fanfic about modern germany being ISOTed into the warhammer world. The author justified it by claiming that the german name for Empire figures calls them that to seperate them from the historical german empires. The english canon material never use the term empire of man.

Edit: its also got the geopolitics of the actual age of actual sigmar wrong. The Tribes where from all the corners of the empire except Sylvania and the Westerland.

Also, also Sigmar was a warrior and a king but he's not called a warrior-king in any books I can call to mind of the top of my head. He was more of a scholar king, inventing the united writting system and calendar while also having massive road building projects.

Also, also, also while in-universe sources call the pre-imperial tribes "barbarians" most out of universe sources are better about just using the neutral term tribe rather then the pajoritive barbarians.
 
Last edited:
Lupercal said:
The wiki is repeating bad fanon. The idea of calling them the empire of man comes from an AH.net fanfic about modern germany being ISOTed into the warhammer world. The author justified it by claiming that the german name for Empire figures calls them that to seperate them from the historical german empires. The english canon material never use the term empire of man.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fair enough, but even so it's widespread enough that I think it would be a mistake to attribute any significance to that word choice. It's extremely plausible that someone could learn about it for innocent reasons.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
Fair enough, but even so it's widespread enough that I think it would be a mistake to attribute any significance to that word choice. It's extremely plausible that someone could learn about it for innocent reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The bad fanon comes from right wing sources like 4chan and aformentioned AH.net fanfic. Its not an innocent term among the fandom its a dogwhistle.
 
Anchises said:
There are people actually interested in worldbuilding you know? And elements like this can actually vastly improve a trpg.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The context of my post was not referring to people actually engaged in game design or worldbuilding as opposed to the kind of people who make online thonkpieces about "but why do black people into fantasy RPG?", but if that was not clear before I have edited the post to clarify.
 
Last edited:
Fourthspartan56 said:
My issue with this arugment is that it ignores that just because the average farmer wasn't interested in war doesn't mean that war wasn't interested in them.

You're right to note that the interests of arisotcrats and peasants were not the same, but given that the former were the ones who had the most power in determining societal policy it just goes back to my point that societies back then were very much belligerent and in favor of warmongering. That farmers were more pre-ocupied with farming is true but ultimately irrelevant to how peaceful human history was or wasn't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay but like I think your missing my point in the greater context of this discussion. My point is that contrary to what weirdo fascist keyboard warriors would have you belive humanity is not intrinsically a bunch of violent xenophobes destined to conquer everything around them. Wars obviously happen as do many other atrocities and violence but I would contend they happen out of reactions to material conditions not something in our blood. Teplin cherry picking a few historical conquerors is a bad argument for diagnosing humanity as a whole.

I would say fantasy worlds where half the population is armed and militarized is far more against human nature than the opposite.
 
Lupercal said:
His citing of GOT and the "Empire of Man" (its not called that in fantasy only 40k) from warhams fantasy shows he's, like most HFY "human supremists" actually just a white supremist. With the rest of his argument just cementing him as a wannabe fascist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
40k is quite consistent in calling it Imperium of Man or just Imperium, not Empire of Man.
 
Lupercal said:
The wiki is repeating bad fanon. The idea of calling them the empire of man comes from an AH.net fanfic about modern germany being ISOTed into the warhammer world. The author justified it by claiming that the german name for Empire figures calls them that to seperate them from the historical german empires. The english canon material never use the term empire of man.

Edit: its also got the geopolitics of the actual age of actual sigmar wrong. The Tribes where from all the corners of the empire except Sylvania and the Westerland.

Also, also Sigmar was a warrior and a king but he's not called a warrior-king in any books I can call to mind of the top of my head. He was more of a scholar king, inventing the united writting system and calendar while also having massive road building projects.

Also, also, also while in-universe sources call the pre-imperial tribes "barbarians" most out of universe sources are better about just using the neutral term tribe rather then the pajoritive barbarians.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is inspiring because it shows the benefits of being a scholar king, it invites the intellectuals, the creatives, the craftspeople to help and prepare you for the conflict ahead as the hammer was a Dawi gift, not made from pure HFY smiths who crafted the weapon by their own sheer grit and later to the descendants a third way to harness fire in the gift of gunpowder.

Meanwhile the warriors of chaos are not gifted, but thrown bones from the ruinous powers to fight over like starved animals despite their claims it's gifts from chaos
 
Last edited:
On the subject of Tolkien as presented in that video, not only does it miss the entire theme of the story, it also clearly misses that actually, humans have been massive bastards in Middle Earth. Like, when the Rohirrim are riding to aid Gondor, they meet some natives of a wood they're going through, and one of the requests the natives have is that the Rohirrim stop hunting them like animals. And the reason why the Haradrim and Easterlings are fighting against Gondor is because Gondor used to kick the crap out of them and steal their stuff and also proudly claims to be the descendants and heirs of the Númenoreans who colonized and terrorized them.

There's plenty of human savagery in LotR if you go looking, but the heroes don't do it because that's what makes them heroes. That's the whole fucking point.
 
Last edited:
Lupercal said:
Imperium is a synonym for Empire and oh my gods was that not the point of the post you two are nitpicking.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

...No? "Imperium" means power/authority, while "Empire" is the territory. So the Emperor has imperium over the Empire.

Like the Imperium of Man literally means that they claim control of all humanity no matter where they are, while the Empire of Man is a place where men reside. If a man crosses the border they no longer are within the empire and are not bound to its laws. That's half of why the IoM calling themselves that is innately dystopian, because there is no escape from them in their eyes.

Yes, this is definitely nitpicking at this point but it always annoys me when people say this because it isn't true at all.
 
Lupercal said:
The wiki is repeating bad fanon. The idea of calling them the empire of man comes from an AH.net fanfic about modern germany being ISOTed into the warhammer world. The author justified it by claiming that the german name for Empire figures calls them that to seperate them from the historical german empires. The english canon material never use the term empire of man.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just to come back to this for a second, I feel I should mention that there are times where the term "Empire of Man" is used. However, it is all third-party (albeit licensed) material, or in the single exception of the Iron Company novel (also in the Sigmar Time of Legends book from what I hear, but I've not read it). That single exception is a character quote though, if that matters.

As the Warhammer wiki likes to incorporate every single possible source (to it's detriment I feel), it's not hard to see them specifically drawing from those sources and adding that line.

earthboy said:
To be fair it's not modern 40K worldbuilding, it's original recipe.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I often feel that the people writing 40K today grew up on it and took it far more seriously than it was intended to be. A trait exacerbated by GW realizing how much cash pandering to that portion of their fandom would net them.
 
Last edited:
deathofrats0808 said:
Just to come back to this for a second, I feel I should mention that there are times where the term "Empire of Man" is used. However, it is all third-party (albeit licensed) material, or in the single exception of the Iron Company novel (also in the Sigmar Time of Legends book from what I hear, but I've not read it). That single exception is a character quote though, if that matters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well I wouldn't count third party stuff but the Iron Company book using it is sad to hear. They did both come after said AH.net fic that started the trend though so I still feel justified in treating it as a dogwhistle. I've literally never seen it used by someone who wasn't at least sympathetic to white supremacist beliefs and that includes offcial Black Library authors having looked up Chris Wraight. I can't find that term used in the Sigmar book myself so I don't buy that.
 
Lupercal said:
Well I wouldn't count third party stuff but the Iron Company book using it is sad to hear. They did both come after said AH.net fic that started the trend though so I still feel justified in treating it as a dogwhistle. I've literally never seen it used by someone who wasn't at least sympathetic to white supremacist beliefs and that includes offcial Black Library authors having looked up Chris Wraight. I can't find that term used in the Sigmar book myself so I don't buy that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean that's entirely fair. I just wanted to point out the Wiki specifically is probably using it without malice (or fanon), because of their ridiculous custom of cramming literally everything together and pretending it's coherent.
 
Some people just don't understand the concept of tone, and that writers don't necessarily care about pleasing pedantic nerds that watch too much history Youtube. JRR Tolkien did actually consider a grimmer, more cynical sequel to Lord of the Things and was straight up like 'nah'.

I feel like most of the people who have these takes are acting less like critics and more like those metalheads who are really douchey and pretentious about what is or isn't real metal. More concerned with, like, credibility games over shit actually being good.

Also in the backstory for Middle Earth the kingdom of good men straight up declared war against god and immediately got wrecked by divine wrath five seconds after. If the goal is to put human flaws and evil front and center in your novel do you really need to get into the nitty gritty of rape and stuff when you have power lust and hubris?

Also the thing with a lot of grimdark fantasy is that they are often in of themselves anachronistic to how people were back then. Like, a lot of it's really modernized, like a Guy Ritchie movie or Vietnam war story with swords and horses. Which is by design because good creative decisions are ones that fit the story, not make dorks on reddit nod their heads.
 
Last edited:
Reveen said:
Also in the backstory for Middle Earth the kingdom of good men straight up declared war against god and immediately got wrecked by divine wrath five seconds after.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hardly five seconds. It took the Great Armament most of a day to reach Aman from Numenor (where the war was declared), and they weren't destroyed until the moment they made landfall :p
 
10ebbor10 said:
Here's the transcription :



I forgot to mention all the ahistorical nonsense he gets up to as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
blinks glad I didn't waste time and effort watching it.

Especially baffled by him claiming that maybe if Rohan had reacted with genocidal intent they could have...

checks notes cancelled the build up of an army by a previously trusted ally and killed all the Uruk-Hai, when... Slaughtering the Uruk-Hai to a man at Helm's Deep is, at least in the movies, the apparent actual outcome.

like come on, 'if mankind was more savage they'd be exempt from evil men, half-men like the Uruk-Hai, and literal mind control being involved in their decline' fucking lol.

Thanks for posting the transcript.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top