Handling Modern Sensibilities in a Western RPG

[deaddmwalking]

I'm planning on running a Western RPG. It primarily takes inspiration from Spaghetti Westerns, and as such it does not have to be historically accurate. In order to facilitate a world that is more fit for adventure (more in line with the movie West than the ACTUAL west) I'm definitely planning a number of changes, so I'm firmly in the world of 'alternate history'.

I'm pretty confident that I'm able to handle a lot of the issues regarding an alternate history better than, say, Deadlands. Without going into a ton of detail I'm aware of the pitfalls with having a CSA and assuming that characters that fought to preserve slavery can be 'automatically good guys'. There are a lot of ways that this setting offers opportunities for characters that are women, black, Asian, or Native American to participate.

When I was thinking about some of the 'uncommon weapons' that I wanted to include, I thought about shuriken. I'd expect that most often they'd have been called 'Chinese Throwing Stars' even though they're of Japanese origin. In fact, if I was going for historical accuracy I'd expect that most people would refer to anyone of East Asian ancestry as a 'chinaman' - I don't gather that there was a a lot of awareness of world geography or cultural differences - similar to how a lot of people refer to anyone from Guatemala as 'Mexican' - they just don't recognize that these are different groups and they focus on one aspect (speaks Spanish) to lump them all into whatever group they're most familiar with.

So what I'm looking for is some advice on how you'd balance what seems like a historically accurate portrayal of casual racism that pervades US history versus sensitivity to minority groups. For example, knowing that the Great Plains have NOT been conquered and there exists conflict between Native Tribes and western settlers, how would you refer to this in game?

[erik]

I don't know how you use a historically racist/sexist setting and keep it historically accurate without keeping it also racist/sexist.

If you want a western-ish setting without the hangups then you may be better off setting it in the future where some tropes have a resurgence but there's also modern sensibilities.

[angelfromanotherpin]

As regards your specific example, characters should refer to the conflict according to their understanding of it; a lot of western settlers were just ignorant dupes for the interests who actually benefited from expansion. I'd just make sure that people who understand the non-white-supremacy viewpoint are represented, even if it's clear that society isn't listening.

More broadly, if I were trying this sort of thing, I'd have characters default to respectful terms, and replace actual slurs-with-intent with words that are compounds of a generic swear and the identifier, in the manner of damn-Yankee in the South or American-bastard in North Korea.

[Prak]

Well, if you're going alternate history already, it does give you license to come up with ... a new vocabulary of racism, I guess? It may not completely address the practical issues, but not using real world terms to portray real world attitudes might help a bit. You can also tweak some specifics to support these different terms. Maybe instead of Asian immigrants to the West being primarily Chinese, there was a more even mix, leading to greater use of the still-not-great-but-marginally-better Oriental, rather than chinaman etc. And basically anywhere a real world ignorant American would say "China," the ones in your alt history west say Oriental. Again, still not great, but maybe a little better.

I don't know how you use a historically racist/sexist setting and keep it historically accurate without keeping it also racist/sexist.

My solution to dealing with racism/sexism/etc in a setting without making the game itself racist/sexist/etc, is to just say "He uses a racist term" and the like. You can convey the prejudices of the setting to the players, without having to actually evoke them yourself.

[Harshax]

If you want to make a modern setting based on the old west, the first thing you need to do is stop using the phrase “Old West.” That’s a white-washed picket fence of American history.

You could just focus on actual history that is otherwise a footnote in approved US history. For example, a game focused on the Filipino galley-slaves that escaped Spanish captivity and propagated throughout areas in Louisiana were the focus of a game?

That’s definitely a thing that happened near or before the era typified by the “Old West” and it’s neither strange or revisionary. It actually happened, but isn’t mentioned in American history books.

Having a fuller picture of why Mexicans tried to reclaim swaths of Tex-Arkana is another angle. There’s a veritable shit load of things that one could use to establish a 19th century setting in the Americas but that work starts with not starting with US history books.

[JonSetanta]

I'd rather see a full-on fantastical setting that just happens to have gunslingers and deserts with the usual elves, orcs, gnomes, and whatever, while humans are just humans with a variety of colors.

Naturally you'd want to avoid tropes like "ok in this setting all American Natives are replaced by elves".
In fact, you don't even need Earth-analogies in a fantasy setting, just more Gunslingers than there are spellcasters, or do something like roll 1d6 every day to see if it's an Antimagic Storm on a roll of a 6, which would be like a huge sandstorm of Glitterdust or similar combined with Antimagic Field in a huge area, sucking all magic power out of everything it touches, leaving mechanical tech supreme on such days.

[Thaluikhain]

Out of interest, exactly when and where are you setting it, and how accurate (barring intentional changes) are you looking to be?

[Krusk]

I am all about a western RPG, and my immediate thought is you've got some diametrically opposed goals and you need to be very specific on what you're looking for. Movie west vs actual west is a good start, but unfortunately movie west is just as, if not more, racist than actual west. Actual cowboys were rarely white, but most movie cowboys are, for example. In addition to a CSA, you've also got to wrestle with the idea of westward expansion, the driving force between a lot of the western tropes.

I'd rather see a full-on fantastical setting that just happens to have gunslingers and deserts with the usual elves, orcs, gnomes, and whatever, while humans are just humans with a variety of colors.

Naturally you'd want to avoid tropes like "ok in this setting all American Natives are replaced by elves".
In fact, you don't even need Earth-analogies in a fantasy setting, just more Gunslingers than there are spellcasters, or do something like roll 1d6 every day to see if it's an Antimagic Storm on a roll of a 6, which would be like a huge sandstorm of Glitterdust or similar combined with Antimagic Field in a huge area, sucking all magic power out of everything it touches, leaving mechanical tech supreme on such days.

I went through this effort a bit ago with my Dead Man's Land 3.5 mod. Specifically trying to address the concepts of a western style game without the racism. Success may vary, but it exists and has everything in your post. https://ttrpgfactory.files.wordpress.co ... land-1.pdf

[OgreBattle]

Roleplaying out casual racism can be cumbersome and lead to awkward blurting, depends on the players.


Religious affiliation also mattered https://wordandworld.luthersem.edu/cont ... _Szasz.pdf
Missionaries murdering native children will be a hot topic if you want to get really historical.


There's a few East Asian movies set in the American Wild West

Ho Chiang journeys to America to recover his deceased uncle's rumored fortune that a Chinese warlord is after
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stran ... Gunfighter

A samurai is in the wild west for some reason and violence
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112924/me ... t_mv_close

[deaddmwalking]

If you want to make a modern setting based on the old west, the first thing you need to do is stop using the phrase “Old West.” That’s a white-washed picket fence of American history.

I didn't use that phrase.

Out of interest, exactly when and where are you setting it, and how accurate (barring intentional changes) are you looking to be?

Officially, the year is 1874. Historical divergence occurs with the presidential election in 1864. Lincoln was assassinated BEFORE the election, but still won. Johnson tried to end the war WITHOUT a Union Victory. Republicans in Congress impeached him and appointed Schuyler Colfax (Republican Speaker of the House) as president. The short version of the fallout from this is that Mississippi/Alalbama/Georgia are a political union dominated by former slaves with the support of elements of the Union Army; Tennessee, Virginia, North & South Carolina have been reabsorbed into the Union, but the policy towards former Confederates was far more punitive. Cuban revolutionaries with Santa Ana de Lopez at their head invaded Texas and have set up a new republic. Louisiana and parts of Arkansas are also quasi-independent. Some of this instability has encouraged migration West, but there isn't the same type of concerted effort to 'pacify' tribal lands. As a result there will be tensions for settlements in the Western Territories.

Roleplaying out casual racism can be cumbersome and lead to awkward blurting, depends on the players.

A character like Chris (Magnificent Seven, played by Yul Brynner) won't cause anyone to bat an eye. It's more the idea of Western Expansion itself that I'm trying to reconcile with. It is INTEGRAL to the setting, but this means displacement of Native peoples exists, even if it is less than what may have occurred in real-world history. If a town is being terrorized by a gun-toting madman, I need the PCs to feel that the townspeople DESERVE protection, rather than helping to murder them all and turn the land over to the Comanche.

I went through this effort a bit ago with my Dead Man's Land 3.5 mod. Specifically trying to address the concepts of a western style game without the racism. Success may vary, but it exists and has everything in your post. https://ttrpgfactory.files.wordpress.co ... land-1.pdf

Taking a look now. Thanks!

[JonSetanta]

Krusk, awesome.

As for any kind of 3.x Gunslinger true class, I suppose a setting designer could just make "guns" a simple weapon for everyone to use, but.. then you'd have the Clint Eastwood kind of people roaming around, and that's when you port in the Pathfinder class.
Otherwise, most would likely be Fighters, Rogues, Scouts, Rangers, or maybe even some kind of DEX-boosted caster.

Dexterity would rule supreme, as everyone would want to shoot first in a fight (unless you don't draw and instead do that thar talkin purdy) and hit with most shots and Dodge the shots coming at you, or just do the Kelly Gang thing and wear full plate, which is not really feasible in hot climates.

[deaddmwalking]

[quote="Sheriff "Little Bill" Daggett, Unforgiven"]
Look son, being a good shot, being quick with a pistol, that don't do no harm, but it don't mean much next to being cool-headed. A man who will keep his head and not get rattled under fire, like as not, he'll kill ya. It ain't so easy to shoot a man anyhow, especially if the son-of-a-bitch is shootin' back at you.[/quote]

From a mechanics standpoint, I'm leaning toward Speed being a separate attribute then Dexterity. Being able to draw quickly is going to matter, but being able to shoot accurately has to matter, too, and tying those to the same ability makes it too important.

For our fantasy game, Agility ties into the ability to avoid blows and Initiative; Intelligence handles ranged attack bonuses. I think Agility/Speed should be separated even if neither ability directly ties to 'to hit'. Since people won't have the types of Armor bonuses, I'm also leaning toward starting Defense at 15 (instead of 10). I'm in the process of writing everything up.

[merxa]

Officially, the year is 1874. Historical divergence occurs with the presidential election in 1864. Lincoln was assassinated BEFORE the election, but still won. Johnson tried to end the war WITHOUT a Union Victory. Republicans in Congress impeached him and appointed Schuyler Colfax (Republican Speaker of the House) as president. The short version of the fallout from this is that Mississippi/Alalbama/Georgia are a political union dominated by former slaves with the support of elements of the Union Army; Tennessee, Virginia, North & South Carolina have been reabsorbed into the Union, but the policy towards former Confederates was far more punitive. Cuban revolutionaries with Santa Ana de Lopez at their head invaded Texas and have set up a new republic. Louisiana and parts of Arkansas are also quasi-independent. Some of this instability has encouraged migration West, but there isn't the same type of concerted effort to 'pacify' tribal lands. As a result there will be tensions for settlements in the Western Territories.

I'm not a huge history buff myself, and certainly not a civil war era history buff, but I recognize many people are, and so much so that there's a whole cottage industry for reenactments.

With this level of detail... I would suggest you just confront the true facts with as much honesty, candor, and empathy as you can. Most games are home games, so any gaming group is likely to know each other well enough to know where they draw the line for roleplaying sensitive topics. Since you're designing this as a setting you will need to be more inclusive -- but I think you can spend some time in the preamble discussing how the game views these topics and how they are being handled, and provide suggestions on how groups can confront these topics together -- giving them a dial they can turn up or down as needed.

In my view, if you take a setting that is an alternate history, and that alternate history isn't completely outlandish -- aliens invade, portals open to fairy realm, etc, it's better to try and treat difficult issues in a realistic manner, otherwise the real harms that occurred will be somewhat whitewashed, their gravitas reduced in a reductive manner that could be seen by some as patronizing. Whatever choices you make, you're not going to make everyone happy, so you should concentrate on making yourself happy and comfortable with your choices.

I imagine some of the appeal of this setting is so people can explore difficult issues of American history within a relatively safe environment. Will some people take your setting and run games you rather they not run? Probably, but those people would do that anyway. If the near genocide of native americans makes you uncomfortable, I still think confronting this directly is better then to suggest it wasn't all that bad, or isn't as bad in your alternate history timeline (and again, the more absurd the alternate timeline becomes because of various events the easier it is to proactively lessen the real evils that happened), but if the alternate timeline are minor event edits that lead to larger changes, then cutting out the worst of it seems to ignore rather then correct such travesties.

Besides, as a game, the players are empowered to try and overturn such terrible events, and you could even include mechanical support to assist players in such endeavors.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Yes, it's important to note that your setting can be racist as shit without you, your players, or their characters being racist as shit. The GM already has to wear the 'antagonistic asshole' hat sometimes, so just because Sheriff Cracker says he'll lynch any black people in his town after sunset doesn't mean you approve of that, and you in fact might be counting on your players to resist such blatant racism and discrimination to kick off a plot. Just don't go dropping slurs and let your players fight against injustice and you're probably fine.

[Harshax]

If you want to make a modern setting based on the old west, the first thing you need to do is stop using the phrase “Old West.” That’s a white-washed picket fence of American history.

I didn't use that phrase.

No, I guess you didn’t. But it’s implied. If you don’t want casual racism, then don’t start from the point of view that casual racism exists. When you stand up different cultures in any game setting, there will be a certain level of xenophobia between culture A and culture B.

But what you also stated is that you intend your setting to be a spaghetti western and also inspired and referenced by US history.

My original reply was, “don’t do that.” If you’re trying to write a western setting where US expansionism happens but is not racist, well, that just doesn’t make any fucking sense:

But, if your trying to write a setting where US expansionism is happening and native tribalism is happening and competing empires are at odds, then you just might have a fuller picture of a western based setting. Again, that starts with a) not using US history as a baseline and b) Not accepting that casual racism is written into the POV of the PCs, but is a facter in the gaming groups choice of cultures and roles.

[JonSetanta]

Speed (aka initiative) = Skill, starts at +4 ranks and scales up from there, ensuring higher level slingers go first
Dexterity = essentially "Accuracy" but I suppose it would also allow faster reloads, throwing things, sleight of hand, etc
Agility = Dodge, Tumble bonus, Ride bonus

[Harshax]

Yes, it's important to note that your setting can be racist as shit without you, your players, or their characters being racist as shit. The GM already has to wear the 'antagonistic asshole' hat sometimes, so just because Sheriff Cracker says he'll lynch any black people in his town after sunset doesn't mean you approve of that, and you in fact might be counting on your players to resist such blatant racism and discrimination to kick off a plot. Just don't go dropping slurs and let your players fight against injustice and you're probably fine.

This is insane. If your idea of wish-fulfillment fantasy involves players acting out their worst racist biases by killing orcs and goblins that are stand-ins for real world people and cultures, then you’re a gross and a terrible enabler.

What your saying is you can run a setting where orcs are the equivalent of an insularly propagandize stereotypes of any other person or culture, but it’s ok because you didn’t write it. You’re only involvement is enabling that type of fantasy.

That’s collusion. And that type of thinking makes you a prat.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Or... you could not write stereotypes. It's your fucking game, stop being insane.

[MGuy]

Yes, it's important to note that your setting can be racist as shit without you, your players, or their characters being racist as shit. The GM already has to wear the 'antagonistic asshole' hat sometimes, so just because Sheriff Cracker says he'll lynch any black people in his town after sunset doesn't mean you approve of that, and you in fact might be counting on your players to resist such blatant racism and discrimination to kick off a plot. Just don't go dropping slurs and let your players fight against injustice and you're probably fine.

This is insane. If your idea of wish-fulfillment fantasy involves players acting out their worst racist biases by killing orcs and goblins that are stand-ins for real world people and cultures, then you’re a gross and a terrible enabler.

What your saying is you can run a setting where orcs are the equivalent of an insularly propagandize stereotypes of any other person or culture, but it’s ok because you didn’t write it. You’re only involvement is enabling that type of fantasy.

That’s collusion. And that type of thinking makes you a prat.

No. I don't think that's what AA is saying. In fact I think AA is saying the opposite. AA is saying that the wishfullfillment strat in this set up is that you're counting on players to fight against racism. So orcs are seen as a certain kind of way, some of them may even act the stereotype (it's a thing that happens), but you're counting on your players not to be racist assholes in a world of racist assholes. In fact you're structuring things so they can fight against racists.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Yes, good lord. I assume most Good PCs (or most PCs in games without silly alignment schemes) are anti-racist and pro-punching people they don't like.
ie. People displaying blatant prejudice which implies someone should intervene.

EDIT: Or hey, here's another idea: maybe someone wants to play as a character who is racist out of ignorance and through personal contact with people outside of their comfort zone, learns to overcome their biases. Like Wakka with revolvers or something.

[Prak]

Yes, good lord. I assume most Good PCs (or most PCs in games without silly alignment schemes) are anti-racist and pro-punching people they don't like.
ie. People displaying blatant prejudice which implies someone should intervene.

Even my evil characters are anti-racist.

[Dogbert]

THIS is the reason I don't care for historic fantasy games. Exactly this. History is ass. Also, OP's question is a bit of an oxymoron, like "how do I avoid triggering a survivor while exposing them to triggering events?"

Ok, I think we all agree Western's core is a murderhobo protagonist who is the Fastest Gun In The (lawless expanded frontier) and moves from town to town, getting rid of the local bandits or robber baron in turn after the villain makes the mistake of crossing the Fastest Gun In The West. Yes, you can validly argue that for it to be western (and not just wuxia with guns) it needs to have institutional racism, colonialism, anarcho-capitalism, and misogyny (it wasn't "sexism" per se considering all the heavy homoerotic subtext in western's hyper-masculine worlds, there's a reason why fujoshi love shounen anime) and yes, you can scoff at attempts at making "post western" stories that remove all the shitty elements but keep the badass gunfights (hey, worked for post-cyberpunk!) by stating "people that don't even care for the genre want to destroy it by removing all its comprising elements"... the thing is, you can't have "true western" and "not offensive" in one. You want your setting an honest-to-goodness western? Whatever, do it, just slap a big Content Warning on the cover because your product is clearly not for everyone.

If you want examples on how to talk about colonialism without coming off as nails on a chalkboard to minorities, watch Netflix' She-Ra with an analytical eye (all seasons but the last, last one is centrist trash and throws all the buildup out of the window in favor of ReCoNcIlIaTiOn AnD hEaLiNg).

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

Yes Prak, we all know you're the most morally superior satanist on the board.

[Longes2]

THIS is the reason I don't care for historic fantasy games. Exactly this. History is ass. Also, OP's question is a bit of an oxymoron, like "how do I avoid triggering a survivor while exposing them to triggering events?"

Ok, I think we all agree Western's core is a murderhobo protagonist who is the Fastest Gun In The (lawless expanded frontier) and moves from town to town, getting rid of the local bandits or robber baron in turn after the villain makes the mistake of crossing the Fastest Gun In The West. Yes, you can validly argue that for it to be western (and not just wuxia with guns) it needs to have institutional racism, colonialism, anarcho-capitalism, and misogyny (it wasn't "sexism" per se considering all the heavy homoerotic subtext in western's hyper-masculine worlds, there's a reason why fujoshi love shounen anime) and yes, you can scoff at attempts at making "post western" stories that remove all the shitty elements but keep the badass gunfights (hey, worked for post-cyberpunk!) by stating "people that don't even care for the genre want to destroy it by removing all its comprising elements"... the thing is, you can't have "true western" and "not offensive" in one. You want your setting an honest-to-goodness western? Whatever, do it, just slap a big Content Warning on the cover because your product is clearly not for everyone.

If you want examples on how to talk about colonialism without coming off as nails on a chalkboard to minorities, watch Netflix' She-Ra with an analytical eye (all seasons but the last, last one is centrist trash and throws all the buildup out of the window in favor of ReCoNcIlIaTiOn AnD hEaLiNg).

Objection. The distinction between wuxia and western is that western takes place in the "frontier" and wuxia takes place in the nominally civilized, governed, and controlled lands. But wuxia has plenty of its own nationalism, racism, sexism, and classism. All Miao are sneaky female poison-using witches after all, and you can't trust non-Shaolin buddhists - they are evil heretical blood cults. And up north are savage barbarians. Actually don't trust any non-Han, but especially don't trust those goddamn Manchus.

Though it should be noted that classical wuxia novels were also largely written by marginalized political and ethnic minorities dreaming of the libertarian ancap world where freedom from the iron boot of the state is possible. It's complex. The name "wuxia" itself was (by some accounts) coined by Liang Qichao while in exile in Japan, and his works are the fantasies of "Make China Great Again" from the perspective of a nation actually broken and colonized by its neighbors. Crondor Condor Heroes is a fundamentally conservative work upholding Traditional Values against Mao's Cultural Revolution, and a rebel work against the dominating government. And it was banned by Mao, and then rehabilitated once the CCP brought back the Traditional Values into the fold. And then you reach modern days and have stuff like "Hero", where avengers of the conquered nations lay down their arms as they recognize that actually Qin Shi Huang is conquering and oppressing them for their own good.

The moral of the story is: the correct protagonist of a western wuxia with guns is an aztec cowboy priest trying to keep the sun going.

[JonSetanta]

Ironically, my favorite Wuxia films happen to be Shaw Bros productions in Hong Kong, which could very well be one giant setting crossover featuring EVERY SHAW BROS ACTOR and still make sense, since it's:
Humble peasant hero gets martial arts training and fights back against Manchurian oppression.