Too real?

[jkwleisemann]

What's your 'acid test' for if a real-world organization/group should be off-limits to use in a game?

 

After all, we all love our Nazi bad-guys (except the Nazis), and Dan Brown wouldn't have been a nearly household word if not for the Templars and such.

 

And, of course, there are the occasional racist villains who are, if not actual members of, at least *very* close... ah... 'visual references' of the KKK.

 

But what about, say, the Scientologists?

 

After all... if some reports are to be believed, we've got an octopus-like organization with high-profile members much beloved by the public, front groups, and serious political clout in some places, led (at one point in time) by a megalomaniac who claimed to have superpowers and travelled around the world with his private navy and a harem of technicolored, questionably legal sailor girls.

 

But, would using Scientology as the basis for (or even as) a major villainous organization be breaking some unwritten rule of setting design...?

[Hermit]

Re: Too real?

 

A lot depends on the venue I'm gaming in.

For my own private group of F2F, I would be fair more likely to use a real group because it is easier to know before hand how my friends would feel about some subjects.

 

For say, a HERO Central campaign on line? I might try to change the label on some of the groups instead.

 

Mind Inc of PSI struck me as being very similar to the Scientologists, to the point where I wondered if Darren and Steve had used them for inspiration.

[matrix3]

Re: Too real?

 

I created a pseudo-religious technology group called Mydian Scientists in Star Hero that I told the guys at the outset was based off of Scientology, with a bit of Moonies thrown in. The players knew that the crystal-based FTL engine used by everybody had been invented by their founder ~150 years ago, and he used the money to start his own church. They served as background, preaching in spaceports and fixing Crystal drives, until the PCs discovered that they had actual powers acquired by the crystals used for FTL travel, and found clues that showed the founder was not only still alive, but mind controlled the entire organization and had plans to spread a form of mind control through all the FTL drives.

 

EDIT: That was FtF, though, with a group of guys I knew. I don't know if I would try that with a FtF group I didn't know as well, much less online.

[nexus]

Re: Too real?

 

It would depend on the group in the question. If the group is something they belong too or believe then I probably wouldn’t unless I know them well enough to know they won’t be offended. The same applies to religions, political outlooks, etc.

[zaras]

Re: Too real?

 

But, would using Scientology as the basis for (or even as) a major villainous organization be breaking some unwritten rule of setting design...?

 

I supose it depends if you are prepared to be fair-gamed for you hobby or not.

 

More seriously ive always found real world organizations, or at least the way they react to conflict to be usefull when running a game.

 

Supervillans trashing your city? Government procedure for dealing with natural disasters or terrorist attacks lends a very real feel to a game; if your player dig that then roll with it. At the very least it gives a backdrop to what the players are doing.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Too real?

 

It would depend on the group in the question. If the group is something they belong too or believe then I probably wouldn’t unless I know them well enough to know they won’t be offended. The same applies to religions' date=' political outlooks, etc.[/quote']

 

Ditto.

[csyphrett]

Re: Too real?

 

I don't know if it breaks a fair play design but Repairman Jack hurt an organization clearly based on Scientology in Criss Cross by F Paul Wilson.

CES

[OzMike]

Re: Too real?

 

And the movie Bowfinger had MindHead....

[teh bunneh]

Re: Too real?

 

Wait... are you guys suggesting that Scientology is actually for real?

 

 

 

[Vondy]

Re: Too real?

 

The zeitgeist of your group and your gaming venue is is the determinant factor.

[Comic]

Re: Too real?

 

Do individuals have identifiable real-life counterparts who are still alive today?

 

Are names so thinly-veiled as to leave these real-life counterparts in no doubt?

 

It's possible, though extremely unlikely, that your game at that point isn't just 'too real', but it may qualify as defamation or hate crime, depending on circumstances.

 

More to the point, it breaks the metaphor-metaphor-metaphor maxim.

 

Things are more true the more fictional they are, and reveal more about reality when they're less like particular real situations.

[Vondy]

Re: Too real?

 

It's possible, though extremely unlikely, that your game at that point isn't just 'too real', but it may qualify as defamation or hate crime, depending on circumstances.

 

Utter perfidy. Nonsense.

 

Defamation only attaches when the matter is actively publicized as factual with an intent to harm the repuation of the person(s) in question. A role playing session is neither a public forum [even when it occurs in public], nor a media-publishing outlet, nor presumptively factual, nor intended to harm the reputation of the group being so used [with some rare exceptions, I'm sure].

 

Additionally, parody, satire, lampooning, pointed criticism, or even frank expressions of personal distaste do not equate to hate. They are critical components of a healthy, free, open society that embraces free expression. And, what's more, people have a right to hold and express opinions we do not agree with.

 

Even openly stated expressions of outright hatred are not criminal until they cross the line into incitement. In some European countries "hate crime" can attach to slander, libel, or defamation, but as a general rule the concept applies narrowly to physical acts: vandalism, violence, etc.

 

So, no. Its not possible. His game hasn't crossed the line into defamation or "hate." Nor has it come close to slander, libel or incitement. What stuff. He could run a game openly critical of real world [enter group here] and he wouldn't be guilty of anything approaching criminal conduct, let alone a "hate crime."

 

What's more, labelling criticism of ideas, beliefs, or conduct as hate is not only an ad hominem argument, but patently anti-democratic. Whether or not its in good taste is a separate, subjective, social issue. As is the notion that metephor is always stronger or more apt. Can be, but not always so.

 

As for that, "know your audience."

[nexus]

Re: Too real?

 

Do individuals have identifiable real-life counterparts who are still alive today?

 

Are names so thinly-veiled as to leave these real-life counterparts in no doubt?

 

It's possible, though extremely unlikely, that your game at that point isn't just 'too real', but it may qualify as defamation or hate crime, depending on circumstances..

 

If that were true then the authors of The Authority and many other Iron Age tiles would be in allot of trouble.

 

To name a very few. .

[Comic]

Re: Too real?

 

I'm no lawyer, indeed, I haven't the least clue of how to interpret laws. I am utterly unqualified to talk about this. So here goes.

 

Google "defamation work of fiction" and I bet you won't have to wade through terribly many misses of the approximately 612,000 results before you conclude that there may be a case for many Iron Age titles to be in trouble.

 

Or, Google "Todd McFarlane lawsuit".

 

As to what constitutes public? That's an often surprising question. Does it take place in, or is it posted after the fact in, a public place? A retail store? A school room? Online?

 

Intention is also open to interpretation by people who have -- to me -- odd interpretive skills. So what is, or isn't lampoon, and what is or isn't intrepreted as intention to harm, also not really so straightforward that a person ought assume they're in the clear, IMHO.

 

And although 'hate' is just a word, and I don't impute the word or its connotations to any person in particular, or any identifiable group, 'hate crime' is a term of art, with a specific technical meaning, and if connected with a person or identifiable group in particular as the object of the 'hate crime' (where such laws exist), well, that's what "in trouble with the law" means, doesn't it?

[Cygnia]

Re: Too real?

 

It's not so far fetched. I've a comic from 1988 that gave its villain of the arc a Scientology-esque origin.

[MilkmanDan]

Re: Too real?

 

It's not so far fetched. I've a comic from 1988 that gave its villain of the arc a Scientology-esque origin.

 

Always felt the Triune Understanding from that particular Avengers run was a clear shot at Scientology.

[Colossus]

Re: Too real?

 

Didn't marvel basically do this with the Avengers vs. the Truine Understanding several years ago? If I remember this group discredited the whole team and forced a member onto them. A group with a lot of influence can be used against the team in some very interesting ways, obviously you need to make sure your players can handle it. I'd have three concerns: 1. Make sure none of them are members of the group (or big Tom Cruise fans). 2. Make sure they want to play in a game where the public turns against them. 3. As always, make sure it's fun (the group should be beatable)

[nexus]

Re: Too real?

 

I'm no lawyer, indeed, I haven't the least clue of how to interpret laws. I am utterly unqualified to talk about this. So here goes.

 

Google "defamation work of fiction" and I bet you won't have to wade through terribly many misses of the approximately 612,000 results before you conclude that there may be a case for many Iron Age titles to be in trouble.

 

Or, Google "Todd McFarlane lawsuit".

 

Given the majority of comics, tv shows, magazine, etc that do what you describe on a daily basis (Comedy Central has a show called Little Bush that even I think crosses the line much of the time*). Anyone can sue in the US for just about anything and if they get a good lawyer or a wonky judge they just might win (or their target might settle because it's often cheaper), like the whole laughable situation with White Wolf Game Studio suing the producers of Underworld. Then there's stand up comedians and, blogs, internet comments that are openly and directly insulting to numerous public figures and organizations in situation that would definitely be considered public.

 

So IMO, calling a role playing game session "hate speech" or legal defamation of character is definitely pushing the definition of the terms.

 

*such as Barbara Bush being a Frankenstein like monster constructed out from the corpses of a George Washington and several other dead president along with the "women parts" of a late first lady GHB could slake his homoerotic lust for our first president.

[mirage]

Re: Too real?

 

What's your 'acid test' for if a real-world organization/group should be off-limits to use in a game?

 

After all, we all love our Nazi bad-guys (except the Nazis), and Dan Brown wouldn't have been a nearly household word if not for the Templars and such.

 

And, of course, there are the occasional racist villains who are, if not actual members of, at least *very* close... ah... 'visual references' of the KKK.

 

But what about, say, the Scientologists?

 

After all... if some reports are to be believed, we've got an octopus-like organization with high-profile members much beloved by the public, front groups, and serious political clout in some places, led (at one point in time) by a megalomaniac who claimed to have superpowers and travelled around the world with his private navy and a harem of technicolored, questionably legal sailor girls.

 

But, would using Scientology as the basis for (or even as) a major villainous organization be breaking some unwritten rule of setting design...?

 

I haven't thought about using Scientologists as villains, but I probably have several groups that come close.

 

On real villain I do have ready to use is Carlos the Jackal. Ironically in my previous campaign I was preparing to use him when he was arrested. So much more the never been captured Jackal....

 

Personally I think using more real-world organizations and villains in a game helps the game out. But I don't think most of those ideas would go over very well in published, official or not, supplements.

 

Perhaps we should create a list of real world organizations and villains who would fit well into a Champions game.

[GoldenAge]

Re: Too real?

 

I based an entire campaign on the Catholic Church. The game (and the hero group) was called The Paladin Project. It was based in a recovering, post WW3, near-future St. Louis where the Church (one of the few surviving and still politically and financially powerful organizations) decided to take a proactive stance against crime. The Paladin Project was their answer. However, the Church itself was not beyond the same corruption and evils that they strove to combat.

 

No one I played with (more than 15 players over many years) had any trouble with the concept. However, knowing the lines I crossed as a GM, it would have been very easy to upset a staunch Catholic. It was a great game, one of my favorites, but I doubt that I'd present it to a convention audience.

[casualplayer]

Re: Too real?

 

My team of long ago was tasked with rescuing the Governor of California, Pete Wilson at the time. The players, not big fans of ol' Pete, said "Sucks to be him" and wanted to do anything but rescue him. The cognitive disconnect between the heroism of the characters demanding certain actions and the distaste of the players actually spammed the game into a several month hiatus.

 

Know your players. If every Republican the characters encounter turns out to be a deep cover VIPER agent, then the conservative in the player group is going to think you are making a joke at his expense. If the only time the players set foot near holy ground is to drag the crazed reverend off to jail, your players will think you are making a statement and you may lose the player with deep but personal faith.

[nexus]

Re: Too real?

 

Or every democrat either hopelessly naive or corrupt, every poor person either a shiftless loser or a drug addict, every pagan a cultist, hedonistic poser, or a burned out ex hippie, every Christian a hidebound zealot or bigot, every military member a right wing gun bunny, every black characters speaks in nothing but (bad) ebonics etc.

 

It's easily to accidentally offend, so it's best to really know your group. OTOH, it can be very hard to not let biases creep in, even unconsciously unless you stick to completely fictional organizations, religions and public figure which can result is a loss of verisimilitude in some genres and settings sort of like "Frak!" and other made curse words sound silly to some people.l

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Too real?

 

My team of long ago was tasked with rescuing the Governor of California' date=' Pete Wilson at the time. The players, not big fans of ol' Pete, said "Sucks to be him" and wanted to do anything but rescue him. The cognitive disconnect between the heroism of the characters demanding certain actions and the distaste of the players actually spammed the game into a several month hiatus.[/quote']

 

This is the precise reason why I've never run a 'are you a bad enough dude to save the President?' scenario; if I ever do, it will be with a fictional president.

 

Know your players. If every Republican the characters encounter turns out to be a deep cover VIPER agent, then the conservative in the player group is going to think you are making a joke at his expense. If the only time the players set foot near holy ground is to drag the crazed reverend off to jail, your players will think you are making a statement and you may lose the player with deep but personal faith.

 

And why politics and religion are simply off-limits.

[Alverant]

Re: Too real?

 

I'd like to say the key is balance and making sure you take turns playing up to the stereotypes but I can't. I am in a campaign where the GM did a liberal parody months ago. When I objected he said he'd do a conservative parody. So far he hasn't.

 

I'd avoid real world organizations as a basis. Even if all the players approve, you run the risk of turning the game into a bash-[insert group here]-o'rama. Then think about what happens when the group gains a new player who happens to like that group. Suddenly you have this big shift so the new guy feels welcome. That's in addition to all the campaign history the new guy needs to be brought up to speed. Gaming groups aren't that common someone may have to put up with having their beliefs trashed just for the sake of being part of the group.

[Badger]

Re: Too real?

 

What's your 'acid test' for if a real-world organization/group should be off-limits to use in a game?

 

After all, we all love our Nazi bad-guys (except the Nazis), and Dan Brown wouldn't have been a nearly household word if not for the Templars and such.

 

And, of course, there are the occasional racist villains who are, if not actual members of, at least *very* close... ah... 'visual references' of the KKK.

 

But what about, say, the Scientologists?

 

After all... if some reports are to be believed, we've got an octopus-like organization with high-profile members much beloved by the public, front groups, and serious political clout in some places, led (at one point in time) by a megalomaniac who claimed to have superpowers and travelled around the world with his private navy and a harem of technicolored, questionably legal sailor girls.

 

But, would using Scientology as the basis for (or even as) a major villainous organization be breaking some unwritten rule of setting design...?

 

But Whats wrong with using Scientology. They ARE evil.