Mae this post semi-public because I forgot about this comminity.
A couple questions to Anna Kreider or anyone else about The Watch if you can spare a moment for me.
– Page 144, Start of Session.
At the start of the session, or during a lull in play, the MC (or the highest ranked character past Sergeant) will choose a new mission for the group.
Whoever is in charge of the mission will tell everyone involved to mark Jaded, and assigns one person to each the three primary mission roles
If there isn’t a PC past Sergeant rank, it’s the MC who assignes the roles for the mission. Do I read it correctly?
More complex:
– Page 114, Principles.
Respect people’s gender identities and, to a lesser degree, Never showcase sexual violence.
These are principles I can get behind. In particular I’m quite unconfortable with sexual violence in games and tend to X-card or the likes it.
Anyway, this means that I, as the MC can’t do it.
Even if I got an extra Traditionalist Threat and somehow gender essentiallism krept its way through tradition, I will not use it to undermine my genderqueer characters, that’s plain obvious in the Principle.
But what about a player that decides to go down the TERF-road?
They aren’t bound by the same Principles.
I thought about it and concluded that I have a rule mandated duty to X-Card it. I would probably do anyway, but I think that the way the rules interact and the X-Card being a rule of the game, the MC have a duty to keep themselves and the players away from disrespecting gender identities and showcase sexual violence.
Am I right?
While I think you should absolutely X card whatever you need to, consider that a TERF is engaging in toxic behaviour, and the Shadow looooves that.
This assumes that you’re talking about a player who plays a TERF character. If the player is a TERF, then that’s an out-of-game thing you’ll have to address.
Kimberley Lam that’s distinction between player and character is a given.
I will never put on with purpusefully toxic behaviour like that from a person.
But, sometimes, a villain character could emerge…
As you say, the Shadow loves that. It would be good fodder for conflict. In trusted group I’m ok with problematic characters.
But it would also invalidate the sort of “safe mental space” the Watch is thanks to those GM principles.
So… I think I would X Card anyway, if those behaviour emerge in the game, and I suppose I just want to enquiry if my behaviour would actually be mechanically encoded (as opposed as justified) in the rules.
That’s fair!
The roles are chosen by whomever leads the mission, usually the ranking soldier. The type of mission the squad goes on can be chosen by that person (from a list) if their rank is higher than Sergeant.
These people are smart, listen to these people. 🙂
Well due, but I still don’t have an answer to the second question XD
If a player wants to engage in a behavior that would not respect gender identities, assuming that the MC is personally good with it and doesn’t personally X-Card it and that the abusive behavior is not leaking to the social level… Have them a duty to X-Card nonetheless?
I think it depends on the table culture. I would X it for a con game, but talk about it for a home game.
One of the things I wrestle with is the strong implication that the Shadow wants/represents a strong gender binary, so as an MC I should be making that A Thing, especially when there’s an nb character, but the book advises one to tread lightly on that.
Assuming you have buy-in from all your players on such behaviour, I think you don’t have a duty to X card the material.
I think respecting characters’ gender identities doesn’t mean shielding them from harm. In this case, I think it would mean treating the TERFy behaviour as harm, rather than as ethically neutral or good.
From the handbook:
” A character should never face questions about the validity
of their gender, or what it means to their membership in the Watch.
And, because it needs to be said explicitly, trans gender identity is real and
should always be treated as such. Do not have your NPCs treat trans women
with suspicion and mistrust because of their gender. That is invalidating
and gross. Wrestling with the nuances of how a culture deals with social
change around issues of gender is okay. Mindlessly replicating oppressive
attitudes that are used to victimize real trans people on a daily basis is not.”
I think the MC is explicitly forbidden to introduce TERF NPCs.
Short answer: respect gender identities is a principle for a reason.
More later when I’m not on the road.
Ezio Melega Yeah, that seems pretty clear. Personally, I think that’s a really good idea because the MC also represents the world, so anything the MC does extends beyond just an NPC. It had the potential to be made objectively true in the fiction.
In the case of PCs, it becomes an opportunity for an individual to work through their own toxic attitudes, and the MC can make it this objectively toxic in the fiction by having it draw the favour of the Shadow. Which in turn sends the message “This person’s gender identity is valid because the Shadow wants to destroy your belief that it is.”
Hrm. Though now I need to find my copy. My recollection is that the Shadow’s minions are pretty gender essentialist (on purpose) so by definition somewhat TERFy. So the principle may apply more stringently to non-Shadow minion NPCs?
Kimberley Lam That last part is what I struggle with, how to highlight the Shadow’s gender essentialism (which includes the Shadow’s influence over members of The Watch, not just eeeevil NPCs) appropriately. I “solve” the problem by shying away from it, which is, well…
I think there have been several interesting point of view in the discussion and many valid arguments.
What would you say about timing it out for a bit to let Anna write her observations?
Sounds good!
📍
K, so the correct answer has been provided to the first question. As for the second, as the conversation has highlighted there are some fine-grained distinctions to be made.
First, there is the principle about respecting gender identity. But the introduction also acknowledges that some groups will WANT to play with issues of gender discrimination at the table, and others will NOT, and that is a conversation that groups need to have beforehand. So before drilling down to the more complicated levels of nuance, yes – the WHOLE group would have to consent ENTHUSIASTICALLY in order for such a plot element to be possible. If even one person is ‘meh’ on it, then no. X-card the shit out of that shit.
The next level is the distinction between PCs, allied NPCs, and enemy NPCs. It has been correctly stated that any NPC who is a member of The Watch should never question another member of The Watch’s right to be there based on gender identity. Based on Clan affiliation, or ‘hey your mom is a sorceress, what’s up with that’ sure, but NEVER gender identity.
But yeah also, the Shadow’s forces are fucking gender essentialist and binary-centric, so hell yes they’re going to push the enby characters to choose a box, as it were. Especially since the Shadow recognizes trans men as its own. (Because the Shadow is trash, but it’s not TRANSPHOBIC trash.)
The last level of nuance is ‘what type of character is a PC’? And the answer to that is that PCs are heroes. They can be complex heroes or dark heroes or pure heroes or even anti-heroes, but they are always HEROES.
So when you’re talking about TERFy shit, the next question becomes – did they do a TERFy thing? Or ARE THEY a fucking TERF? Because we all know the difference between doing a sexist thing and being sexist, or between doing a racist thing and being racist. So if a PC does or says something TERFy that hurts someone, great! That’s what Resist the Shadow is for. Have that be a plot point where the characters have a learning moment.
But if a player wants to have a plotline where their PC either is or BECOMES a TERF, then no. Absolutely not. Because that is fundamentally incompatible with being in The Watch. If the player sees that PC as committed to their TERF ideology, then congratulations, they have accepted the Shadow into their heart and need to be retired as a PC.
Now! Depending on the group! They may well never get this far, because consent is required at every stage! But if they’re still on board, then what can be done is something that was stumbled upon this past year at Dreamation while running the Watch longcon with Bronwyn Sperling. One of the PCs asked in the first session if they could take the final Jaded move and stay a PC. Bronwyn and I made a quick call and said yeah, we’d just play everything with HEAVY FORESHADOWING and LOTS OF DRAMATIC IRONY (ie. all of the players knew that Rystoc would go bad, but the characters didn’t). Everyone was jazzed, and in the last session Rystoc [gasp!] turned into a Sorceress and joined Bronwyn and I for the final battle and it was fucking raddddddd because the PCs fucking murdered her.
So, that is, like, the only EXTREME EDGE CASE where I would say that playing a TERF is okay, but even then…
So let’s drill back up to the surface past all these levels of nuance and let me ask this question: If you want to play a TERF, why are you playing my fucking game in the first place?
/finis
Thanks for the lengthy response, Anna!
Ok, wonderful. Makes a lot of sense.
Thanks for the time, Anna!
Will begin a campaign as soon as I’ll finish the current Monsterhearts one.
I’ll play with a PhD-equivalent in Gender Studies that as very little roleplay experience, so I’m excited ^^
Oh wow that sounds awesome. Please let us know how it goes! 🙂