Penalizing Particularly Promiscuous Player Characters. [Archive]

View Full Version : Penalizing Particularly Promiscuous Player Characters.

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-06, 10:03 PM

Hey Playground, I come to you today with a relatively minor, yet irritating issue. I have a player who is consistently sidetracking the sessions with attempts to get her character some action via a menagerie of boring stunts, such as "I roll for seduction, I've got a high Charisma, and she's already pretty favorable towards us."

Whatever, you want to joke about getting your freak on with the elven druid guarding the Church of Elements, fine. I won't judge. But my problem is that none of the other players feel comfortable making said jokes, and when only one person is into it, it really detracts from the experience for everyone.

I've tried subtle methods to dissuade the player (ie, the Druid's tiger watches you two), but I don't know if she's gotten the hint or not. I figure she won't care unless there's some mechanical reason to not stray off track that way.

I was thinking STDs, but at 18th level, she's got a decent Fort save, and I'd rather not homebrew something specifically to hurt a PC. Simply talking to her about it would be more trouble than its worth. She doesn't take criticism well, and it won't do to make a big deal out of it that way.

Seriously, though. If I wanted fantasy and erotica, I'd be on my laptop on a Friday night, not cloistered in some guy's basement rolling die. Any suggestions?

Rei_Jin

2011-06-06, 10:05 PM

Amnestic

2011-06-06, 10:07 PM

Cog

2011-06-06, 10:08 PM

In-game penalties are basically never the solution to out-of-game problems, and if the problem is the comfort of the other players, it's an out-of-game problem. Okay, your hints haven't worked - is there some reason you haven't simply asked the player to tone things down?

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-06, 10:13 PM

Well, question is, why are they doing it? Have you asked them about it as the DM, with the reason being that it makes others uncomfortable.

I'd ask them to start writing things like that on a piece of paper to pass to you (we call them "Ninja Notes") so that others don't have to listen to it, allowing you to respond to it on paper as well. It stops them being the centre of attention, if that's what they're after, and it also helps the others to be more comfortable. You can tell the group that such and such wanders off with someone to a tent, and they can roll their eyes without having to listen to it.

I know the answer to that question.

"Because I think its funny, and because I'm a saucy bard with a hella high Charisma? Why not?"

If I explained that it made me and the others feel uncomfortable, I foresee two outcomes. It could either put 1/3 of my players in a sour mood as everyone agrees, or end with me being told to "lighten up" as no one else is willing to say they care or no one else actually cares.

In the case of being a joke, Ninja Notes would likely defeat the purpose. She's got a boyfriend and a (presumably) healthy intimate life, so I don't think there's any . . . unsavory(?) reason for it. I do use notes on occasion, such as when the rogue wants to keep loot to herself from inattentive players.

Perhaps just as big as making things uncomfortable is that it kinda kills the atmosphere I attempt to brew up in my games. Things can be going along well, until Chorin the bard decides to flirt with the lady who just warned of a terrible, immediate prophecy.

Edit:

In-game penalties are basically never the solution to out-of-game problems, and if the problem is the comfort of the other players, it's an out-of-game problem. Okay, your hints haven't worked - is there some reason you haven't simply asked the player to tone things down?

This isn't a huge out-of-game issue. Its not like I'm afraid she's going to spontaneously rape and/or murder myself or the other players. I just figure if you're going to be promiscuous in a medieval-esque setting, there's going to be a drawback.

Talking to her? Aside from the reasons already listed, she's got the arrogance of being 25 in a group of 19-21 year olds (mostly she just acts like its a big deal) and one of the other regular players is her best friend. I shoo her away and its just me plus one. She's not a bad person, just kind of a pain to deal with occasionally.

Rei_Jin

2011-06-06, 10:19 PM

Vladislav

2011-06-06, 10:22 PM

Either the other players are fine with those schenanigans, or they're not. If it's the former, just roll with it. If the latter, talk to the player and let them know that for the most part, the seduction process will be run off-screen.

"During your first three days in the city, the bard seduced no less than fifteen barmaids. On the fourth day, you were summoned to meet .... <plot happens>".

tyckspoon

2011-06-06, 10:23 PM

"Ok, he's into you. You have a wonderful night together. The rest of the party have anything they want to get done? No? Good, moving on." If she's just randomly seducing NPCs, it doesn't really need to be honored with a drawn out scene.. especially if the rest of the group is getting noticeably bored and/or agitated, which I imagine they are if this stuff happens more than once a game session.

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-06, 10:24 PM

Right, so it's a difficult situation you've got. You have a player who is being disruptive by trying to do what they term as being fun. It's not fun for the others, and it is ruining your attempts at atmosphere.

You could always do what I've done with PCs who were disruptive in the past, and tell them that there are "Plot Cutscenes" that they can't interfere with. These things will happen no matter what they do, it's part of the narrative device.

Sure, they might want to shoot the BBEG who is cackling maniacly at them, and if they tell me that that's what they want to do, I may give them a surprise round once he's done with his monologue so that they don't feel disadvantaged, but I'm definitely telling the story how I feel it should be told.

If she wants to seduce that person who gave a dire warning, then sure, she can do so. With a note. And I'll tell her that they can go off and do whatever she likes, but I don't need to hear it, nor does anyone else. If she doesn't like it, she can go online and join a cyber chatroom.

EDIT: The problem could be that she's bored and looking for entertainment in the game. Maybe try and find out what she'd enjoy doing that the others would as well?

You've hit the nail on the head, I wouldn't be asking strangers for help if I hadn't considered everything that came to mind.

In regards to the edit, the odd thing is that she was actually being fairly useful at the time. She had just used Legend Lore to divine the location and background of the next major destination, all by herself! She normally doesn't participate in backstory or critical thinking all that much, and seemed to be enjoying it. Previously, all information was gathered via "what Knowledge skill would be applicable for this monster? Alright, I roll that."

I'll consider if its a boredom thing next time we play. Because invariably, she will attempt to seduce at least one animate object each game.

As for now, I must resign for the night, but I will appreciate and respond to posts made overnight.

Edit:
I do like the idea of making it entirely a nonfactor. I wasn't really describing anything beyond "yeah, you succeed and find some alone time in your Instant Fortress while others are out shopping." I think a deadpan delivery would really help.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-06, 10:25 PM

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-06, 10:27 PM

Here's what you do. Judging that you say that the player seduces women, she's playing a guy. Make it so that half the women the character successfully seduces get pregnant and charge for 1/5 of all wealth to raise the baby. Each. Scaling with WBL.

She is playing a female. Though I think I mentioned I was considering STDs, which is essentially what pregnancy is, no?

I kid, I kid.

subject42

2011-06-06, 10:29 PM

I was thinking STDs, but at 18th level, she's got a decent Fort save, and I'd rather not homebrew something specifically to hurt a PC.

As a DM, the last time I had a character get a little to keen on the seduction, I decided that it was time for a Succubus.

At 18th level, I'm sure that somebody from the outer spheres is going to be interested in the PC, and trying to nail anything that moves is a pretty big chink in her defenses.

If you go that route, you'll either have to advance it by hit die or give it class levels. Bard or sorcerer are both good choices.

I know you didn't want to go with custom STDs, but I also managed to turn it into a bit of a cautionary tale by leaving the PC as an asymptomatic carrier of Abyssal X-blast, where X is your slang of choice. It didn't hurt the player, but there was some interesting rollplaying as NPCs had to walk into the temple backwards, lest they incinerate the healers with the lightning that was shooting out of their beltbuckular regions.

Hecuba

2011-06-06, 10:32 PM

Broach the topic without criticism: note that the seduction angle wasn't an element you planned on, and ask what her aim is so you can better incorporate it into the game. This makes her think about it in terms of the table (at least hopefully), but also gives you some capacity to direct and control the element so as to make it less disruptive.

Nachtritter

2011-06-06, 10:32 PM

Vladislav

2011-06-06, 10:35 PM

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-06, 10:37 PM

She is playing a female. Though I think I mentioned I was considering STDs, which is essentially what pregnancy is, no?

I kid, I kid.

Shes playing a woman? That's even better. This way you can make the PC itself pregnant.

Hecuba

2011-06-06, 10:43 PM

Shes playing a woman? That's even better. This way you can make the PC itself pregnant.

I agree. Also, have someone suggest that she might want to cut back on the deserts. And also, possibly, sex with men.

Luckmann

2011-06-06, 10:55 PM

Surely you meant to end the title of this thread with "Personas", not "Characters". :smallcool:

TroubleBrewing

2011-06-06, 10:55 PM

Better than that: Roll on the STI table. I always find it helpful to include a few hidden gems on it, like Mummy Rot and Festering Anger.

See also: Slimy Doom.

Maphreal

2011-06-06, 10:58 PM

If her reputation precedes her, I'd say it wouldn't be too harsh to slowly start giving some absurdly high DCs for seduction for all but the most desperate commoners. High charisma or no, it's not good for one's social status (or general health) to be laying with the town whore.

She might not enjoy the act anymore if her options have been reduced to Dumpy Wallards, the dockworker who hasn't bathed in months.

TroubleBrewing

2011-06-06, 11:00 PM

"Well your momma told you all that I could give you was a reputation... "

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-06, 11:00 PM

Surely you meant to end the title of this thread with "Personas", not "Characters". :smallcool:

I was thinking about all the Ps as well.

kardar233

2011-06-06, 11:02 PM

As a DM, the last time I had a character get a little to keen on the seduction, I decided that it was time for a Succubus.

At 18th level, I'm sure that somebody from the outer spheres is going to be interested in the PC, and trying to nail anything that moves is a pretty big chink in her defenses.

If you go that route, you'll either have to advance it by hit die or give it class levels. Bard or sorcerer are both good choices.

The Fiend of Corruption class from Fiend Folio and possibly the Lilitu from FC1 would be perfect for this.

Better yet, have her openly condemned from some ultra-conservative arm of the local Lawful Good church. The priests don't attack her - hell, she's 18th level - but they do follow her around, screaming epithets and chanting scripture and holy law at her in the most annoying way possible. Every inn she sleeps at ends up overrun by well-meaning missionaries on a religious crusade to eliminate "indecent whoring" from the world. Hell, they make friends with the bartender, sing happy songs with the locals, end up well-liked - and generally spread the idea that the character is one hell of a slattern, loose woman, lady of the evening, etc. The annoyance factor on something like that would have to be pretty high.

And if she kills them, guess what! Out trots Prude Von Paladin, here to avenge the honor of his fallen brethren!

This is hilarious. I don't think it'll work for the scenario, but I'll keep it in mind.

Alefiend

2011-06-06, 11:09 PM

Why hasn't anybody mentioned figuratively taking the dice out of her hands? PCs don't get to throw dice to do everything—if somebody isn't interested, they're not interested. Why? Because you say so. NPCs don't have to roll over on their backs for players with points in a skill if you say otherwise.

Those NPCs might have extremely valid reasons for not wanting to bump uglies with the offending character. You might also want to give her no reason to want to: There's nothing in the rules that says NPCs have to be even remotely attractive. Throw enough hideous, boil-encrusted, odorous louts at her and she might give up. :smalleek:

Or give her a taste of her own medicine: Throw an attractive and charismatic foil at her, have her be the victim of seduction—you can even let her feel like she was the aggressor until you turn the tables. The fellow can be a levelled incubus/succubus (as somebody has suggested), an assassin, a dragon, an evil demigod, anything that could turn nasty for her during or after a moment of intimate weakness. Screw her, then really screw her. :smallamused:

I wouldn't recommend doing anything that makes the offending character the center of attention more than she already is, but there are ways to provide in-game consequences. Those NPCs have families, after all. Angry husbands, wives, parents, and the like can seek revenge, and the player might wind up killing commoners, destroying the party's reputation. And who's to say that all these NPCs' relatives are commoners? Seducing and abandoning the bastard child of the local royalty (or wizardry) is going to make life very hard on the party if news gets back to them.

My last idea is to go out of your way to provide clear opportunities for seduction that will benefit the party. Let her allure and sexual prowess be the key to success in one adventure. Make it a highlighted part of the game and perhaps she won't feel the need to derail things the rest of the time.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-06, 11:14 PM

I wouldn't recommend doing anything that makes the offending character the center of attention more than she already is, but there are ways to provide in-game consequences. Those NPCs have families, after all. Angry husbands, wives, parents, and the like can seek revenge, and the player might wind up killing commoners, destroying the party's reputation. And who's to say that all these NPCs' relatives are commoners? Seducing and abandoning the bastard child of the local royalty (or wizardry) is going to make life very hard on the party if news gets back to them.

This one is bad, because it hurts all the players, not just the offending one.

Alefiend

2011-06-06, 11:32 PM

This one is bad, because it hurts all the players, not just the offending one.

I see your point, but allow me to counter: What better way to get her to stop than to have the other players (or their characters) stop her? A few experiences like this and they will be falling all over themselves to prevent her from turning on the charm.

King Atticus

2011-06-06, 11:32 PM

The great thing about this particular problem is that is has built in consequences. You don't want to go STD because she'll beat the save but what about a jealous significant other that takes exception to the fact that she just tried to bed their lover and comes in and beats the tar out of said bard. She's taken herself away from the party so there's no backup unless someone checks in on her. Have the overprotective meat-head boyfriend of your NPC leave her bloody in a ditch somewhere and see if that doesn't put her off the "strange" at least for a while.

Flame of Anor

2011-06-06, 11:56 PM

Better yet, have her openly condemned from some ultra-conservative arm of the local Lawful Good church. The priests don't attack her - hell, she's 18th level - but they do follow her around, screaming epithets and chanting scripture and holy law at her in the most annoying way possible. Every inn she sleeps at ends up overrun by well-meaning missionaries on a religious crusade to eliminate "indecent whoring" from the world. Hell, they make friends with the bartender, sing happy songs with the locals, end up well-liked - and generally spread the idea that the character is one hell of a slattern, loose woman, lady of the evening, etc. The annoyance factor on something like that would have to be pretty high.

And if she kills them, guess what! Out trots Prude Von Paladin, here to avenge the honor of his fallen brethren!

I like this idea. (And to be fair to the local church, the PC apparently really is one hell of a slattern.) As for the impact on the other players, I agree with Alefiend. It might engender bad feelings if you, as the DM, were to suddenly disallow something in-game for no in-game reason; however, if you just make perfectly logical consequences happen in-game, no one can blame you for meddling.

Why hasn't anybody mentioned figuratively taking the dice out of her hands? PCs don't get to throw dice to do everything—if somebody isn't interested, they're not interested. Why? Because you say so. NPCs don't have to roll over on their backs for players with points in a skill if you say otherwise.

Another excellent point. Why would all these barmaids be lesbian? It makes no sense, except maybe if the campaign world was created entirely by very lonely men.

Or give her a taste of her own medicine: Throw an attractive and charismatic foil at her, have her be the victim of seduction—you can even let her feel like she was the aggressor until you turn the tables. The fellow can be a levelled incubus/succubus (as somebody has suggested), an assassin, a dragon, an evil demigod, anything that could turn nasty for her during or after a moment of intimate weakness. Screw her, then really screw her. :smallamused:

Give her a shapechanger. A very powerful chromatic dragon would be best. He hears of her exploits, magically disguises himself as some barmaid or other, then when they're getting down to it, presto! Out comes his thingy, and with a bang, as it were, she's pregnant. OH SNAP. SUCH DRAMA.

Seerow

2011-06-07, 12:07 AM

Give her a shapechanger. A very powerful chromatic dragon would be best. He hears of her exploits, magically disguises himself as some barmaid or other, then when they're getting down to it, presto! Out comes his thingy, and with a bang, as it were, she's pregnant. OH SNAP. SUCH DRAMA.

I like this suggestion. You even get the added benefit of a newborn half dragon on the way.

The other suggestion I liked was just the increased DCs due to being known as the town slut, though that doesn't fit as well if the group moves frequently.

Mr. Zolrane

2011-06-07, 12:20 AM

Surely you meant to end the title of this thread with "Personas", not "Characters". :smallcool:

Curse you, Luckmann, you beat me to it. This felt like a fantastically felicitous fortuity for fabulous, freely-flowing falliteration...

What do you mean, there's no "f"? It's totally pronounced/spelled that way in my country. Stop oppressing my culture!

Flame of Anor

2011-06-07, 12:47 AM

I like this suggestion. You even get the added benefit of a newborn half dragon on the way.

Exactly! And if the character is thinking of abortion, it's got to be incredibly dangerous with a half-dragon in there, plus no one will even think of doing it for fear of cheesing off the dragon responsible.

Oh, and don't let the mother's player play the baby. Who knows how early s/he would be up to similar escapades... :smallbiggrin:

TroubleBrewing

2011-06-07, 12:51 AM

Wow, this thread sure took a turn.

Let just leave it at this, OP:

Talk to her out-of-game first. Failing that, a magic STD that turns people into carrots.

Callista

2011-06-07, 12:57 AM

Seems to me like she's just playing out her character's quirks. Let her go with it. I kind of doubt that anybody would be bored or offended by, "Okay, she's quite taken with you. You two spend the night together." It's not even PG-13 at that level and you'd have to be awfully sheltered to be squicked by the mere mention of sex.

If you want to add realism, STDs might be a good idea; but the save DC should be pretty low--this isn't Mummy Rot or the black plague, and the level 1 commoners without any save bonuses are managing to survive and reproduce just fine with STDs in their world. Make it a DC 10 mundane disease, at most. Plus, it seems like she's playing a female seducing other females, which is the lowest-risk category out there (well, other than asexuals). Only have the PC make the roll if they're not taking precautions against disease, and if the person she's with has had other lovers and is also not taking precautions with them.

But if it's not taking up a lot of time and it's not explicit enough to gross anybody out, which evidently it's not, I don't think you really need to add the threat of STDs unless you or the player thinks it's unrealistic that it wouldn't come up. Sounds like a pretty benign character quirk to me. You can even use it as a plot hook, if you like. A former lover is somebody you might come to if you had no one else to turn to; alternatively, seducing someone is a great way to get information from them or to put them in a vulnerable spot. Let someone offer the PC for a night of pleasure, only to steal her things or even attempt an assassination...

Draconi Redfir

2011-06-07, 01:15 AM

i like the half dragon idea, but heres annother.

Chasitiy belt. with any luck she won't know what it is and put it on. just make it cursed and give some kind of bonus she likes, and she will not be able to remove it herself.

or to be compleatly mean, +20 on charisma checks to seduce on a cursed chasity belt that can only be removed by an ooze.

ffone

2011-06-07, 01:17 AM

I'm also not a big fan of IC punishments for OOC annoyances, but in this case there are lots of possible in-game consequences which it'd arguably be *less* realistic to not have pop up sometimes:

- STDs; you'll roll a 1 eventually, knowledge that you're diseased may be delayed, and in the meantime you may've passed it around - causing big backlashes.

- Community mores. The folk come after you with pitchforks for being a harlot / witch / succubus. Even if you can beat the folk in straight up combat, it may cost you social opportunities for quests, item buying and selling, alert the BBEG to your presence, etc.

- Actual succubus/incubus.

- Attention from devils, demons, chromatic dragons who hear about or experience you and now want to add you to their Jabba-Leia style harem.

- Pregnancy. Could even be a plothook (antichrist-type child) although that could lead to a nasty alignment debate about abortion or infanticide. =P

- Jealous spouses.

Incanur

2011-06-07, 01:26 AM

visigani

2011-06-07, 02:03 AM

As a DM, I've typically had positive experiences with promiscuous PCs. I love the archetype if done correctly, but I guess it's not appropriate for all groups. As far as supposedly realistic consequences go, even mid-level characters shouldn't need to worry much about disease or pregnancy. That's not a the right way to handle the problem.

The DM wants to handle it via in character means. That much has been made apparent.

Further, he wants to punish her for engaging in the practice. Perhaps in the hopes she'll stop, but more likely because she's been totally hijacking his game with her distracting attention whoring bull****.

Kill her. The PC, mind you, not the girl.

Stick with the Chromatic Dragon idea... a big nasty one... and choose a variety of the bards previous lovers. The next time the bard tries to seduce someone have them scurry away to some secluded space and have the big red dragon do its reveal.

It has been a host of the bards lovers, and has grown more and more jealously enraged everytime it WASN'T one of the bards previous lovers.

The bard will be (presumably) nude and so therefore without any of their typical gear and without buffs.

And the last thing the druid hears is power word "stun".

At which point the Dragon polymorphs back into a Dragon and swallows her whole with a satsifying crackle and crunch and flies away.

Gametime

2011-06-07, 02:12 AM

For what it's worth, I think downplaying the response is likely to work out better than counterattacking. Especially if she's playing a female seducing other females, "She's just not that into you" is a perfectly valid response a majority of the time. Any time the character in question might be distracted by, say, end-of-the-world shenanigans, they've got a good in-character reason to turn down a tumble; if nothing important is going on, acknowledge the seduction and move on without explicit description.

I would advise against calling her character a "slattern" and lambasting her for her "whoring," unless you're positive you can limit it to in-character, justified interaction. Those sorts of terms come pre-loaded with value judgements that really don't belong at a gaming table.

Reluctance

2011-06-07, 02:36 AM

From what I can pick up about the player, she likes attention. She likes knowing she can get it, she likes directing it, she likes being at the center of it. Her fantasy is to be charismatic and irresistible. And given that her character is an 18th level bard with the assumedly sky-high Cha and social skills, I say let her have it, the same as you let the barbarian have a go at epic feats of strength, or the wizard to rape the laws of reality and plot cohesion.

On the seduction front, I say let her have it most of the time. Fade to black, return the next morning with the NPC quite happy and well-disposed towards the party. If Diplomacy over the course of a minute could do it, I see no reason not to throw the player a bone and let it happen over the course of a night.

Minor NPCs are where I think you could bleed off a good deal of the distracting steam. Important characters will probably enjoy the chance to flirt with Donna Juan, minor ones should treat her with a sense of celebrity worship. Regular attempts to derail the plot are often a sign of a bored/unsatisfied plater. Let her actually feel dashing and sexy, see if that dries up the tangents.

Alefiend

2011-06-07, 03:35 AM

I would advise against calling her character a "slattern" and lambasting her for her "whoring," unless you're positive you can limit it to in-character, justified interaction. Those sorts of terms come pre-loaded with value judgements that really don't belong at a gaming table.

This. I was thinking of saying something about it, but my post was already long enough. Slut-shaming ain't cool.

Rejakor

2011-06-07, 03:53 AM

Eh.

Why exactly is saying some of the time 'you sneak off with the druid and make nookie' and then saying the rest of the time 'the druid says she's going to be busy tonight.. washing her hair' or whatever a big deal? It takes like three seconds. And then you could have some kind of emergency in the night and the bard is in a different place and that's kind of interesting in a party-is-split-up kind of way.

Basically, why are you going into stupid levels of detail on this when a 5 second sentence and 'fade to black' is pretty much all you need and shouldn't derail the game for much time whatsoever.

true_shinken

2011-06-07, 05:50 AM

The problem here is that you allow her to get anyone on bed with her. She shouldn't. Her character is high level and a bard, so probably pretty famous. People know he is promiscuous, that's reason enough for many people to not want to do it. Or they could just say "I'm not in the mood". Diplomacy makes people like you, and it doesn't mind control them.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-07, 06:07 AM

I've been in your situation and I've taken Reluctance's stance on things, but if I honestly had to make her stop, I'd do the following:

Lie. Lie like it's going out of fashion.

Come up with an excuse by appealing to her sensitive/emotional side. Tell her that you're hurting over an ex-girlfriend and you don't want to be reminded of sex, romance or anything even remotely related to that. "Confess" to her that you're gay and that all this heterosexual/lesbian erotica is making you uncomfortable. Tell her that D&D is Unreality Time and that you don't want to be reminded of Real Life(TM). Tell her that your girlfriend is getting the wrong idea from the D&D sessions and that you want to avoid unnecessary drama.

You get the idea.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-07, 06:12 AM

EDIT: Double post.

CTrees

2011-06-07, 06:26 AM

+1 on pregnancy, especially if she's some variety of good (likely chaotic?)

+1 on it being a half-dragon

I'm actually not so for STDs, just because at that level, it's a non-issue. "I beat the save." "I failed, but whatever, remove disease."

That priestess she just seduced? Yeah, the one whose father is a level twenty battle cleric, inquisitorial division? Have fun with that! (this was my first thought, but I'm actually not all that for it, because it boils down to the same thing as the villagers coming after her with pitchforks. not that much fun)

Perhaps have her reputation spread, and it show in people's other interactions with her? *That* you could roleplay, and it could easily be hilariously awkward.

The Incubus idea could work fairly nicely

Have her enemies use that propensity against her. Not even going so far as using a demon - just a pretty human who is totally into her. Likelihood she'll ask for a Sense Motive check? Sounds low. Then that bait leads her away, leading to the rest of the party being a man down when they're ambushed. Better yet, have the character leave the room for awhile, and let her come back in the aftermath, so she's surprised by what happened.

Even simpler - when she's sleeping afterwards ("you spend the night with her" is a common handwave, after all...), her date robs her and disappears into the night. Surprise! Not everyone who would sleep with you after one good bluff check is completely morally upright!

EDIT: Forgot one I was going to point out - move the campaign to a town of centaurs :smallbiggrin: Or, say, dwarves, who are apparently very much against interspecies sex - look at how there are half elves and half orcs, but no half dwarves in the entire multiverse. Have fun with the diplomacy check of DC: You fail, and they think it's disgusting. Another interesting option would be modrons XD

Taelas

2011-06-07, 06:38 AM

If your problem with this is that it is making you uncomfortable, then you need to talk to the player. Attempting to handle it in-game won't accomplish anything, and she might resent you for trying to ruin her fun.

There's no need to judge anyone for this -- simply explain that you aren't comfortable roleplaying these kinds of situations. If she isn't willing to listen, then that's a lot more of a problem than the other.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-06-07, 06:44 AM

stainboy

2011-06-07, 08:38 AM

Don't try to fix an OOC issue IC. All this high-school-health-class stuff to try to get the PCs to choose abstinence is no fun and is missing the real issue. FWIW sheep's-gut condoms would exist at D&D's assumed tech level, and there are spells for diseases anyway.

Why, exactly, does her character seducing NPCs make you uncomfortable? Is she hogging the spotlight? Are you not comfortable roleplaying it? What's the issue?

subject42

2011-06-07, 10:17 AM

EDIT: Forgot one I was going to point out - move the campaign to a town of centaurs :smallbiggrin: Or, say, dwarves, who are apparently very much against interspecies sex - look at how there are half elves and half orcs, but no half dwarves in the entire multiverse.

Actually, Dark Sun had half-dwarfs.

CTrees

2011-06-07, 10:27 AM

Actually, Dark Sun had half-dwarfs.

Huh. Well then!

DogbertLinc

2011-06-07, 10:28 AM

In the event that she wants way too much detail into roleplaying the act, I agree with throwing very horrid looking npcs. Especially if there are lines of them wanting to "get it on" with the "easy" bard.

Also, I raise you this: Have every npc (for a while) she seduces be into really freaky stuff - necrophilia, ear sex, etc. That either puts her off it, or is hilarious or both.

Gnaeus

2011-06-07, 10:49 AM

From what I can pick up about the player, she likes attention. She likes knowing she can get it, she likes directing it, she likes being at the center of it. Her fantasy is to be charismatic and irresistible. And given that her character is an 18th level bard with the assumedly sky-high Cha and social skills, I say let her have it, the same as you let the barbarian have a go at epic feats of strength, or the wizard to rape the laws of reality and plot cohesion.

On the seduction front, I say let her have it most of the time. Fade to black, return the next morning with the NPC quite happy and well-disposed towards the party. If Diplomacy over the course of a minute could do it, I see no reason not to throw the player a bone and let it happen over the course of a night.

I agree. This is a common adventuring archetype. Some people play RPGs to take out their aggression in a way that is unacceptable in modern society. This player wants to pretend to be promiscuous without the personal risks (disease, childbirth, hurt feelings, etc) of which she, at 25, is no doubt well aware. Do it in cutscenes away from the spotlight if it makes you uncomfortable. If you want to have realistic repercussions (good and bad) from her actions, that is fine. But don't do it to punish the player.

Talya

2011-06-07, 11:03 AM

I really don't see the problem here. See, there's nothing morally, mechanically, or gaming-wise wrong with playing what she is playing. It's just your own hangups. Now, those hangups exist, and if the majority of the other players aren't comfortable with someone playing this type of character, tell her, OOC, that this isn't the type of game you run and ask her nicely to tone it down. Don't punish the character for her playing the character she wants to play.

cfalcon

2011-06-07, 11:06 AM

I'm pretty sure the old AD&D net book of sex has rules regarding pregnancy- but even though the game rules don't cover it, it should be TRIVIAL for a caster to create a spell that delays pregnancy or prevents it entirely with no side effect.

STDs are a risk, but mundane diseases should NOT be a threat for PCs, and STDs should be mundane diseases.

Your real solution is this:

This player wants to run a slutty character. So, allow it. Don't spend more than two sentences on any seduction, and when you generate NPCs decide whether the character's sexual orientation and likelihood to have a tryst. For most male characters in a typical european society, that would be rather likely for an unattached male (say, DC 5) and rather unlikely for an attached one (say, DC 18, and skip a roll if it would be entirely out of character). Then just roll this die and add Cha mod, and give a brief description of the time and place. For max effect, decide whether the NPC was skilled in bed (you can use a Con roll for this, and assume anything below, say, 7 is poor). So at most, you now add a seduction DC to your named NPCs.

This entire exchanged now takes less than 30 seconds, 1 minute at the outside.

I've dealt with this before, and it's really fine. You should not be throwing down at a character who is a slut just because everyone else in the group is uncomfortable about sex RP. Just, you know, skip the sex RP, and tell the story. Clearly this PC will end up being known as the sluttiest heroine around, which can also be played for comedy.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-06-07, 11:10 AM

Perhaps just as big as making things uncomfortable is that it kinda kills the atmosphere I attempt to brew up in my games. Things can be going along well, until Chorin the bard decides to flirt with the lady who just warned of a terrible, immediate prophecy.

* * * *

This isn't a huge out-of-game issue. Its not like I'm afraid she's going to spontaneously rape and/or murder myself or the other players. I just figure if you're going to be promiscuous in a medieval-esque setting, there's going to be a drawback.

Talking to her? Aside from the reasons already listed, she's got the arrogance of being 25 in a group of 19-21 year olds (mostly she just acts like its a big deal) and one of the other regular players is her best friend. I shoo her away and its just me plus one. She's not a bad person, just kind of a pain to deal with occasionally.
This is an out-of-game problem. Deal with it out-of-game. If you use an in-game "solution" you are using your Fiat Power as a DM to punish her for her playstyle. This does not end well.

IMHO, she is likely bored. Talk with her about your concerns about her actions and see if there's anything she'd like more of in the game. If you can't accommodate her, and she won't put a damper on the problematic behavior that you've told her is a problem, you should boot her from the game.

You can do this nicely, of course. Just say "hey, I know we talked about some of the problems we were having with the game. We tried to work it out, but it looks like this game just isn't a good fit. You should probably drop out and next time I'm running a game I'd think you'd enjoy, I'll let you know."

Sometimes DMs and Players just don't mesh in a particular game. There's no shame to it, but you need to fix the problem before it ruins the whole game.

Talya

2011-06-07, 11:13 AM

I'm pretty sure the old AD&D net book of sex has rules regarding pregnancy- but even though the game rules don't cover it, it should be TRIVIAL for a caster to create a spell that delays pregnancy or prevents it entirely with no side effect.

There are published 3.x rules too, but I think the OP would be horrified by the content of the BoEF. (I suppose from a mechanical and proofreading standpoint, so am I. Also, the illustrator needs to be smote by the Goddess of Photoshopping.)

Taelas

2011-06-07, 11:22 AM

BoEF is third party material -- essentially just house rules.

cfalcon

2011-06-07, 11:23 AM

One of the PCs in the last game I played in was a half drowess, and one of our adventure places was an enchanted kingdom with seven castles, each after a spectral color. It pretty much took until we hit the violet castle, which was full of rampant debauchery, to realize why we'd had a castle where everyone was greedy, and one where everyone was warlike, and one where everyone was proud- they were all the seven deadly sins. The folks at lust were stupendously happy for our help, and the drowess ended up getting knocked up through low odds (I'm pretty sure the DM got them from looking up rates of pregnancy over the course of a month and rolling a really low number). So we simply had found an allied cleric to pray for a spell that would delay the pregnancy till the completion of the entire campaign. Sure, that spell wasn't in the rulebook, but gods have all SORTS of spells (wizards do too) that wouldn't be in the rulebook.

cfalcon

2011-06-07, 11:24 AM

BoEF is third party material -- essentially just house rules.

Any rules for pregnancy and sex will be third party. Certainly the excellent AD&D net book of sex was. ("Mordenkainen's Lubrication")

And as an aside... to everyone who talks about "RAW": you can't get pregnant, or an STD, by "RAW". You can't do much, by "RAW", and I'm not entirely certain you can poop.

OP posted asking for help, not to find out if some obscure first party source printed rules on fertility.

Taelas

2011-06-07, 11:27 AM

Heh, to everyone who talks about "RAW": you can't get pregnant, or an STD, by "RAW". You can't do much, by "RAW", and I'm not entirely certain you can poop.

OP posted asking for help, not to find out if some obscure first party source printed rules on fertility.

Actually, yes, you can. It works precisely the way it does in reality. Whenever there isn't a 'rule' for something, that is how the world works.

CTrees

2011-06-07, 11:27 AM

For max effect, decide whether the NPC was skilled in bed (you can use a Con roll for this, and assume anything below, say, 7 is poor).

I was about to say that maybe Dex, at least, should factor in, but then my brain started to try to strangle me while screaming "YOU DON'T PLAY FATAL, DON'T YOU BRING THAT INTO D&D!". Odd sensation, that.

And yes, this is just my personal tastes in pen&paper RPGS being reflected. If I'm going to go through the die rolling to see how good I was in bed... that's one step too far, for some reason

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-07, 11:58 AM

Jeez, guys, I didn't realize this thread would explode if left unattended. Well, best get to quoting and responding.

As a DM, the last time I had a character get a little to keen on the seduction, I decided that it was time for a Succubus.

I know you didn't want to go with custom STDs, but I also managed to turn it into a bit of a cautionary tale by leaving the PC as an asymptomatic carrier of Abyssal X-blast, where X is your slang of choice. It didn't hurt the player, but there was some interesting rollplaying as NPCs had to walk into the temple backwards, lest they incinerate the healers with the lightning that was shooting out of their beltbuckular regions.

Option 1 sounds good. They're actually in a bit of a continuing feud with Demogorgon right now, and have already fought some fiends. Sending an advanced Succubus or Incubus could work, maybe with monk levels. Gives a whole new meaning to flurry of blows.

I'm avoiding option two, if only because A), they have an 18th Cleric already and B), it would distract even FURTHER from the actual plot.

Broach the topic without criticism: note that the seduction angle wasn't an element you planned on, and ask what her aim is so you can better incorporate it into the game.

Again, unfortunately, she'd probably just say "lighten up!" to which I have no counter. I take myself pretty seriously and when someone says to lighten up, continuing to press the issue just scores them points. Her aim is to be funny and silly. She's achieved half of that, at least.

Better yet, have her openly condemned from some ultra-conservative arm of the local Lawful Good church.

I appreciate the help, but I'm going to confirm Vladislav's response. Making a big deal over an extended period of time is going in the complete opposite direction of what I want to do.

Shes playing a woman? That's even better. This way you can make the PC itself pregnant.

But then it would be obvious that "I'm after her." And considering we're running the Bastion of Broken Souls, I think forcing her to give birth to a literal soulless bastard would pretty much enter the realm of 'that's messed up.'

Surely you meant to end the title of this thread with "Personas", not "Characters". :smallcool:

Now, now, that would imply that I am judging her character, not her . . . character? I wasn't going to sacrifice clarity for alliteration. I'm no liberal arts major. :smallwink:

Better than that: Roll on the STI table. I always find it helpful to include a few hidden gems on it, like Mummy Rot and Festering Anger.

See also: Slimy Doom.

Slimy doom. That sounds absolutely horrible given the situation.

If her reputation precedes her, I'd say it wouldn't be too harsh to slowly start giving some absurdly high DCs for seduction for all but the most desperate commoners. High charisma or no, it's not good for one's social status (or general health) to be laying with the town whore.

She's a travelling hobo and many of her marks are not terribly in touch with society in general. See Druid in the middle of the woods. Plus, let's put in context her Charisma score of at LEAST 26. A Nymph, nature's embodiment of beauty, has a 19. A succubus, pretty much the epitome of "something you shouldn't sleep with but probably will" has a Charisma of 26. This, coupled with all the bardic enchantments she has? You're talking about a beautiful rock goddess who can literally manipulate your mind. How is a commoner going to resist that?

Why hasn't anybody mentioned figuratively taking the dice out of her hands? PCs don't get to throw dice to do everything—if somebody isn't interested, they're not interested. Why? Because you say so. NPCs don't have to roll over on their backs for players with points in a skill if you say otherwise.

My last idea is to go out of your way to provide clear opportunities for seduction that will benefit the party. Let her allure and sexual prowess be the key to success in one adventure. Make it a highlighted part of the game and perhaps she won't feel the need to derail things the rest of the time.

As a player, I'm a rules lawyer. As a DM, I am not a big fan of Rule 0. If I can't find a mechanical way to do something, I don't like to do it. Would you make a wall unclimbable to a player with a Climb Bonus of +30 just because you want them to take the long way around? I wouldn't, because that's ruining player investment via unwarned DM fiat. I might consider that last idea, if nothing else works, but the last thing I want to do is risk encouraging it.

I see your point, but allow me to counter: What better way to get her to stop than to have the other players (or their characters) stop her? A few experiences like this and they will be falling all over themselves to prevent her from turning on the charm.

Because it causes group drama? She's not the kind to take criticism kindly, and god forbid someone ruin her fun.

what about a jealous significant other that takes exception to the fact that she just tried to bed their lover and comes in and beats the tar out of said bard. She's taken herself away from the party so there's no backup unless someone checks in on her. Have the overprotective meat-head boyfriend of your NPC leave her bloody in a ditch somewhere and see if that doesn't put her off the "strange" at least for a while.

I'm leaning towards the significant other idea, but any foe that's going to be high enough level to challenge her is going to completely destroy her at that point. That and she's got telepathy with one of the other party members, unlimited range. Coupled with the high level spells, they'd be there in a flash. A very awkward flash.

Another excellent point. Why would all these barmaids be lesbian? It makes no sense, except maybe if the campaign world was created entirely by very lonely men.

Give her a shapechanger. A very powerful chromatic dragon would be best. He hears of her exploits, magically disguises himself as some barmaid or other, then when they're getting down to it, presto! Out comes his thingy, and with a bang, as it were, she's pregnant. OH SNAP. SUCH DRAMA.

Magic, brah. No seriously, I've tried the "he's gay/she's straight" and all I get is "I'll convert 'em." If I somehow decide that the obnoxiously high roll fails, she'd just bust out the bardic voodoo.

Second option is funny, but would require an uncomfortable amount of detail Futanari and D&D should never be mixed. Futanari should never be mixed with anything. Not even your mind. Damn, where's the bleach and the bonesaw?

Seems to me like she's just playing out her character's quirks. Let her go with it. I kind of doubt that anybody would be bored or offended by, "Okay, she's quite taken with you. You two spend the night together." It's not even PG-13 at that level and you'd have to be awfully sheltered to be squicked by the mere mention of sex.

The problem is not that she's roleplaying a lascivious lady. The problem is that it comes up at annoying times when the party is attempting to do productive things. Simultaneously I hear

"I begin casting Commune."
"I roll for Gather Information."
"Is he/she hot? I roll to seduce them, did it work?"

I assure you, I'm not squicked out by sex, though when it comes up during our sessions it makes things a little awkward sometimes. Mostly because one of our players is a walking gamer stereotype, another is recently single, and the other two have significant others a good distance away. Plus we have a *gasp* 1:1 gender ratio. Its silly, but I really don't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable. Thus, I guess, I make it worse than it should be. Anyway, main point has been mentioned.

i like the half dragon idea, but heres annother.

Chasitiy belt. with any luck she won't know what it is and put it on. just make it cursed and give some kind of bonus she likes, and she will not be able to remove it herself.

or to be compleatly mean, +20 on charisma checks to seduce on a cursed chasity belt that can only be removed by an ooze.

Nope, not homebrewing a cursed item specifically for her. Plus, there's the risk of somebody else getting it and wondering why they're getting a bonus to a check that doesn't really matter for them. It would be pretty obvious who I intended to screw over with it. Pun intended.

The DM wants to handle it via in character means. That much has been made apparent.

Further, he wants to punish her for engaging in the practice. Perhaps in the hopes she'll stop, but more likely because she's been totally hijacking his game with her distracting attention whoring bull****.

Kill her. The PC, mind you, not the girl.

You're absolutely correct on your observation, and put it a bit more bluntly than I would have. Though killing her in such a manner is really overt. I might as well put a Sphere of Annihilation in. . . never mind.

I would advise against calling her character a "slattern" and lambasting her for her "whoring," unless you're positive you can limit it to in-character, justified interaction. Those sorts of terms come pre-loaded with value judgements that really don't belong at a gaming table.

A good observation.

Basically, why are you going into stupid levels of detail on this when a 5 second sentence and 'fade to black' is pretty much all you need and shouldn't derail the game for much time whatsoever.

I'm not. It doesn't even reach 5 seconds, but its a distraction and its irritating nonetheless. Its like someone shouting "CAST MAGIC MISSILE!" every time someone considers what spell to cast. Its not funny, its just irritating and overplayed.

The problem here is that you allow her to get anyone on bed with her. She shouldn't. Her character is high level and a bard, so probably pretty famous. People know he is promiscuous, that's reason enough for many people to not want to do it. Or they could just say "I'm not in the mood". Diplomacy makes people like you, and it doesn't mind control them.

No, but magic lets you mind control them. Where ridiculously high Charisma and fame fail, there's magic. Which is why I generally allow the damn 'seduction roll' to work. Because having her sleep with Dominated (lol) individuals is going to get in the vein of moral questionability real fast, and I can see things going downhill from there. Actually, I seem them going base jumping with a paper fan.

I've been in your situation and I've taken Reluctance's stance on things, but if I honestly had to make her stop, I'd do the following:

Lie. Lie like it's going out of fashion.

Come up with an excuse by appealing to her sensitive/emotional side.

That won't work. I'm engaged. Happily. I always talk about it, I keep my fiancee's rings around my neck, and the player and I are Facebook friends. My relationship status is an open book, and I'd NEVER, even if it was for a good purpose, pretend to break up with my fiancee.

EDIT: Forgot one I was going to point out - move the campaign to a town of centaurs :smallbiggrin: Or, say, dwarves, who are apparently very much against interspecies sex - look at how there are half elves and half orcs, but no half dwarves in the entire multiverse. Have fun with the diplomacy check of DC: You fail, and they think it's disgusting. Another interesting option would be modrons XD

Um, mentioning that a giant tiger was watching her coital exploits didn't cause her to hesitate. I don't see how visiting shirtless men who are literally hung like horses is going to help. If its a really ugly community, I doubt she'll even bother. But I'm not sending the party to Moria just to get a horndog character to cool her jets.

There's no need to judge anyone for this -- simply explain that you aren't comfortable roleplaying these kinds of situations. If she isn't willing to listen, then that's a lot more of a problem than the other.

I wish it were that simple. "Lighten up" would come at me like a five ton brick. For scale, she parked head-in in the middle of a residential cul-de-sac and left it there just to annoy the host. When he asked her very politely to pull into the driveway, she got pissy and wondered "what his problem is". When the same host asked her to tone her voice down a bit because people were trying to sleep, she was offended. She's not a bad person, but sometimes she can come across as insensitive and impolite, even though that's rarely the actual case..

chromatic dragon changes after? Nonsense. Chromatic dragon changes during. Describe the genital mutilation (can I say that here? It's scientifically what it is so I will go ahead) in as great a detail as you can. If it's not sexy and also someone throws up they'll probably stop for their own sake.

That's going overboard and would probably get me dirty, disturbed glares for the rest of the evening.

Don't try to fix an OOC issue IC. All this high-school-health-class stuff to try to get the PCs to choose abstinence is no fun and is missing the real issue. FWIW sheep's-gut condoms would exist at D&D's assumed tech level, and there are spells for diseases anyway.

Why, exactly, does her character seducing NPCs make you uncomfortable? Is she hogging the spotlight? Are you not comfortable roleplaying it? What's the issue?

You're missing the point, I'm afraid. Its not "lol, sex is bad." No, sex is good. I know. Sex is very, very good. But there's a time and place for it. Trying to get laid in the middle of a struggle to prevent a demon prince from attaining more power while simultaneously trying to fix the life cycle of human souls is not the time nor place for it. But she doesn't care.

No, I'm not going to roleplay fantasy sex with a person I'm not remotely interested in. This is D&D, not AOL Chat.

Also, I raise you this: Have every npc (for a while) she seduces be into really freaky stuff - necrophilia, ear sex, etc. That either puts her off it, or is hilarious or both.

Considered this. I could see the joke being "oh yeah, baby, that's what I like". And its disappointingly unfunny.

I agree. This is a common adventuring archetype. Some people play RPGs to take out their aggression in a way that is unacceptable in modern society. This player wants to pretend to be promiscuous without the personal risks (disease, childbirth, hurt feelings, etc) of which she, at 25, is no doubt well aware. Do it in cutscenes away from the spotlight if it makes you uncomfortable. If you want to have realistic repercussions (good and bad) from her actions, that is fine. But don't do it to punish the player.

I'm going to make a pretty big jump and say that she isn't sexually frustrated. Now, I know that's a pretty big assumption, and pretty out of line, but her roommate has complained about the noise this player and her boyfriend make. Also, the response to the following quote is in part relevant. She's not playing an archetype, she's playing a joke.

I really don't see the problem here. See, there's nothing morally, mechanically, or gaming-wise wrong with playing what she is playing. It's just your own hangups. Now, those hangups exist, and if the majority of the other players aren't comfortable with someone playing this type of character, tell her, OOC, that this isn't the type of game you run and ask her nicely to tone it down. Don't punish the character for her playing the character she wants to play.

I don't mind sexual liberation, but I could do without the condescending tone. We've been playing for about a year and a half now and have NEVER played a campaign nor dungeon where erotica was considered acceptable or desirable. Its not "just my own hangups". Its her insistence on thinking playing a promiscuous character is funny. She considers it a joke, not a legitimate archetype. If she tried to use that archetype as a character, ie seducing an official for information, I'd be more comfortable with it, but she doesn't. Nothing constructive or interesting is coming from it. Every time she mentions it, its followed by uncomfortable silence. She's the only one in the entire group who cares for it. So maybe the rest of the group is bound by our own "hangups" implemented by the evil of conservative society attempting to keep the sexually free down. Or maybe she's just unfunny/obsessed/playing the archetype wrong.

Your real solution is this:

This player wants to run a slutty character. So, allow it.

Unfortunately, those rolls really kinda break the tension and flow of the story which is pretty much the reason it bothers me and the rest of the group.

This is an out-of-game problem. Deal with it out-of-game. If you use an in-game "solution" you are using your Fiat Power as a DM to punish her for her playstyle. This does not end well.

IMHO, she is likely bored. Talk with her about your concerns about her actions and see if there's anything she'd like more of in the game. If you can't accommodate her, and she won't put a damper on the problematic behavior that you've told her is a problem, you should boot her from the game.

You can do this nicely, of course. Just say "hey, I know we talked about some of the problems we were having with the game. We tried to work it out, but it looks like this game just isn't a good fit. You should probably drop out and next time I'm running a game I'd think you'd enjoy, I'll let you know."

Sometimes DMs and Players just don't mesh in a particular game. There's no shame to it, but you need to fix the problem before it ruins the whole game.

I like most of your solutions to issues, and I know that in character fixes don't solve out of character problems, but this isn't that easy to solve. I'm trying to handle things in character because doing it out-of-character will cause explosive drama. My point is that I can't bring it up because she will invariably make a big deal about me confronting her about it, no matter how nice I manage to be.

If we had seven players consistently, I wouldn't care much. But we only have about four who regularly show up. Of those four, one is her. One is her best friend. Furthermore, the next four people who occasionally show up? They're her friends too. No one enjoys what she's trying to do, but confronting her about it means the vast majority of the group is gone. If I could trade her away and create a dream team of perfectly compatible gamers, I would, but its not that easy, and it took long enough to find a group in this area as it is.

There are published 3.x rules too, but I think the OP would be horrified by the content of the BoEF. (I suppose from a mechanical and proofreading standpoint, so am I. Also, the illustrator needs to be smote by the Goddess of Photoshopping.)

Good, now that we've established that I'm a conservative bible thumper with my man bits in the vise of a bear trap, I'm going to mention that I HAVE skimmed the Book of Erotic Fantasy and found it neither enlightening nor entertaining nor arousing. Hell, I had a player call it out when she started her shenanigans, pleading "come on, I don't want to involve material from the Book of Erotic Fantasy."

No, it didn't horrify me. I could give you a list of things that DO horrify me, but I'm pretty sure such an itemized list of shock sites and snuff films would probably get me banned, and investigated by the feds.

Gametime

2011-06-07, 11:59 AM

chromatic dragon changes after? Nonsense. Chromatic dragon changes during. Describe the genital mutilation (can I say that here? It's scientifically what it is so I will go ahead) in as great a detail as you can. If it's not sexy and also someone throws up they'll probably stop for their own sake.

Graphically punishing a character for having sex seems like a combination of the worst way to deal with the problem player (in that her character has now been mutilated for no real reason beyond pettiness) and the worst way to accommodate the other players (in that instead of removing sex from the games, you've now simply made it snuff porn).

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-07, 12:00 PM

Okay, I've posted and attempting to include every response. Thanks for the help/not help everyone. I've even included some that were posted while I started my post an hour ago.

Grendus

2011-06-07, 12:07 PM

I think it would be more than fair to say "she says she's flattered, but she's into men," or "she's married", or "she's only into her own race/other races", or "she just told you about an eldritch horror coming to destroy the world, she's not really in the mood". The problem is, she's gotten used to the idea that by saying "I roll for seduction" she can get free attention and play into this fantasy that she has of being an incredibly attractive and desirable woman without any drawbacks. Let her get away with it when it won't break the mood (if she wants to seduce any lesbian barmaids she can find during the downtime, let her spend her days/nights doing that), but if she wants to disrupt the actual game just say no.

Also...

chromatic dragon changes after? Nonsense. Chromatic dragon changes during. Describe the genital mutilation (can I say that here? It's scientifically what it is so I will go ahead) in as great a detail as you can. If it's not sexy and also someone throws up they'll probably stop for their own sake.

Dude. Get help. Not even joking, get help. That's never right.

Taelas

2011-06-07, 12:18 PM

I wish it were that simple. "Lighten up" would come at me like a five ton brick. For scale, she parked head-in in the middle of a residential cul-de-sac and left it there just to annoy the host. When he asked her very politely to pull into the driveway, she got pissy and wondered "what his problem is". When the same host asked her to tone her voice down a bit because people were trying to sleep, she was offended. She's not a bad person, but she's insensitive and impolite.
I don't know her, but the way you describe her, she sounds like a rather vain and immature person.

We all have our own comfort zones, and someone who intentionally seeks to break other people's comfort zones is not someone I'd want to play with. I would ask her to stop, and if she refused, I would not invite her back again.

Best of luck with your situation.

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-07, 12:20 PM

I don't know her, but the way you describe her, she sounds like a rather vain and immature person.

Well, we are Americans, after all. :smallwink:

Thanks for the wishes, and really, explaining why just talking to her isn't going to work is making her out to sound worse than she is and making me out to be some sort of closeted prude.

Talya

2011-06-07, 12:24 PM

You're missing the point, I'm afraid. Its not "lol, sex is bad." No, sex is good. I know. Sex is very, very good. But there's a time and place for it. Trying to get laid in the middle of a struggle to prevent a demon prince from attaining more power while simultaneously trying to fix the life cycle of human souls is not the time nor place for it. But she doesn't care.

Does it help her attain her other goals?

I don't mind sexual liberation, but I could do without the condescending tone. We've been playing for about a year and a half now and have NEVER played a campaign nor dungeon where erotica was considered acceptable or desirable. Its not "just my own hangups". Its her insistence on thinking playing a promiscuous character is funny. She considers it a joke, not a legitimate archetype. If she tried to use that archetype as a character, ie seducing an official for information, I'd be more comfortable with it, but she doesn't. Nothing constructive or interesting is coming from it. Every time she mentions it, its followed by uncomfortable silence. She's the only one in the entire group who cares for it. So maybe the rest of the group is bound by our own "hangups" implemented by the evil of conservative society attempting to keep the sexually free down. Or maybe she's just unfunny/obsessed/playing the archetype wrong..
I have played in a campaign where Erotica was acceptable. This doesn't sound like Erotica. Unless she's demanding a play-by-play "Dear Penthouse" description of events, this doesn't sound like much more than a moderate extension of the male characters finding the local whorehouse after every adventure.

Good, now that we've established that I'm a conservative bible thumper with my man bits in the vise of a bear trap

I've said nothing of the sort. You seem to be taking rather personally the fact that I see nothing particularly wrong with her style of play (at least, in a vacuum...if the DM and other players have asked her to tone it down and she doesn't, that's a different matter altogether) and would tend to be on her side.

I could give you a list of things that DO horrify me, but I'm pretty sure such an itemized list of shock sites and snuff films would probably get me banned, and investigated by the feds.

Ah, that's the Book of Vile Darkness...

true_shinken

2011-06-07, 12:31 PM

Ursus, this is going to come out harsh, and for that I apologize, but you brought this on yourself.
First, you allowed the whole seduction roll thing. That's mostly a houserule. Goind by RAW, she would probably need, say, a Diplomacy check to make people like her and then a Bluff check to convince those not into casual sex. At least.
Second, you don't want to confront her. This is the core of it, really. Trying to fix it in-game is not going to work, because you have crated a scenario where you can't deal with it in-game and even if you could that wouldn't be the best solution.
Third, you even help her with it. You said it yourself, you allow the 'seduction roll' to work to avoid her messing with morality by using her spells. Well, I'm sorry, but this is something that should be adressed. You're just letting this girl do whatever she wants in your game with no restraints, not even those few restraints the rules already put on her activities.

Really, you're going to fix this by
a) not being bothered about it
b) convincing her to tone it down
Nothing else is gonna work.

PirateLizard

2011-06-07, 12:32 PM

All you really need to do is get her in some shackles and then you can rob the crap out of her. Reverse prostitution, the rarely-preconceived trouble with being a wealthy whore.
At level 18 she should be a target of thieves everywhere regardless. Plus, once you have her subdued you can feed her some knock-out drug, and the next morning she can wake up beaten to crap in a ditch with no memory of what happened.
That's what I used to do in tabletop games where the PCs wanted me to roll TnA factor on every female they crossed so they could try to boink the roomier ones. Man were they pissed when the lvl 6 tank woke up with a hangover, no gear and no memory. Then again, the game wasn't being taken very seriously to start with, thus after that they decided to roll sense motive on everyone. :smallconfused:

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-07, 12:33 PM

Does it help her attain her other goals?

The player normally doesn't provide much backstory, so its hard to say. We started off at this level for a one-shot module, and her backstory was essentially that she was a famous song-writer and singer who eventually became more interested in the arcane aspect of the class (Seeker of the Song). Its not just this character. Perhaps if she mentioned it as a character trait or something I could handle it better, but its not, its just a joke.

I have played in a campaign where erotica was acceptable. This doesn't sound like Erotica. This doesn't sound like much more than a moderate extension of the male party members finding the local whorehouse after every adventure.

I have nothing against erotica campaigns, but I don't play them. No one in our group does, as far as I know. Though, I should point out that none of the males play their characters in such a fashion. We've never once asked about brothels, despite their assumed existence. Perhaps we're all prudes, or perhaps its a character thing. My main is a lizardfolk and the other guy plays clerics often. If we did go whore-hunting (I like the ring of that), I would be forced to acknowledge myself as a complete hypocrite.

I've said nothing of the sort. You seem to be taking rather personally the fact that I see nothing particularly wrong with her style of play (at least, in a vacuum...if the DM and other players have asked her to tone it down and she doesn't, that's a different matter altogether) and would tend to be on her side.

I will apologize for that. I had been sorting through responses for near an hour and a lot were missing the point. It sounded like, via your acceptance of her playstyle, you were insulting my distaste for it and my personal preference to avoid anything remotely resembling erotica in my sessions. I must admit I get overly defensive when people assume that I'm not accepting. I fit pretty much every description of The Man who's kept everyone down throughout the years and my first instinct is to fight back when someone calls me a Nazi, a racist, a skinhead, a gay-basher, a lunatic Christian, etc. My lunacy and my spiritual beliefs are not related. :smallbiggrin:

Ah, that's the Book of Vile Darkness...

Touche, touche. +1 to Talya. Though I plan on running a Soul Eater soon. . . .

Edit:

Ursus, this is going to come out harsh, and for that I apologize, but you brought this on yourself.
First, you allowed the whole seduction roll thing. That's mostly a houserule. Goind by RAW, she would probably need, say, a Diplomacy check to make people like her and then a Bluff check to convince those not into casual sex. At least.
Second, you don't want to confront her. This is the core of it, really. Trying to fix it in-game is not going to work, because you have crated a scenario where you can't deal with it in-game and even if you could that wouldn't be the best solution.
Third, you even help her with it. You said it yourself, you allow the 'seduction roll' to work to avoid her messing with morality by using her spells. Well, I'm sorry, but this is something that should be adressed. You're just letting this girl do whatever she wants in your game with no restraints, not even those few restraints the rules already put on her activities.

Really, you're going to fix this by
a) not being bothered about it
b) convincing her to tone it down
Nothing else is gonna work.

Nah, its not harsh. After sounding like an ass when Tayla was trying to help I've kinda got an obligation sit down and eat my humble pie. I'm going to concede in every point and probably go with option B. I was really hoping I could avoid it though.

All you really need to do is get her in some shackles and then you can rob the crap out of her. Reverse prostitution, the rarely-preconceived trouble with being a wealthy whore.
At level 18 she should be a target of thieves everywhere regardless. Plus, once you have her subdued you can feed her some knock-out drug, and the next morning she can wake up beaten to crap in a ditch with no memory of what happened.
That's what I used to do in tabletop games where the PCs wanted me to roll TnA factor on every female they crossed so they could try to boink the roomier ones. Man were they pissed when the lvl 6 tank woke up with a hangover, no gear and no memory. Then again, the game wasn't being taken very seriously to start with, thus after that they decided to roll sense motive on everyone. :smallconfused:

Its been considered, but stripping her of her items is going to penalize the players as a whole and just tick off the player anyway.

CTrees

2011-06-07, 12:40 PM

Alright then, make her meet a lot of married people in firmly committed relationships. Diplomacy/Bluff/Cha checks just straight up fail. If she insists on using magic to force people to have sex with her, that's called rape. It's a legitimate, "you can't argue your way out of this" evil act. One with consequences, not the least of which is an alignment change. Screwing around, fine, whatever, but if she insists on going with rape as funny, well... there's a different in for you, to get in character consequences that can't possibly seem like you're just trying to punish her for a joke ("you're a serial rapist. NO LEGAL SYSTEM ON THIS PLANE IS OKAY WITH THAT!")

EDIT: When she suggests using Dominate Person or whatever, ask her if she's really going to rape someone. If she still says yes... somehow it feels wrong to say "she's asking for it," in a post about rape, but there you go.

Talya

2011-06-07, 12:43 PM

I have nothing against erotica campaigns, but I don't play them. No one in our group does, as far as I know. Though, I should point out that none of the males play their characters in such a fashion. We've never once asked about brothels, despite their assumed existence. Perhaps we're all prudes, or perhaps its a character thing. My main is a lizardfolk and the other guy plays clerics often. If we did go whore-hunting (I like the ring of that), I would be forced to acknowledge myself as a complete hypocrite.

I generally expect about as much "fade-to-black" sex in my campaigns (as player or DM) as I expect out of an average TV Drama, PG-13 movie, or Bioware video game. That's about the most tolerance I'd expect from the average party or DM. If they want less than that, they probably should tell me in advance before I start building my character. But again, that's not Erotica. I've played in a couple games heavy on the Erotica. You might think that this was limited to White Wolf's Exalted (which has a lot of erotic themed charms and abilities), but it's not... Ed Greenwood is a randy old perv (not that there's anything wrong with that), and the less obvious corners of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting tend to prove it.

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-07, 12:43 PM

Alright then, make her meet a lot of married people in firmly committed relationships. Diplomacy/Bluff/Cha checks just straight up fail. If she insists on using magic to force people to have sex with her, that's called rape. It's a legitimate, "you can't argue your way out of this" evil act. One with consequences, not the least of which is an alignment change. Screwing around, fine, whatever, but if she insists on going with rape as funny, well... there's a different in for you, to get in character consequences that can't possibly seem like you're just trying to punish her for a joke ("you're a serial rapist. NO LEGAL SYSTEM ON THIS PLANE IS OKAY WITH THAT!")

True. This would, however, put me at odds with her over the result of a 25 Charisma check, and bring us right back to the issue of me not liking to confront players.

Mr. Zolrane

2011-06-07, 12:45 PM

Actually, Dark Sun had half-dwarfs.

With my setting, I'm actually redoing all the racials to make them more uniform. My main motivation for doing this is to make any kind of logistically plausible hybrid possible. A dwarf in my setting can breed with any mammalian humanoid with one size category of himself.

cfalcon

2011-06-07, 12:45 PM

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-07, 12:49 PM

I generally expect about as much "fade-to-black" sex in my campaigns (as player or DM) as I expect out of an average TV Drama, PG-13 movie, or Bioware video game. That's about the most tolerance I'd expect from the average party or DM. If they want less than that, they probably should tell me in advance before I start building my character. But again, that's not Erotica. I've played in a couple games heavy on the Erotica. You might think that this was limited to White Wolf's Exalted (which has a lot of erotic themed charms and abilities), but it's not... Ed Greenwood is a randy old perv (not that there's anything wrong with that), and the less obvious corners of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting tend to prove it.

That's a pretty good point. As a player of Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Oblivion, and a watcher of a variety of asian movies and anime, I guess I should be a bit more prepared for it. Again, this is if she played it straight instead of for ****s and giggles. I generally don't delve into campaign settings (with the notable exception of Eberron) but I'll take your word for it. Chainmail bikinis and all of that.

I'll try to loosen up and talk to her next time.

I should mention that I know its not just Asian Movies and Anime. Its just that Oldboy came to mind first, and I've been watching a lot of Kurosawa movies, so I was thinking Rashomon and Ninja Scroll instead of the Hangover and South Park.

Corolinth

2011-06-07, 12:51 PM

As a player, I'm a rules lawyer. As a DM, I am not a big fan of Rule 0. If I can't find a mechanical way to do something, I don't like to do it. Would you make a wall unclimbable to a player with a Climb Bonus of +30 just because you want them to take the long way around? I wouldn't, because that's ruining player investment via unwarned DM fiat. I might consider that last idea, if nothing else works, but the last thing I want to do is risk encouraging it.This, right here, is perhaps the biggest problem with third edition D&D. Forum jockeys have thrown the Oberoni Fallacy around so much that people have gotten the bizarre notion that DM adjudication is a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs, and that only RAW should ever be used.

As a DM, your job is to make up rules when none exist. Your job is to make up a rule that works when you can't find the correct one, such as when you don't have the right book with you, or your players are getting bored while you're flipping through books trying to find the rule you need. Your job is to interpret the rules and determine what is and is not possible. The DM is what separates tabletop role-playing from a miniatures game.

There are plenty of real slick men out there with what is commonly known as "mad game." They don't regularly take home heterosexual men or homosexual women. There are a lot of bombshell femme fatales out there that aren't having regular success seducing heterosexual women or homosexual men. Having a +10, +30, or even +80 bonus to diplomacy doesn't mean you're going to be getting blowjobs from lesbians, no matter how much you might want one.

Suppose I do want one. What's my DC, which in turn determines the required bonus? You can't look that up on a table, and there's a reason for that. Some tasks are actually impossible, while others are merely practically impossible - meaning nobody's good enough to accomplish them. How do you tell which is which, and for the tasks which are merely practically impossible, how good is "good enough?" The answer to that question depends on whatever your group requires in order to maintain suspension of disbelief.

Rule 0, as it is called, is a vital component of any tabletop role-playing game. If you're unwilling to utilize it, you shouldn't be running a game. Rule 0 is inappropriately named, because it is not a rule. It's a role. Rule 0 is better known as, "Your job."

cfalcon

2011-06-07, 12:56 PM

I'll try to loosen up and talk to her next time.

I think this will work out really well!

As a DM, your job is to make up rules when none exist.

While this rant is not super relevant, I totally agree with it. The rules are just there to make the DM's job easier. The DM is the game.

cfalcon

2011-06-07, 01:00 PM

Having a +10, +30, or even +80 bonus to diplomacy doesn't mean you're going to be getting blowjobs from lesbians, no matter how much you might want one.

I'm not entirely certain about +80. At that level, you might be able to convince her that it would give her superpowers, or be a yet-unimagined delicious taste of peppermint, joy, and heaven. The hypothetical lesbian wouldn't be sexually interested, but convincing her to do the act shouldn't be impossible with a +80. A +80 to a skill check is preposterous in terms of what it can accomplish. I do agree that this would not count as any normal seduction, however- being more persuasive than like, Mercury and Loki put together should be fine for manipulation however.

Edit: with a +80, you could probably convince a lesbian you were a girl with odd plumbing.

But this post is just because how big +80 is. +30 is nowhere close, and shouldn't be able to do anything like this, and neither is even, say, +40.

CTrees

2011-06-07, 01:00 PM

True. This would, however, put me at odds with her over the result of a 25 Charisma check, and bring us right back to the issue of me not liking to confront players.

I'm confused, actually. Whatever check you're using for seduction, some people should be easier to seduce than others, regardless of marital status. She just won't be some people's type, which will be a penalty she can maybe overcome. Some people will be married, but that doesn't necessarily say anything - there are married people who cheat on their spouses all the time (the DC should be low) and ones that would absolutely never do such a thing (the DC should be stratospheric). Put it this way - you could convince someone the sky was green with a bluff check, but it would have to be epic, not something just "high Cha+full ranks" would get you (okay, maybe a glibness potion would get you high enough). That hot elf? He/she has been happily married for the past seventy years, has no interest in cheating, and has a +50 circumstance bonus to Sense Motive or whatever.

Now, if you've allowed magic to mind control people into cheating when the seduction check had them saying no, and not had that be considered rape? Well, it is, pretty clearly. She's playing this all as a joke, and that takes it into a non-funny place, so make sure she knows it.

Oracle_Hunter

2011-06-07, 01:01 PM

I like most of your solutions to issues, and I know that in character fixes don't solve out of character problems, but this isn't that easy to solve. I'm trying to handle things in character because doing it out-of-character will cause explosive drama. My point is that I can't bring it up because she will invariably make a big deal about me confronting her about it, no matter how nice I manage to be.

If we had seven players consistently, I wouldn't care much. But we only have about four who regularly show up. Of those four, one is her. One is her best friend. Furthermore, the next four people who occasionally show up? They're her friends too. No one enjoys what she's trying to do, but confronting her about it means the vast majority of the group is gone. If I could trade her away and create a dream team of perfectly compatible gamers, I would, but its not that easy, and it took long enough to find a group in this area as it is.
If nobody likes what she's trying to do, then why do you think booting her would result in them all leaving? :smallconfused:

First, check yourself for Geek Social Fallacies (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html). Knowledge is power.

Next, speak with all the other Players (privately) and get answers to the following:
(1) Is the Problem Player annoying you in-session. If so, what is annoying?

(2) If I asked the Problem Player to tone down this annoying behavior, and she persists, would you still play even if I kicked her out?

This will let you know the likely fallout for kicking the Problem Player. If you are running a fun game, they may be happier to play without her. If anyone says they would drop, ask this follow-up:

(3) What is it about this game that you don't enjoy? Is there something I could do more of that would make it more enjoyable?

This will make you a better DM in the long-run, and it might give you a couple of extra Players in case you have to kick the Problem Player.
Armed with this knowledge, you get to make the choice:
(A) Speak with the Problem Player and ask her to tone down her behavior.
If you follow the rest of the advice in my previous post, you might be able to make the game more fun for her without annoying yourself further. This means she stays in the game and everyone has a better time. Win-Win. However, if she refuses to do so, or fails to do so over time, you will need to boot her.

(B) Shut down the game, and start a new one without the Problem Player.
If her behavior is annoying you and you won't talk to her about it, eventually it will result in you getting sick of the game. Nobody likes putting a lot of work into something for somebody and then having that person disrespect you. If you try to moderate her behavior with in-game mechanics, you will just turn what was once a game into a power struggle between two unequal parties - the DM and the Player - while everyone else has to deal with the negative consequences of the struggle. This is bad. Better to just shut down the game and try to start up a new one without the Problem Player.
This is pretty much all that there is left for you to do. If you don't talk with people, you can't reach a meeting of minds. Without that mutual understanding, there is nothing left to do but grin & bear it or use other means of power to coerce a change in the other. Neither makes for a fun game.

EDIT: Ah, I see you've decided to talk with her. Good luck :smallsmile:

Talya

2011-06-07, 01:03 PM

I'm not entirely certain about +80. At that level, you might be able to convince her that it would give her superpowers, or be a yet-unimagined delicious taste of peppermint, joy, and heaven. The hypothetical lesbian wouldn't be sexually interested, but convincing her to do the act shouldn't be impossible with a +80. A +80 to a skill check is preposterous in terms of what it can accomplish. I do agree that this would not count as any normal seduction, however- being more persuasive than like, Mercury and Loki put together should be fine for manipulation however.

This might border on bluff, rather than diplomacy, but yes.

Again, this is if she played it straight instead of for ****s and giggles.

Yeah, I could see that being irritating.

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-07, 01:05 PM

It sounds like this is actually "The player doesn't take this plot seriously enough, so I want to punish her with a rape-demon.". If her character is a nympho, she won't stop banging everything, and yes, she really is playing that, and yes, she really does have time even with the saving souls business. I mean, people rest at night right? Unless the actual sex delays the group's actions, then she's not adversely affecting her progress on heroic deeds.

My suggestions should basically make this a non-issue, by reducing the processing time of these deeds, which struck me as your real complaint, before this became "in my plot, the world is threatened, so no one should have time to hump, even though they probably have time to travel vast distances without hustling, sleep 8 hours a night to accommodate the casters, and likely even research stuff". If this is an ego trip, you'll skip good advice. Sure, go incubus all the way. That should work out nicely. :/

Exactly. Much like a player playing a "dirty dog" character who is generally misogynistic and can't connect with women well, or doesn't want to, who goes whoring in his down time, this doesn't seem like the sort of thing that anyone should be punishing, and I would think it should be treated as character development once the fact that it's taking up too much screen time is handled.

No, she takes it deadly serious, which is why I don't get why she can't focus on the task at hand. I mean, she pretty much IS the rape demon. The sex attempts distract the party and contribute to communication chaos. If she wrote me a note when she wanted to find some tail, it would be easier to handle. And good advice is subjective. I assume you assumed I'd ignore your post because it was aforementioned good advice?

As I mentioned in my response to the quote you quoted, no one plays like her. No guy even looks for women of ill repute, no guy plays a dirty dog character. She doesn't use it as an aspect of her character, she uses it as a joke, a poorly developed joke. As I said, its like someone shouting "I CAST MAGIC MISSILE" every round, regardless of the character's actual actions.

Anyway, just finished my slice of pie. Back to snarkiness in response to perceived personal attacks.

*snip*

This right here is the issue with AD&D. DMs take the concept of 'my world, my rules' way too far. Its supposed to be fun, yes, but when one person's rules usurp the intentions of the rest of the group, they're not doing a good job. Rule zero fails when attempting to tell the players they can't do something they want to do. "My job" as the DM is to provide an interesting plot as a method to provide fun for the players. If the players as a whole ignore the plot, I don't mind. Why? Because if they have more fun doing something else, than I should have had a better plot. The reason RAW is superior is because it provides a common ground for the group to operate on, a skeleton for the social contract.

The reason I'm so vehemently anti Rule 0 is because my original DM was a guy now in his late 40s, and old school gamer. He played as if it was the DM vs the players, and rule 0 was his +5 Keen Vorpal Greatsword. Rule 0 is acceptable when avoiding downtime and allowing the players to manage fun, amazing things not achievable by RAW. But if you have to waste more than a minute looking up a rule, you probably shouldn't be running a game anyway. Things are open to DM interpretation, but only when A) it doesn't violate RAW or B) it's in the interest of entertainment. FOR THE PLAYERS.

Edit: Oracle_Hunter

I've skimmed over them. I resent being called a geek, and my feelings are hurt. :smallannoyed:

I am, of course, just kidding. Indeed, I decided to talk to her but going in armed with your most recent suggestions should help make things easier. I appreciate it.

Talya

2011-06-07, 01:15 PM

The reason I'm so vehemently anti Rule 0 is because my original DM was a guy now in his late 40s, and old school gamer. He played as if it was the DM vs the players, and rule 0 was his +5 Keen Vorpal Greatsword. Rule 0 is acceptable when avoiding downtime and allowing the players to manage fun, amazing things not achievable by RAW. But if you have to waste more than a minute looking up a rule, you probably shouldn't be running a game anyway. Things are open to DM interpretation, but only when A) it doesn't violate RAW or B) it's in the interest of entertainment. FOR THE PLAYERS.

As I've played in games Corolinth has DMed, i have to say he's fairly liberal with rule 0, but usually in the players' favor. He likes coming up with nonstandard bonuses and fun things for us to do. As such, rule 0 rarely seems like a limitation, and more like additional freedom.

There are exceptions. His strong dislike for base classes outside of core, for instance... or TOB in general...but in general, DM fiat doesn't feel unfair.

true_shinken

2011-06-07, 01:17 PM

Ursus, I have to point out I'm really happy that you realized your mistakes and are going to talk to the player. That's a show of strong character. I'm proud of you, man.

Corolinth

2011-06-07, 01:17 PM

But this post is just because how big +80 is. +30 is nowhere close, and shouldn't be able to do anything like this, and neither is even, say, +40.I'm snipping the majority of your post, mostly for space constraints.

This gets back to what I was saying about maintaining suspension of disbelief. I'm not going to refute your argument about what should and should not be possible with a +80 modifier. That's long past the point where we start having to split hairs and make judgment calls.

Application of the rules to social interaction requires more of those judgment calls than combat or physical feats. Dice mechanics are an abstraction that are rarely used to adjudicate social interaction. There are a few systems that try, and they don't succeed particularly well at it.

subject42

2011-06-07, 01:19 PM

Option 1 sounds good. They're actually in a bit of a continuing feud with Demogorgon right now, and have already fought some fiends. Sending an advanced Succubus or Incubus could work, maybe with monk levels. Gives a whole new meaning to flurry of blows.

If you're going to go down a melee route, look at Battledancer from the Dragon Compendium. It's kind of like a charisma-based monk.

cfalcon

2011-06-07, 01:22 PM

The reason I'm so vehemently anti Rule 0 is because my original DM was a guy now in his late 40s, and old school gamer. He played as if it was the DM vs the players, and rule 0 was his +5 Keen Vorpal Greatsword.

Rule 0 isn't his problem then, it's DM versus players.

I pretty much Rule 0 everything. I have a custom world, with custom gods, custom granted powers, I have a couple custom classes. I have a big post of houserules on our forum that I update whenever I think of something / remember something, and if need be I just fiat stuff. But the goals are to make the world believable and to ensure that the players have a good time.

Here's an example: The game I'm running now has a pixie. The pixie had a backstory where he was held as a slave, and he sort of hates humans for this reason- his lessening racism will be a part of this character's situation. Additionally, he wrote a story that has his character raging at a world that had crapped on him. So at the start of the game, as we were at the table, while everyone else was doing their roll-for-initial-gold-and-buy, I straight faced told him that he starts with a wooden sword ("it's dangerous to go alone, take this!"), and 1d12 copper pieces.

Now, why? Was I just doing this to be a ****? Not at all, but I played it off like I was. When we were designing plot, I was a co-conspirator and helping him out. But now, at the table, I'm the world- specifically, the world that crapped on him. I wanted him to feel that rage a bit, and I wanted to test his character. He's invisible and flying- would he steal stuff? Could he justify it? IRL he would never dream of stealing anything, of course. But I wanted him to think I was crapping on him, so he'd go out and do something cool in character. He stole some food, and a couple unattended things, but nothing he thought that anyone middle class or below would need (he didn't express this choice consciously, but that's the net effect). His character had now been tested, and had developed.

Now, I have had bad DMs. And yes, they abused rule 0. But absolutely every DM I've been very pleased with uses rule 0 all the damned time (including the player of said pixie, the one time I actually ran as his player). There's way too much the rules don't say, and that's to be expected, given that it's a whole magical reality being simulated.

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-07, 01:23 PM

As I've played in games Corolinth has DMed, i have to say he's fairly liberal with rule 0, but usually in the players' favor. He likes coming up with nonstandard bonuses and fun things for us to do. As such, rule 0 rarely seems like a limitation, and more like additional freedom.

There are exceptions. His strong dislike for base classes outside of core, for instance... or TOB in general...but in general, DM fiat doesn't feel unfair.

Oh, no, I wasn't trying to say anything about his style in particular, just trying to explain why I tend to lean towards RAW over DM fiat. I can also totally understand apprehension about Tome of Battle and non-core classes, if you don't know what you're getting into, it will knock you on your ass. But that's denying rules, not completely rewriting them.

True_Shinken, thanks. I guess I'll stand up there.

"My name is Ursus the Grim, and I tend to seek convoluted, passive aggressive measures to avoid confrontation."

"Hi, Ursus."

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-07, 01:26 PM

Rule 0 isn't his problem then, it's DM versus players. . . .

Yeah, I know, and your examples are pretty reasonable usages of that rule. I don't mean to say I have no use for it, just that I am constantly wary of its misuse. I'm gonna take a break from the thread for a while, as I've been slipping into Internet Tough Guy mode way too easily. I guess the thread can be locked if a mod feels like it, technically a resolution has been reached.

The Cat Goddess

2011-06-07, 01:32 PM

My last idea is to go out of your way to provide clear opportunities for seduction that will benefit the party. Let her allure and sexual prowess be the key to success in one adventure. Make it a highlighted part of the game and perhaps she won't feel the need to derail things the rest of the time.

This.

One of the things that is considered a key to being a good GM is the ability to tailor the adventure to match the players as well as the characters.

So the character is a woman who likes to seduce women... plant a story that the BBEG's wife/sister/daughter and he are having a spat and this might be the perfect time to get information or even be provided with help getting into the BBEG's lair!

Of course, the PC's still have to find this woman and get this all done without the BBEG himself finding out until it's too late.

As for seducing a quest-giver... some good lines include:
"She is reluctant, but agrees... your keen insight tells you she sees this as a way to bribe you to agreeing to help with her problem."

"She smiles and says 'there will be time enough for that later, after the evil has been dealt with!'"

"For you, it was but a momentary daliance... but for her, the experience of a lifetime! Forswearing all she knew, she vows to follow you for all eternity!"

That last one is sure to get at least a few chuckles out of your other players... :smallbiggrin:

Sir_Chivalry

2011-06-07, 01:36 PM

Personally, I'm probably going to echo what others have said, but as a DM with considerable years now under my belt, and having seen a variety of players, here's my spin (because this is a forum, and you can't stop me. Nyeh:smallamused:)

The player is all sorts of poison to the game. This has nothing to do with the seduction thing, and more to do with a need for attention. Don't feed it.

Respond to any action, by any player, with reasonable consequences. Reasonable, not necessarily realistic. Realistic hurts fun sometimes. This is going beyond fun.

Playing a seductress or even just a sexually liberated character is fine, at least in my games. I have three examples, one good, one not so good, and one dang important, though none of them is anywhere near your issue, just trying to show my process.

1) Freya Merata is the daughter of the queen. She has blue skin and flaming wings due to her mother previously being married to a celestial. In an effort to break from her mother's 'oppressive' expectations, she runs off to start a life in the city as a party girl, and frequently spends the night with strangers. When the campaign started, while the others were planning how to attack some bandits they were hunting, Freya blew off steam with the nearby barmaid. Consensual, required no rolling, and ignored by the table mostly, as the player just felt Freya couldn't add to the planning after "Let's not kill someone"

2) Aranel Draconodel is a paladin. She is in a commited relationship with a human cleric. The two players, in a relationship in RL, frequently have their characters go off and be intimate during 'downtime', even if important things are happening that require the two divine casters insight. It was a minor problem (along with spotlight hogging when Aranel was anywhere) that came to a head during a party being held for Freya (see above) by her mother to reconcile their differences. The paladin and the cleric go off to do their thing, and the player for Aranel wants an actual roll to see how good the act is. I told them this was not he time or place for rolls, but they insisted. I used the rules I knew off hand from BoEF (I love that book), and it was fine. The boyfriend, player of the cleric, tried this at a later date when playing a female monk. He never did again:smallamused:

3) Ronan Maparoon was an old character in this same world. He rose to the rank of guild master and set about bringing several other power players into his fold to solidify his base in the city. This was a time when rolling for social interaction and even seduction was necessary, as dealing with dozens of npcs was difficult otherwise. The rolling helped move along the story, unlike with the previous example. I helped this work was done on the side, so that actual sessions wouldn't be affected. By the end of the game, through bribes, favours and simple seduction, Ronan had the entire city in his pocket, and two kids the player knows about:smallwink:

I say that if the player wants to seduce people, let her. But as with having a character solve every problem with Diplomacy, it has to be one of many options in her arsenal. If she's not doing it to accomplish a goal, but 'playing a character', again let her, but these things should be kept to a minimum again. If neither is that case, talk to her about it. The problem is two fold, she's acting like a d-bag in order to get a rise out of people, and you are not wanting to confront her because she's a d-bag and you'll lose the group.

Solutions to excess seduction:

1) Angry relatives or spouses come after her. It's not punishing the other players if you're smart about it. The average commoner can't hope to fight a high powered adventurer, but enough of them complain to their lord, and an example must be made. She is summoned before the court of the magistrate and sentenced to penitence/fined. Do this enough, and she hopefully will learn to be less invasive about boinking everything that moves.

2) if someone says no, and she uses magic, she loses any goodies she has for being good if she is. If she does it twice, she goes down to evil. Any order of goodness that learns of her will come prepared for her, as sending someone who can be charmed or dominated or misled is a bad idea. Champions of Gwynharwf are good for this, big barbarians devoted to an eladrin.

Gnaeus

2011-06-07, 01:49 PM

I'm going to make a pretty big jump and say that she isn't sexually frustrated. Now, I know that's a pretty big assumption, and pretty out of line, but her roommate has complained about the noise this player and her boyfriend make.

Just because someone is having regular noisy relations with a significant other does not mean that they do not enjoy the idea of having serial partners. Especially when it is free of the personal risk that comes with that behavior.

Retech

2011-06-07, 04:35 PM

It's rather simple.

"You come out of the room with your partner, looking rather disheveled. Your partner was even more lustful than you were, leaving you tired. You are now fatigued."

And the person has no time to rest because the characters are on a deadline, that involves some running. :smallsmile:

Flame of Anor

2011-06-07, 10:30 PM

This. I was thinking of saying something about it, but my post was already long enough. Slut-shaming ain't cool.

The problem is that the character is such high-level that she can basically force anyone to have sex with her. It's like taking advantage of someone when they're drunk--it's rape because their judgment is impaired; in that case by the alcohol, in this by the ridiculously persuasive PC. If any of you has read Turgenev's Spring Torrents, the fact that a certain character was not being physically forced when he betrayed his fiancee with another woman does not make it okay that the other woman was hitting him with an onslaught of seduction for her own amusement.

chromatic dragon changes after? Nonsense. Chromatic dragon changes during. Describe the genital mutilation (can I say that here? It's scientifically what it is so I will go ahead) in as great a detail as you can. If it's not sexy and also someone throws up they'll probably stop for their own sake.

Um, I think that might be a bit too much.

...which is what she said! Seriously, though.

"For you, it was but a momentary daliance... but for her, the experience of a lifetime! Forswearing all she knew, she vows to follow you for all eternity!"

That last one is sure to get at least a few chuckles out of your other players... :smallbiggrin:

Have them all do this. Then she has to take care of them. If she lets them die, she'll get an even worse reputation...

Philistine

2011-06-08, 12:14 AM

Indeed, I decided to talk to her but going in armed with your most recent suggestions should help make things easier. I appreciate it.

Good on you!

If I might suggest, though - earlier you mentioned that you were really worried about the other players putting it all on you if you confronted the problem player, so have you considered approaching them to try to line them up on-side before you talk to her? You particularly want the best friend with you on this if at all possible - maybe start there by asking the friend whether s/he thinks the Juvenile Humor Outbursts are worth discussing with her. Or if nobody else is willing to make an issue of it, then at least you know that; and if it really isn't bothering anyone else at the table, maybe it also really isn't worth starting a fight over.

Of course there's a real chance that no matter how delicately you handle such an attempt, she might just take it as the rest of you ganging up on her behind her back - and with some justification. But from what you've said, there might not be a way that you can approach her that won't result in scorched earth. Preemptive damage control might be the way to go.

Mikeavelli

2011-06-08, 12:33 AM

I also have a player whose character is incredibly promiscuious. Most of the time I just handwave it (no, don't roll anything, yes, she's seduced) - and worked it into the storyline.

There was a timeskip as a result of spending some time in the fey world. When they came back, all his (now Adult) children came looking for him.

There was an incident where he slept with an unseelie fey princess (related, but not identical to the previous incident) and she wanted to 'reward him.' His blood turned into a poison that he could apply one dose to any weapon at the cost of 1 hit point. It also nearly killed the next human woman he slept with, and necessitated an entire adventure to get rid of it.

Much later in the campaign, when they were galavanting through the Abyss on an unrelated mission, Succubi Handmaidens of Malcanthet (The Queen of Succubi), showed up, introduced themselves, and said the Queen of lust wanted to sleep with.... A completely different party member who had never so much as flirted with an NPC.

Gametime

2011-06-08, 12:53 AM

The problem is that the character is such high-level that she can basically force anyone to have sex with her. It's like taking advantage of someone when they're drunk--it's rape because their judgment is impaired; in that case by the alcohol, in this by the ridiculously persuasive PC. If any of you has read Turgenev's Spring Torrents, the fact that a certain character was not being physically forced when he betrayed his fiancee with another woman does not make it okay that the other woman was hitting him with an onslaught of seduction for her own amusement.

...Persuasive PCs don't impair judgement. (Well, aside from using magic to mind-control your way into bed, which has come up in this thread and which is pretty conclusively doubleplusungood.) Hitting on a married man or woman is arguably wrong, but not because it's rape.

In any event, a disquieting number of posts in response to "one of my PCs interjects sex into sessions in obtrusive ways much too often" was "teach that whore a lesson! Get her pregnant/diseased/chased by an angry mob/torn apart by a dragon!" And most of that happened before many details about the PC's (admittedly distasteful) way of going about this were disclosed. That's not encouraging.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-08, 01:44 AM

I am going to put this in the simplest way I can.

What you want to do is immature. It is not gentlemanly and it is not the sign of a good DM. If you can't work up the maturity and decency to keep OOC business outside the game, then the least you can do is lie to her, to spare her feelings, instead of punishing her for wanting to have fun. My recommendation was not to tell her a specific lie (that would be ridiculous, as I don't know you, therefore I wouldn't have a clue on what kind of lie would be most suitable for this situation), but a handful of suggestions on what kind of lie would achieve what you wanted with the least amount of harmful behaviour on your part.

It's entirely possible that she's bored with your campaign and finding a way to amuse herself. It's entirely possible that she doesn't realise that she's making you (and/or the other players) uncomfortable. It's entirely possible that you're projecting your own uncomfortable feelings onto the other players, and that they're perfectly fine with what she's doing.

In short, you are taking your personal feelings out on an unsuspecting player without giving them a chance to resolve this in a mature way. And the problem is that you're afraid that speaking to her about this will cause her to drop the game and take her friend with her. What do you think it's going to happen when you punish her for wanting to have fun? Especially when you've given no indication (as far as she sees it) that she's doing anything wrong? If you're worried that your delivery might not be as diplomatic or as reasonable as you'd want, then that is something worth asking help on.

Hecuba

2011-06-08, 09:22 AM

Flame of Anor

2011-06-08, 10:53 AM

...Persuasive PCs don't impair judgement. (Well, aside from using magic to mind-control your way into bed, which has come up in this thread and which is pretty conclusively doubleplusungood.) Hitting on a married man or woman is arguably wrong, but not because it's rape.

Yes, they do. It's like some really, really charismatic political leader (I'm not going to give an example, because you know) who convinces people to do bad things. The people wouldn't have done those bad things otherwise. Sure, the people take some of the blame for listening to him, but the leader also takes some of the blame for persuading them.

Alefiend

2011-06-08, 11:02 AM

Sir_Chivalry

2011-06-08, 11:23 AM

Agreed, and thanks for not Godwining the thread. :smallwink: In this case, though, the persuasion is arguably on the law/chaos axis rather than the good/evil one. Since the PC appears to be an engine of chaos, and likely reflected this in her alignment choice, it's not a huge thing. Basically, she'd have to poon-coax a sizable minority of a small nation for this to slide toward evil. :smalltongue:

:smallconfused:

Until she starts using magic to force people, which she is doing.

Veyr

2011-06-08, 11:23 AM

Agreed, and thanks for not Godwining the thread. :smallwink: In this case, though, the persuasion is arguably on the law/chaos axis rather than the good/evil one. Since the PC appears to be an engine of chaos, and likely reflected this in her alignment choice, it's not a huge thing. Basically, she'd have to poon-coax a sizable minority of a small nation for this to slide toward evil. :smalltongue:
How? Unless it was some campaign to bring down the nation through sexual distraction or something, that doesn't strike me as likely.

Reluctance

2011-06-08, 11:33 AM

Yes, they do. It's like some really, really charismatic political leader (I'm not going to give an example, because you know) who convinces people to do bad things. The people wouldn't have done those bad things otherwise. Sure, the people take some of the blame for listening to him, but the leader also takes some of the blame for persuading them.

The world has never seen a leader, no matter how charismatic, who successfully rallied armies against mole people or moon men. The ones who did get their citizens on board - as opposed to just bending the armies towards their personal brand of crazy - did so by appealing to a preexisting dark side. See the Salem witch craze for the exact same phenomena, minus a handy figurehead.

The problem is that the character is such high-level that she can basically force anyone to have sex with her. It's like taking advantage of someone when they're drunk--it's rape because their judgment is impaired; in that case by the alcohol, in this by the ridiculously persuasive PC.

PM me if you want to take this further, since it has remarkable kindling potential, but saying "her game was too good, I couldn't control myself" strikes me as uncomfortably close to "she was so hot/dressed so sexy, I couldn't control myself".

Fax Celestis

2011-06-08, 11:38 AM

"Because I think its funny, and because I'm a saucy bard with a hella high Charisma? Why not?"

"Because no one else at the table is comfortable with it. Look, I get that it's part of your character, but just tone it down, okay?"

Gnaeus

2011-06-08, 11:47 AM

The world has never seen a leader, no matter how charismatic, who successfully rallied armies against mole people or moon men. The ones who did get their citizens on board - as opposed to just bending the armies towards their personal brand of crazy - did so by appealing to a preexisting dark side. See the Salem witch craze for the exact same phenomena, minus a handy figurehead.

If rallying an army to fight the mole people was in someone's interests, I'm sure it would have been done. On the other hand, I can think of any number of real world religious leaders who have induced people to do things that appear to outsiders to be similarly pointless or self-destructive. People are remarkably easy to lead.

Also, with a charisma check of 60-90 (which is not that hard for an 18th level bard) you can convert people all the way to fanatical. I think most people would agree that sex with an attractive, friendly person (even if that person is not to their taste or normal inclinations) is relatively easier to justify than "Will give life to serve you Fight to the death against overwhelming odds, throw self in front of onrushing dragon"

Alefiend

2011-06-08, 11:57 AM

How? Unless it was some campaign to bring down the nation through sexual distraction or something, that doesn't strike me as likely.

I agree it's an extremely unlikely scenario, hence my couching it in the language I did. But if it came to pass, it would destabilize the nation politically and economically, and probably screw up military readiness as well. She (or somebody else) could easily take advantage. Making people give in to their sexual urges is not evil IMHO; setting a country up for war and suffering is.

Until she starts using magic to force people, which she is doing.

Did I miss that? I thought she had only used her absurdly high Charisma and skills to seduce people, and only had the ability to use magic if it came to it. If she's actually been using magic roofies, then yeah, it's rape and evil.

Gametime

2011-06-08, 01:48 PM

Fineous Orlon

2011-06-08, 02:00 PM

Gnaeus

2011-06-08, 02:09 PM

Agree with Flame of Anor in that it is at least somewhat unsavory.

If you're using a dice/ DC mechanic, aided and abetted by class features/ spells, then, yes, literally, the DM is allowing the character's 'game to be too good,' which is quite different from how someone may be dressed IRL.

But the dice/DC mechanic and class features are only there to MIMIC the seductive abilities of the person. If you wanted to play, say, James Bond in D&D, and always score with 2-3 hot ladies on every assignment, how would you do that, mechanically? High charisma? Check. Diplomacy? Check. Synergistic Skills? Check. Maybe a masterwork skill item in the form of stylish, attractive clothing? Check.

Having the mechanics that make your concept work isn't unsavory. It is a perfect example of crunch supporting fluff. Your concept (seductive temptress) is backed by your character sheet, which is exactly how it should be!

Gametime

2011-06-08, 04:25 PM

The d20 mechanic for social skills is meant to reward players for being good at something while lifting from the DM the burden of being arbitrary in social judgement. If you aren't comfortable with the idea that someone could just be that good at getting laid, you can always actually roleplay every social encounter and forego dice altogether.

Personally, I don't see a problem with an overwhelmingly charming character, any more than I see a problem with a character who is unbelievably good at hitting things with arrows. There are still situations in which either skill will be useless (such as a straight man trying to seduce a firm lesbian or an archer trying to shoot through a wall of force), but normal challenges just aren't a big deal for larger-than-life heroes, whatever their area of expertise.

Shadowknight12

2011-06-09, 07:46 AM

You're not only bashing someone for something they've already been talked out of, but also doing so when the person in question noted that the original comment was a character flaw that they should work on.

My mistake, and sincerest apologies to the OP.

danzibr

2011-06-09, 11:27 AM

You could have her seduce a CR23 demon in disguise or something. See how that works out when they're alone.

Ursus the Grim

2011-06-09, 11:34 AM

Okay guys. Just to repeat, and I appreciate that some people have defended me in my absence.

I am not going to do anything ridiculous. I will talk to her if it proves to be an issue. If talking to her doesn't work, I'll resort to in-game measures, things very justifiable with the plot. If that doesn't work, I'll consider the dissolution of the group.

Its okay to flame me for the original thought behind the thread, and I don't expect people to be aware of every post I've made. Besides, I've been rather unfriendly to a few members myself. I'd be a hypocrite if I felt a grudge.

Valameer

2011-06-09, 12:25 PM

Just to beat you over the head with it some more: talking with her outside of the game is the ideal solution. Even if it takes a few attempts.

She's obviously having fun with this aspect of her character, so be willing to comprimise. So long as it isn't detracting from your other players enjoyment, her trysts can still be an element in your game. Maybe she could get a one time sidequest that throws some spotlight on her, to get it out of her system.

But if it's universally detracting from the game, she has to be able to tone it way down.

Dealing with it in game might work - maybe. But it's a more difficult line to walk. Try not to come off as an ass - just be a fair referee and the consequences of her actions should build up all by themselves. It's a method that isn't often condoned on the boards because it's much more chancy, and can lead to grudges or the dissolution of groups.

At any rate: Good luck.

danzibr

2011-06-09, 04:26 PM

I still like the idea of her getting fresh with a demon in disguise.

Gametime

2011-06-09, 05:43 PM

There have already been several reasons given for why ambushing her with a disguised demon is not a good approach, ranging from "unlikely to achieve desired result" to "unfortunate implications of maiming a woman for having sex."

Flame of Anor

2011-06-11, 01:14 AM

...to "unfortunate implications of maiming a woman for having sex."

Hey, it's no more justifiable for a woman to go around seducing everyone and leaving a trail of broken hearts than it is for a man.

faus7rav3n

2011-06-11, 03:44 AM

***double Post***

faus7rav3n

2011-06-11, 03:51 AM

While I'm new to the Playground and my words might not hold alot of weight with you all, I do have something to say about it. The proposed In Game punitive measures are childish, immature and very unprofessional, (however clever they may be) especially coming from someone that takes themselves very seriously. It's one thing to do it in jest to a player, it's a horse of a different color to do it out of spite. Even considering a measure like that is completely unacceptable as it pits DM vs. Player. Handling an OOG issue is a very serious one, especially one as disruptive as this one in particular. If not handled correctly it leaves resentment floating around the table and you stand to lose everyone for battling it in game.

It's quite evident she's bent on getting attention and as it has been said, do not pander to it, doing so will only make it worse while further detracting from the game it already threatens to dismantle.

If she won't listen to you as the DM, maybe she'll listen her friends. Which brings me to my next point.

I like most of your solutions to issues, and I know that in character fixes don't solve out of character problems, but this isn't that easy to solve. I'm trying to handle things in character because doing it out-of-character will cause explosive drama. My point is that I can't bring it up because she will invariably make a big deal about me confronting her about it, no matter how nice I manage to be.

If we had seven players consistently, I wouldn't care much. But we only have about four who regularly show up. Of those four, one is her. One is her best friend. Furthermore, the next four people who occasionally show up? They're her friends too. No one enjoys what she's trying to do, but confronting her about it means the vast majority of the group is gone. If I could trade her away and create a dream team of perfectly compatible gamers, I would, but its not that easy, and it took long enough to find a group in this area as it is.

I'm glad that Oracle_Hunter addressed this before I got ahold of it. Few are the groups that don't have a little bit of drama within them. That's life, people have their opinions. If you have 7 people playing and 6 of them don't like the actions of another player during the game, it's pretty evident that something needs to be done about the 7th player's antics. If you can't talk to a person that is considered a 'friend' about actions that are bothering you, without fear of reprisal or drama, maybe that person isn't really a 'friend'. You don't NEED a Dream Team of gamers, you only need likeminded individuals that can come together and have fun. If you aren't having fun...you are defeating the purpose. Which seems is happening, primarily because of one player.

What makes her friendship to the others mutually exclusive? Are you not their friend too? Are they bound to her as 'her friends' and not everyone's friends? As far as a game group goes, you are ALL friends. If they are 'loyal' to her because they are afraid of her potential actions, that's not friendship, that's fear and manipulation.

I gaurantee you that if you confront her, backed by her 'friends' that are bothered by her actions and conduct during the game, with logical and rational reasons for why it's unacceptable to continue this, she will back down. If she agrees to suppress the aberrant behavior, all is good. If she refuses to accept that it's selfish and disruptive to proceed in the manner she insists upon, end her part in the game right there. If it breaks into a massive drama, politely tell her to leave. If it's her house, pack it up and relocate. If it escalates, do what is necessary. Maybe her 'friends' will see her for what she really is...

I hope you choose the out of game choice, b/c I think you jeopardize your group more by choosing the in game choice. That's my piece. Good gaming!

~faus7rav3n

Gametime

2011-06-11, 10:44 AM

Hey, it's no more justifiable for a woman to go around seducing everyone and leaving a trail of broken hearts than it is for a man.

Of course not, but a) I haven't seen a single post by the OP implying that she's breaking hearts or stating that these have been anything more than mutual one-night stands (aside from the magic thing, which seemed like more of a looming threat than an actual incident), and b) I wouldn't be in favor of mutilating someone, man or woman, just for breaking some hearts. The retribution seems disproportionate.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-11, 11:16 AM

It's quite evident she's bent on getting attention and as it has been said, do not pander to it, doing so will only make it worse while further detracting from the game it already threatens to dismantle.

If she won't listen to you as the DM, maybe she'll listen her friends. Which brings me to my next point.

I'm glad that Oracle_Hunter addressed this before I got ahold of it. Few are the groups that don't have a little bit of drama within them. That's life, people have their opinions. If you have 7 people playing and 6 of them don't like the actions of another player during the game, it's pretty evident that something needs to be done about the 7th player's antics. If you can't talk to a person that is considered a 'friend' about actions that are bothering you, without fear of reprisal or drama, maybe that person isn't really a 'friend'. You don't NEED a Dream Team of gamers, you only need likeminded individuals that can come together and have fun. If you aren't having fun...you are defeating the purpose. Which seems is happening, primarily because of one player.

What makes her friendship to the others mutually exclusive? Are you not their friend too? Are they bound to her as 'her friends' and not everyone's friends? As far as a game group goes, you are ALL friends. If they are 'loyal' to her because they are afraid of her potential actions, that's not friendship, that's fear and manipulation.

I gaurantee you that if you confront her, backed by her 'friends' that are bothered by her actions and conduct during the game, with logical and rational reasons for why it's unacceptable to continue this, she will back down. If she agrees to suppress the aberrant behavior, all is good. If she refuses to accept that it's selfish and disruptive to proceed in the manner she insists upon, end her part in the game right there. If it breaks into a massive drama, politely tell her to leave. If it's her house, pack it up and relocate. If it escalates, do what is necessary. Maybe her 'friends' will see her for what she really is...

I hope you choose the out of game choice, b/c I think you jeopardize your group more by choosing the in game choice. That's my piece. Good gaming!

~faus7rav3n

What this guy said.

The Glyphstone

2011-06-11, 11:58 AM

Great Modthulhu: Issue resolved, thread locked by request of OP.