PDA

View Full Version : Player comforts?



Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 03:56 PM
Like how comfortable are they/you with situations?

As a GM/DM I've had PCs raped and I've kicked player out for raping NPCs (none of them have ever caused issue). It is very crowd and situationally specific but my question is how and when do people draw the line.

I brought up this post because there is a post about GMs changing backgrounds and such, where there is a possibility of rape, and the sexual desires of a character. I want to explore what makes an appropriate and inappropriate scenario.

Themrys
2013-10-06, 04:57 PM
I would not be comfortable with my player character being raped, which is why I told the GM beforehand that no such thing ought to happen.

So, if you want to know, just ask the players, comfort levels are different. I do not want to play a rape victim, and the scenario is irrelevant for that.

NPCs who are raped offscreen (or maybe even with PCs present) are okay for me, in theory, but the scenario has to include demon-worshippers. Rape shall not be treated as something that happens only to women, and it shall not be treated as something that is to be expected if a woman is taken prisoner by men. It shall be treated as something that can only reasonably be expected to happen if someone is taken prisoner by worshippers of the love goddess' evil counterpart demon.
(I don't know whether such a demon exists in D&D, but rape is something that should, in my opinion, be reserved for the evilest of evil characters. It should not be used as wallpaper, in any case. The problem of rape as wallpaper is described here: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/03/rape-james-bond)


Now, in the case described in my character backstory thread, part of the problem was that the GM could not seem to decide whether a rape had taken place or not. He said that the woman (my PCs enemy) had bought a love potion and given it to my PCs love interest, and then they had sex, and she got pregnant, and PCs love interest was not happy about being told so, which, from my point of view, is absolutely understandable. Because he was raped.
The GM did not seem to think of this as rape, and thought the PCs could have found out about the love potion by asking harmless questions to the town alchemist. When I pointed out that the only kind of love potion that could, by any sensible law, be legal, would be the kind that only influences whether a person wants to have sex, in general, not with whom, he backpedalled and said it was that kind of potion ... which does not really fit into the story as a whole, which implied that it was a "attracts a person to a specific other person" kind of magic.

Now, magic does not exist in real life, but such scenarios are dangerously close to "If no physical violence was used, it isn't rape", and I therefore think they're inappropriate.

tensai_oni
2013-10-06, 05:20 PM
My various games had people at various comfort levels. Some had rape and such, others didn't even have any sexual content at all, even consensual. There's also stuff like torture, generally dark or hopeless themes, etc. It varied game by game and also depending on who I play with.

I play by three rules:
1. In terms of controversial content, everyone knows what to expect BEFORE the game starts, and I know what they're comfortable with or not. I never introduce things I know players aren't comfortable with
2. The game defaults to the lowest acceptable level of controversial content. Forget majority votes, forget golden mean. If one person doesn't want something, even if six others don't mind? That thing's not appearing
3. A player is not "better" or "worse" for having a higher or a lower comfort level

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 05:20 PM
I would not be comfortable with my player character being raped, which is why I told the GM beforehand that no such thing ought to happen.

So, if you want to know, just ask the players, comfort levels are different. I do not want to play a rape victim, and the scenario is irrelevant for that.

NPCs who are raped offscreen (or maybe even with PCs present) are okay for me, in theory, but the scenario has to include demon-worshippers. Rape shall not be treated as something that happens only to women, and it shall not be treated as something that is to be expected if a woman is taken prisoner by men. It shall be treated as something that can only reasonably be expected to happen if someone is taken prisoner by worshippers of the love goddess' evil counterpart demon.
(I don't know whether such a demon exists in D&D, but rape is something that should, in my opinion, be reserved for the evilest of evil characters. It should not be used as wallpaper, in any case. The problem of rape as wallpaper is described here: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/03/rape-james-bond)


Now, in the case described in my character backstory thread, part of the problem was that the GM could not seem to decide whether a rape had taken place or not. He said that the woman (my PCs enemy) had bought a love potion and given it to my PCs love interest, and then they had sex, and she got pregnant, and PCs love interest was not happy about being told so, which, from my point of view, is absolutely understandable. Because he was raped.
The GM did not seem to think of this as rape, and thought the PCs could have found out about the love potion by asking harmless questions to the town alchemist. When I pointed out that the only kind of love potion that could, by any sensible law, be legal, would be the kind that only influences whether a person wants to have sex, in general, not with whom, he backpedalled and said it was that kind of potion ... which does not really fit into the story as a whole, which implied that it was a "attracts a person to a specific other person" kind of magic.

Now, magic does not exist in real life, but such scenarios are dangerously close to "If no physical violence was used, it isn't rape", and I therefore think they're inappropriate.

I agree with a lot of what you said but why does it have to be demons? If a lot of games are based off pantheonic gods then Zues, Odin, and Neptune raped a bunch of ladies. In fact a high priest of Athena was raped in the temple to Athena by Neptune and Athena banished her making her so ugly she turned people that looked at her to stone. This is the Medusa story, and I think an interesting point of Greek culture. I am not saying that 'rape' is good, it is horrible and despicable and we should test chemicals on sex offenders instead of animals, but it is a very big issue in culture and I thin role-playing with the right culture/group is the right way to better understand it. Thoughts?

Rhynn
2013-10-06, 05:22 PM
Thoughts?

This is a topic where you probably shouldn't question the specific preferences of any person...

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 05:26 PM
This is a topic where you probably shouldn't question the specific preferences of any person...
Why are serial killers and demonic cults that sacrifice babies okay, but rape not?

That's part of the question, what makes things 'just wrong' versus 'i can play that'. They happen in real life, and are fluent in mythology, and RPGing is about exploring that aspect. I am not saying rape, murder, infanticide, etc. is okay, its is horrible and I hope people that do those things can take an acid bath. I am asking the question because people are fervent about it for a reason, and I want to understand more about why, and why they don't want to discuss it?

Rhynn
2013-10-06, 05:41 PM
Why are serial killers and demonic cults that sacrifice babies okay, but rape not?

Seriously?

How many survivors of serial murder and demonic cults are there in real life?

How many rape survivors are there?

It's not that hard to figure out.

Lorsa
2013-10-06, 05:57 PM
I haven't yet reached the point where I am uncomfortable in a game by any single event. I have been unfomfortable with the game as a whole though, the sum of a lot of situations when they've pushed my character into a pit (figuratively speaking) that I feel I can't or don't want to portray. A character that experiences strong negative emotions over a large number of sessions with no hope of getting better isn't fun for me.

When I GM I am very careful when testing my players' boundaries and often let them take the first steps into potentially uncomfortable subjects. It's just safer that way.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 05:58 PM
Seriously?

How many survivors of serial murder and demonic cults are there in real life?

How many rape survivors are there?

It's not that hard to figure out.

More than you think obviously... and not everyone is a rape victim/survivor so its obviously not a personal issue. Its like having a cancer survivor fight a cancer mage in 3.5, it isn't going to cross any lines. But the sexual/power issue do, and I am curious why.

tensai_oni
2013-10-06, 06:14 PM
There are two kinds of situations that happen in RPGs too often:

1. The game master singles out a female character, or a character played by a female player, as the rape victim. Any OOC protests will be met with the ever-present excuse of "muh realism".

Or

2. The game master says that in his (and it's almost always his, yes) setting, rape is commonplace because it's Realistic and Historically Accurate (TM). And if you don't like it, it means you have delicate 21st century sensibilities and should leave the game.

So unless you get a permission from every and all player that they are absolutely 100% okay with in-character rape - don't do it. It makes you look bad and your game look bad too.

Also when you look at people who were sexually harassed in the past or under a threat of sexual harassment (not just rape victims, that's like saying only murder victims can dislike murder), it's suddenly quite a big number. Especially if you add their friends and relatives who obviously have an issue with it too.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-06, 06:26 PM
I'm not so much bothered by the situations but by the level of detail that goes into it.
Anything can happen, even the most gruesome, terribile and tragic stuff, you just need to handle it tastefully and warn beforehand that this sort of things can happen in that campaign.

If I signed up for a horror game then I'm prepared to have my character die horribly or be forever traumatized, but if I signed for a classic fantasy adventure I would guess that the worst thing that can happen would be death in combat and I would be bothered if more heavy stuff was thrown at me without warning.

Basically, everything needs to have context, not go into morbid details and the players must know how far the campaign could go in nightmare fuel territory.

Tengu_temp
2013-10-06, 06:31 PM
2. The game master says that in his (and it's almost always his, yes) setting, rape is commonplace because it's Realistic and Historically Accurate (TM). And if you don't like it, it means you have delicate 21st century sensibilities and should leave the game.


Actually the "should leave the game" part is true, just not for the reason the game master envisioned.

Themrys
2013-10-06, 06:33 PM
Seriously?

How many survivors of serial murder and demonic cults are there in real life?

How many rape survivors are there?

It's not that hard to figure out.


This.

Also, you don't seem to understand why it has to be demon worshippers. Let me explain: demon worshippers are evil by definition, and if they are found out by the heroes, they're usually killed. If they are not killed immediately, they will be killed in the future. They can not get away with it ... they will pay with their souls, if not their lives.

In addition, the game I usually play, DSA, has a gender-equal society, where there are two possibilities: Either, everybody who gets taken prisoner by bandits is raped.
Or: The idea to use sexuality to torture people is so alien to most people that it is just not done. It's like eating babies, or skinning people alive. Some very, very evil people might do it, but not your common highwayman or -woman.

Gods? Evil by definition? Not so much. Not even Zeus, I'm afraid, although he (and the other rapist gods) absolutely should be.


You can play what you want (if you find people who want to play with you), but I neither think that I need to understand rape better, nor do I think I need it to have fun in a roleplaying game. Unless, that is, I feel the desire to kill some rapists. In which case demon-worshipper-rapists will do just fine.
(To be honest, I don't think you can understand rape better by roleplaying it just the way it is in real life.)

valadil
2013-10-06, 06:38 PM
Not down with the rape. I did that to a PC in my first campaign. Big mistake. He still gives me crap for it and almost didn't take up my next invitation to a game because of it. It didn't even add to the game, I was just trying to be edgy. Ugh.

I don't usually feel comfortable doing romance in games. I can't put my finger on why. I don't follow up on romance plots and I don't push them on my players.

I like moral dilemmas. These can make players uncomfortable. I especially like finding that distinction between player's morals and his PC's, and walking all over it.

I especially like pushing my players buttons. If I find something that pisses them off outside of game, I'll write up an NPC that embodies it. Ultimately, this usually means they get to blow off some steam murderizing that NPC, but until then their interactions will be less than pleasant.

oudeis
2013-10-06, 06:44 PM
Raping a PC in a game, male or female, is grounds for a real-life ass-beating. There's such a thing as too much realism in games. You have just turned the character into a victim- de-heroicized the character- without the player's consent. Before anyone brings up Red Sonja, the original character did not have the rape/Revenge Goddess aspect to her. That was added by Marvel comics.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-06, 06:44 PM
Seriously?

How many survivors of serial murder and demonic cults are there in real life?

How many rape survivors are there?

It's not that hard to figure out.

So it's just a number thing? :smallconfused:
I would have said that what is ok to throw at the players should be considered on a person-by-person basis, but if you say it like this then you are sort of implying that the suffering of some people is more important then the suffering of others.


Raping a PC in a game, male or female, is grounds for a real-life ass-beating.

Oh yes. Delicious.
Progressive mindset at its finest. "OH you had an imaginary character raped? I'll phisically assault you to teach you a lesson!".

What. The. ****.
Check your priorities. :smallsigh:

captpike
2013-10-06, 06:52 PM
So unless you get a permission from every and all player that they are absolutely 100% okay with in-character rape - don't do it. It makes you look bad and your game look bad too.


this, either everyone has no problems with it, or you leave it alone, anything else will cause too many OOC problems to be worth it in a game

there is no good reason why rape is worse then murder, it is a purely cultural (meaning propaganda) thing, that means you can't counter it with reason.

changing someone's mind is hard changing how they feel about something is all but impossible.

Rhynn
2013-10-06, 06:55 PM
So it's just a number thing? :smallconfused:
I would have said that what is ok to throw at the players should be considered on a person-by-person basis, but if you say it like this then you are sort of implying that the suffering of some people is more important then the suffering of others.

:smallsigh:

No, what I said is that you shouldn't question people on their preferences on this issue. The reasons for this are pretty obvious.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-06, 06:57 PM
I'm of the camp that there is no such thing as a line for me that can be crossed. I'm also of the mindset that the right group can maturely and tastefully approach, examine, deconstruct or what have you any taboo topic.

But I also understand that isn't everyone's cup of tea and I respect people have issues with it. I don't respect when people try to call the morals of those who don't have such hang ups into question though.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-06, 07:01 PM
I'm of the camp that there is no such thing as a line for me that can be crossed. I'm also of the mindset that the right group can maturely and tastefully approach, examine, deconstruct or what have you any taboo topic.

But I also understand that isn't everyone's cup of tea and I respect people have issues with it. I don't respect when people try to call the morals of those who don't have such hang ups into question though.

I fully agree.
The bolded part happens a little bit too often on this forum, I might add...

Slipperychicken
2013-10-06, 07:03 PM
Most things should be fine, as long as you aren't being a creep about it, and try to clear things up before the game starts. Talk to each player separately about the type of game they want to play (which is also a good opportunity to find out what kind of game your group prefers), humor level, ask if they have any triggers, if there are any topics they would rather avoid in-game. Respect your players wishes too; if one of your players doesn't want to discuss a certain topic in-game, then don't bring it up.


My personal preference:
@Rape: It's okay for it to exist in the gameworld and happen to NPCs offscreen, but I don't want to roleplay a rape victim, and I definitely don't want to participate in someone's immature power fantasy. Even when it happens in game AND it's not a result of people being creepy AND everyone's cool with it, then you should still "fade to black" and not go into detail.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 07:04 PM
I neither think that I need to understand rape better, nor do I think I need it to have fun in a roleplaying game. Unless, that is, I feel the desire to kill some rapists.

I'm not saying that people need to understand rape better in any way. I'm asking the question why it is an issue in some venues instead of others? NO ONE SHOULD DO SOMETHING THAT MAKES ANOTHER FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE.

What is it about a venue that makes rape, infanticide, etc. okay? The what makes it wrong is rather self-explanatory.

Also in many cultures 'demon' doesn't mean evil, Socrates believed he was visited by a demon and it gave him secrets of the universe (as in many ancient Indian stories), and they are believed to be 'spirits' other than divine, but not necessarily evil. The Djinn in Judaic/Islamic tradition are another fine example of this. But that isn't the point of this thread.

NichG
2013-10-06, 07:17 PM
I would say its not about the chance of presenting the topic to someone who has personally been affected by it at all. There are lots of things I have 'been affected by' negatively, and none of them would matter one whit to me OOC if they came up in a game. Its not about that.

Instead, think about what a DM focusing on certain things says to the group about that DM personally. Like it or not, it can be very hard on both sides of the screen to separate 'what is in the DM's world' with 'the DM's personal values'. This often manifests in morality/alignment arguments, for example - when the paladin falls because of something the DM finds personally objectionable rather than something that is fall-worthy by the rules, the DM has just weakened that line between 'thats how the world works' and 'this is what I believe'.

For violence, its (for better or worse) basically part and parcel of the genre. We talk about 'murderhobos' and so on without batting an eye, because the game as a whole kind of pushes that violent agenda. So if a DM puts in a combat, we don't think 'this means the DM is a violent person' or 'this means the DM likes violence'. Its also, for better or worse, generally socially acceptable to be entertained by violence.

Now if you take this and the DM suddenly introduces rape, that has the potential to communicate a very strong signal about the DM (falsely perhaps, but that doesn't make it any less damaging). Maybe not 'the DM is a rapist' or whatever, but that the DM has some fascination or interest in exploring the subject. That means its no longer about what the characters in the game experience, because someone sitting across the table in real life might be proving themselves to be a very unpleasant or even threatening person.

Now, do I think that a DM putting a rape in the game makes them a rapist or likely rapist? Not really. Almost all of the time it will just be 'hey, we've covered these other topics, this is a scary/nasty thing I can put in to make a villain stand out' or whatever. And for very mature groups that know each other and trust each other to handle the topic maturely, that can end up not being a huge disaster.

But, I'm not surprised that it would make lots of players uncomfortable, especially if it came out of nowhere. Especially if its the DM singling out a player and saying 'your character was raped' or 'your character is being raped'. It sends a strong and threatening signal IRL, and that has to trump any considerations of game realism or whatever.

oudeis
2013-10-06, 07:20 PM
Oh yes. Delicious.
Progressive mindset at its finest. "OH you had an imaginary character raped? I'll phisically assault you to teach you a lesson!".

What. The. ****.
Check your priorities. :smallsigh:Progressive? You give me too much credit, sir. This is old-fashioned machismo. :smallwink:
This is a power game, pure and simple, and I will not tolerate it. If I want my character to be raped, it will be in the backstory or in a plotline that I initiate in conjunction with the GM. I played in a Vampire LARP many years ago where one of the younger players had his well thought-out and well-played character get violated by another character in front of a group. The player walked out and stayed away for 3-6 months. Before you say that he was overreacting, I'll tell you that there are details here that are not mine to tell but the aggressor knew exactly what the effect would be and did it for exactly that reason.

Did you ever read this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268397&postcount=51) post in the PsychoDM thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784)? The GM was clearly getting off on his little power trip and the players quite rightly called him out.

Mr Beer
2013-10-06, 07:20 PM
It comes down to what you and your players are cool with. I've had villains threaten rape twice in many years of gaming but that's when I knew the players would be cool with it. I wouldn't describe it happening and I probably wouldn't be OK with my character being raped and I certainly wouldn't be OK with a GM looking like he/she liked the idea.

That said, if you're a group of sadomasochists and want a game with wall-to-wall graphic rape and torture, go for it. It takes all sorts.

Kalmageddon
2013-10-06, 07:26 PM
Progressive? You give me too much credit, sir. This is old-fashioned machismo. :smallwink:
This is a power game, pure and simple, and I will not tolerate it. If I want my character to be raped, it will be in the backstory or in a plotline that I initiate in conjunction with the GM. I played in a Vampire LARP many years ago where one of the younger players had his well thought-out and well-played character get violated by another character in front of a group. There are details here that are not mine to tell but the upshot was that that character disappeared and the player stayed away for 3-6 months.

Did you ever read this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1268397&postcount=51) post in the PsychoDM thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784)? The GM was clearly getting off on his little power trip and the players quite rightly called him out.

It's not machismo. It's criminal behaviour. You can go to jail if you deliver a "real life ass-beating" on someone. And I would personally doubt of your common sense, sanity and moral values if you think that a character in a tabletop game being raped justifies real-life phyisical assault on the GM.

It doesn't matter why a GM puts rape into a campaign, if it is for legitimate drama or because he likes to jerk off to it at night, if you answer with pyhisical violence you are wrong and that's it.
It's not hard to figure out. And I was being sarcastic calling you "progressive".
Caveman would be more appropriate.

You should just let this slide before you embarass yourself further.

Mr Beer
2013-10-06, 07:29 PM
Raping a PC in a game, male or female, is grounds for a real-life ass-beating.

Physically attacking someone because they offended you in a game is generally a bad idea. There are numerous real life consequences to such behaviour and pretty much all of them are negative.

oudeis
2013-10-06, 07:32 PM
It's not machismo. It's criminal behaviour. You can go to jail if you deliver a "real life ass-beating" on someone. And I would personally doubt of your common sense, sanity and any moral values if you think that a character in a tabletop game being raped justifies real-life phyisical assault on the GM.

It doesn't matter why a GM puts rape into a campaign, if it is for legitimate drama or because he likes to jerk off to it at night, if you answer with pyhisical violence you are wrong and that's it.
It's not hard to figure out. And I was being sarcastic calling you "progressive".
Caveman would be more appropriate.

You should just let this slide before you embarass yourself further.Thanks for the concern, but it'd take a lot more than what you've come up with to make me feel embarrassed.

PS- I was editing the post you quoted to give a little more detail when you quoted it. I was not trying to materially change it.

Amaril
2013-10-06, 07:33 PM
I would only ever, ever, ever involve one of my PCs in a rape scene, or have their character be threatened with rape, if that player had specifically asked me to do so for the sake of character development (not that I can imagine many players who I would trust to do this and handle it maturely), and if the entire group had agreed without reservation that they were 100% ok with exploring the concept of sexual violence during the campaign. And even then, I'd probably say no, and seriously reconsider whether or not that player was a good fit for my table. I really can't imagine myself being able to handle that subject matter in a way that was sensitive and understanding to how horrible it is in real life, and also genuinely benefited character development, because doing that is difficult. It's like making a character with the intent to make them a Mary Sue--there are a few storytellers who are capable enough to handle it well, and you may even be one of them, but do not assume that this is the case. Almost all the time, it's not worth the consequences of screwing it up.

Even if I had a player who asked me to do something like this with their character, and I decided that I'd be willing to go along with it, there's no way in hell that I'd describe the completed rape scene on-camera, so to speak. No. F*** no. The closest I'd ever approach to something like that is cutting away before it happens with the strong implication that it does.

With regard to NPCs, I'd be ok with demonstrating that a particular NPC has been raped in the past, but if I do this, you can be damn sure the monster who did it to them is the villain the PCs are supposed to be tracking down and bringing to justice, and I'm doing it to emphasize just how evil this person is.

As a player, I might be willing to approach the issue, but only with a DM who I trusted completely to handle it in a mature manner. My current DM...yes, I probably would trust him to explore it, although I don't believe for a second he would ever want to (that's not really his style).

It's not that I don't believe addressing the issues of rape and sexual violence can help to add realism and depth to your world and characters--it's just that I have little faith in the ability of most storytellers to do it in a way that actually does this. If you can demonstrate to me that you actually are one of those skilled few, well, then you have my respect.

If anything I've just written causes any offense to anyone for any reason, you have my sincere apologies. I know this is a sensitive topic, and I honestly meant no insult or disrespect to anyone here.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-06, 07:38 PM
Physically attacking someone because they offended you in a game is generally a bad idea. There are numerous real life consequences to such behaviour and pretty much all of them are negative.

Mind you, we do always end up getting a Lanky Bugger-esque story and thread out of it.

Mr Beer
2013-10-06, 08:39 PM
Mind you, we do always end up getting a Lanky Bugger-esque story and thread out of it.

True, "we all get to point and laugh" can be considered a positive consequence, from a certain perspective.

Broken Twin
2013-10-06, 09:00 PM
I would never start a game without at least a basic understanding of the players' comfort levels. If the group is mature enough to handle rape scenarios? Then they can be used, just like any other henious crime. If they're too immature to do so, or have ongoing issues/sensitivities to the topic, then it doesn't get used, and anyone who tries to bring it in anyway gets punished either in game or IRL.

For example, the group I currently GM for I wouldn't use a number of topics, rape being one of them. They're too immature to handle it seriously, and I can't tolerate rape-as-humor for very long before I start getting really cranky. Having its inclusion would add unwanted friction, so it's off limits.

And that applies to any other topic as well, be it racism, sexism, classism, or any other subject that causes friction between people. If the people playing can't handle maturing using the topic in game, it should not be included.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-06, 09:03 PM
And that applies to any other topic as well, be it racism, sexism, classism, or any other subject that causes friction between people. If the people playing can't handle maturing using the topic in game, it should not be included.

This brings up a good point, but how do people generally react towards racism when you're actually talking about different races (Dwarves, Elves, Drow, Orcs, w/e)?

Broken Twin
2013-10-06, 09:19 PM
This brings up a good point, but how do people generally react towards racism when you're actually talking about different races (Dwarves, Elves, Drow, Orcs, w/e)?

Well, my current group is a bad example (did I mention that they're immature?), but I've found that most people tend to accept fantasy racism at face value, which is actually a rather engrained tradition in fantasy. Some enjoy playing it up, although I find the ones that really get into it tend to have not-stellar attitudes towards other races in real life.

I think a lot of it has to do with the whole planet-of-hats thing a lot of RPG writers fall into. Those elves are forest folk? They're obviously Wood Elves. High Elves only enjoy arcane magic, you see? Drow aren't a specific culture of elves, they're an entire subrace devoted to evil. And so on and so forth. The urge to provide stats for every variation of storytelling has resulted in an infinite amount of species that can each be summed up in a single line of text.

Of course, racism in fantasy games is fundamentally different then in real life, because unlike real life, these races have quantifiable, written in stone differences. Thinking "He's an elf, he doesn't need to sleep!" can't be considered racist because, as an elf, he literally doesn't need to sleep. I think part of the popularity of the "He's the exception to the rule" characters is in part because the rules for fantasy races are so strictly defined. That's why I tend to prefer settings with low amounts of sentient species, because I find it helps cut down on racial straight-jacketing.

Black Jester
2013-10-06, 10:55 PM
As a GM, I am pretty serious about not being restrained or restricted by player opinion and sensibilities when it comes to the events in the game. There is no topic whatsoever that is by default taboo, as long as I think it can be presented in the play with the necessary gravitas and respect for the issue, everything is permitted, and if a player cannot handle the fact that the game will include elements like (random example) an epidemic and the resulting famine, they should leave; I will find more mature ones.


However, there are issues I think I cannot represent with the necessary gravitas and respect. Sexualized violence is one of the most infamous ones in this regard. I don't think I can ever run a game where rape (especially if it involves PCs in any kind) is not either trivialized (which I find highly inappropriate) or becomes a rather traumatic element that becomes rather central to the plot (which makes it even worse to handle the topic than it already is), or becomes a heavy-handed morality tale (which is still the best outcome, but honestly I don't think that in this day and age and within the the very limited framework of an RPG table a moral story about how much rape sucks is all that necessary). As such, there are elements, such as rape that I am not comfortable to include in a game. Not because I am morally opposed to the idea or because the feeble minds of the poor, poor players shouldn't be confronted with the darker parts of human nature or history, but because it is a very difficult issue to handle well and appropriate.


Or to summarize: There are no inappropriate issues. There are only inappropriate ways to depict them. If you are certain that you can handle an issue with the necessary distance and seriousness, it is a fair choice to include it in the game, but under all circumstances, this is solely the GM's choice; the players have no right of censorship.

Themrys
2013-10-07, 08:00 AM
As a GM, I am pretty serious about not being restrained or restricted by player opinion and sensibilities when it comes to the events in the game. There is no topic whatsoever that is by default taboo, as long as I think it can be presented in the play with the necessary gravitas and respect for the issue, everything is permitted, and if a player cannot handle the fact that the game will include elements like (random example) an epidemic and the resulting famine, they should leave; I will find more mature ones.

If a GM can not handle the fact that he will be restricted by my opinion and sensibilities, he should leave, because I'm sure as hell will be able to do better as GM.

You have realized that you cannot handle rape appropriately, and that is good. But there may be a dozen of other topics you cannot handle appropriately, either, but wrongly think you can, and the people who tell you beforehand that they don't want those topics to come up in the game, are the people who can judge whether you can handle said topics appropriately.


I may tell a very mature GM that it's okay for her to include sexualized violence in a plotline, but if a GM tells me that he considers himself a little dictator and thinks that players have to bow to his will, that's the surest sign ever that he is not mature.

Breccia
2013-10-07, 08:02 AM
I've been a DM for a fairly long time, and this particular situation barely ever come up directly. And I don't foresee more in the future, either.

In the campaigns I've run, there are, of course, groups of generically evil creatures who you can assume have done generically evil things. Players might have inferred it at certain points (a horde of orcs attacks a village, quite realistically, the odds lean that way), but it's never been spelled out. Main villains have, however, never done such. Quite frankly, they've had more important things to do, plus a lot of them have been undead and/or nonhumanoids which rather lowers both their motivations and their chances. Current campaign, for example, the PCs home country is being invaded by an efreet general and his minions of the elemental plane of fire. They're just there to burn the planet to the ground. I'm not even sure most elementals even have genders or sexual characteristics, and the overlord is 25 feet tall and made mostly of brass. What's he going to do, bugger the statue in the town square? It just seems to me that most paragon-and-up campaign villains have an agenda, and having them put the invasion plans of the Demon Army from Heck on hold for something so...personal, it just doesn't fit.

The only time it was ever approached took place in the drow Underdark (and we know how really messed up the purest drow cultures are). It was vaguely implied along the lines of "do you know what I'm going to do to you, lady? her her her" from a particularly vile NPC. He was fifth level, the PCs were all 15th and up, and the PCs all knew that -- the threatened PC was in no danger at all, even unarmed, unarmored and alone (which she wasn't). They gave him a highly satisfying, highly one-sided savage beating, and later, the offending NPC was brutally murdered by a differently-evil NPC off-camera (turns out, asserting male dominance in the matriarchal drow society is basically suicide by Lolth cleric).

Similarly, the players I've been lucky enough to have in my campaigns (and the one guy that I was UNLUCKY enough to have...) have played, in the mix, some shady folks in the past, as befits many fantasy settings. One or two of them were genuinely evil characters, working under a tight leash. The topic of sex has come up, erm, moderately often, maybe? But we were all in agreement that they were the heroes, and heroes don't f#*&$ing rape people! I'm fairly sure that, if any player had suggested such in earnest, he/she would have been asked to change their attitude or leave the group by the rest of the players, and also by me.

I suppose in the end the idea behind the game is entertainment by escapism, and a group is free to adopt whatever atmosphere they want. Just count me out of it. I know too many victims personally, and I wouldn't find such a setting fun.

Tengu_temp
2013-10-07, 08:31 AM
As a GM, I am pretty serious about not being restrained or restricted by player opinion and sensibilities when it comes to the events in the game. There is no topic whatsoever that is by default taboo, as long as I think it can be presented in the play with the necessary gravitas and respect for the issue, everything is permitted, and if a player cannot handle the fact that the game will include elements like (random example) an epidemic and the resulting famine, they should leave; I will find more mature ones.


The only reason player might not be able to handle a touchy topic is because s/he's immature? Really? Have you considered that people are usually uncomfortable with some things for a good reason? To go with your random example, one of your players' grandfather died in a famine years ago, and bringing up such topics results in unpleasant memories for him. Is he still immature for not handling it well? Is he still the wrong one?

I'm with the general consensus here - make sure what lies in the players' comfort zone and what doesn't before the game starts, and if someone is uncomfortable with some topic, don't include it in the game. The purpose of RPGs is to have fun, not to prove how mature you are or whatever.

Sith_Happens
2013-10-07, 10:03 AM
"'Player comforts?' I wonder what this thread could be about..."

*clicks*

"..."

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/081/long-neck-reaction.jpg

OverdrivePrime
2013-10-07, 10:31 AM
"'Player comforts?' I wonder what this thread could be about..."

*clicks*

"..."

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/081/long-neck-reaction.jpg
This.
Holy crap. Why would you even bring that level of repulsive horror into your game?! I've been running games - fun games! - for 20 years, and never, never has rape been brought to the table except in the occasional player-provided backstory that I acknowledge and then strenuously avoid.

I can't speak for others, but my friends and I play for a fun escape from reality. I do my best to provide realistic antagonists and dark plots, but certain depths do not need delving. If one of the antagonists is a depraved diabolist who feasts on misery (though how such a beacon of evil has survived more than a month in a world policed by angels and high-level adventurers is beyond me), you can paint a pretty general, yet satisfying picture of a power-mad torturer without having to resort to getting explicit.

I have far better ways to make my players uncomfortable and fear for their characters than to bring such a loathsome and vile thing as rape into my game. In case you're wondering, we also don't play games about the murder of children or medieval torture. Yes, all of that does happen in the game world, but why bring the game down by bringing the absolute worst of humanity to the fore? :smallsigh:

Black Jester
2013-10-07, 10:33 AM
If a GM can not handle the fact that he will be restricted by my opinion and sensibilities, he should leave, because I'm sure as hell will be able to do better as GM.

Sorry, but your opinion as a player just doesn't weigh as much as that of the GM. That is a necessary learning experience every player have to make at one point or the other. Even if you reduce the GM to a mere referee of events, he still needs to have the final word (as referees do). In any game that is not inevitably dysfunctional, the authority of the GM goes without question. That doesn't mean that the GM is beyond criticism or deserves extra privileges of some sort or other, but the key essence remains: Any equality between player and GM when it comes to the game (and only to the game, of course) is basically a lie.


You have realized that you cannot handle rape appropriately, and that is good. But there may be a dozen of other topics you cannot handle appropriately, either, but wrongly think you can, and the people who tell you beforehand that they don't want those topics to come up in the game, are the people who can judge whether you can handle said topics appropriately.

I'm rather critical of myself and when I am not sure if I can handle the issue well enough, I will rather not touch it. The key issue is how careful you pick your topics and the right way to handle them (for instance, I usually try to focus on the players' agency and their decisions as the main element. I don't want to have things just happen to the characters, I want the players to face important and relevant decisions; therefore it is important that the character have the opportunity to act and react and to influence the outcome of events).
Sure, mistakes and misconceptions can happen. They actually will happen from time to time, despite the best efforts an intentions. And that's a good thing. You can learn from mistakes and make better. That's how you become a better gamemaster. Or become better at pretty much anything (that's also why the criticism I mentioned earlier is important). And gamemastering follows a very similar pattern as pretty much else: if you stop trying to improve, you stop being good. And from time to time you need to push the envelope and take a risk.



The only reason player might not be able to handle a touchy topic is because s/he's immature? Really? Have you considered that people are usually uncomfortable with some things for a good reason?
I would describe the ability to handle more serious issues than pure unadulterated escapism and a certain distance between player an character which allows it to not take everything that happens to the player completely personal as an expression of roleplayer maturity. What else?
Yes, there are the occasional personal sensitivities. If these are so extreme that anything that happens in a game or any other sort of story that triggers an enormously unpleasant episode has much more relevant and serious problems than rough gamemastering and is probably better of trying to find a solution for the actual personal issue.

Tengu_temp
2013-10-07, 11:04 AM
I would describe the ability to handle more serious issues than pure unadulterated escapism and a certain distance between player an character which allows it to not take everything that happens to the player completely personal as an expression of roleplayer maturity. What else?


I already gave an example in the part of my post you didn't bother to respond to.

Almost everyone has some topics or issues they're not comfortable with, and they don't want to see them in the fun games they're playing with their friends. By not including those topics, you're not letting immature people stunt your awesome, dark and adult storyline - you're respecting them as fellow human beings. All a knee-jerk "if you're not happy with it, leave my game" reaction to people not being comfortable with something will accomplish is ensure you run out of players sooner or later, because nobody likes to play with a GM who does not respect their boundaries.

johnbragg
2013-10-07, 11:15 AM
More than you think obviously... and not everyone is a rape victim/survivor so its obviously not a personal issue. Its like having a cancer survivor fight a cancer mage in 3.5, it isn't going to cross any lines.

I've never thought about it before, but actually it might. If I were DMing, and one of my players' close relatives were having a nasty cancer fight, I'd probably swap out the NPC cancer mage for something else.


But the sexual/power issue do, and I am curious why.

Because RPGs are supposed to be FUN. They're fun partially because they're divorced from the real world. There's a reason that sword-and-sorcery games dominate over d20 Modern type stuff--we don't have to worry about fireballs and sword-wielding murderhobos in our real, everyday lives. It's a break from worrying about school, work, relationships, money etc.

If your RPG reminds you of your real-life problems, You're Doing It Wrong(TM). That's why when me and my friends were 16 and socially retarded, so help me god half the encounters were followed with sex with willing rescued maidens, and we rolled percentile dice "to see how well we did." That's a nearly pathological level of misogyny/video-game-level-roleplaying, but we certainly didn't go with "they think you're really brave heroes and everything, but they don't like you that way, especially since you can't manage more than a two-sentence conversation with them."

Now, our problem was we couldn't talk to girls and get girls to talk to us. If the problem is cancer? Rape? Seriously?

Come to think of it, if I were violently mugged and beaten, I probably wouldn't be in an RPG mood for a while.

johnbragg
2013-10-07, 11:23 AM
"'Player comforts?' I wonder what this thread could be about..."

*clicks*



Yeah, it's not exactly the "do you allow powdery messy snacks like Cheetos" thread most of us were expecting, is it?

The Fury
2013-10-07, 11:59 AM
Physically attacking someone because they offended you in a game is generally a bad idea. There are numerous real life consequences to such behaviour and pretty much all of them are negative.

I'll go out on a limb and say that oudeis likely meant that as hyperbole. Hopefully nobody here has punched their DM in the face for what happened in game.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-07, 12:27 PM
I'll go out on a limb and say that oudeis likely meant that as hyperbole. Hopefully nobody here has punched their DM in the face for what happened in game.

When I was in college I was DMing a game and I had a player hit another player because what happened in the game, we were all good friends and nothing really happened that I would say is 'punching worthy'.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-07, 12:38 PM
Well!

I haven't been a DM too often, and I can overall say that there hasn't been a situation in which I've ever been required to tone my material down. Which is actually surprising, because I happen to have written some really dark material over the years, which includes some stuff involving rape.

In mine own personal opinion, getting people uncomfortable or offended tends to be more a matter of word choice than content, at least in writing and RPs. As long as you don't describe the event or use the word, even the people least comfortable with explicit or dark content will be fine.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-07, 12:48 PM
I've never thought about it before, but actually it might. If I were DMing, and one of my players' close relatives were having a nasty cancer fight, I'd probably swap out the NPC cancer mage for something else.

Do cancer mages have anything really resembling real-life cancer, though?

They really don't make me (as a non-cancer survivor, anyway) think of the disease...




Because RPGs are supposed to be FUN. They're fun partially because they're divorced from the real world. There's a reason that sword-and-sorcery games dominate over d20 Modern type stuff--we don't have to worry about fireballs and sword-wielding murderhobos in our real, everyday lives. It's a break from worrying about school, work, relationships, money etc.


See, I don't agree with the idea that RP should skirt away from the darker ends of realism (I say the darker ends of realism because you can have realism that isn't dark). They are fun for the aspects that aren't like reality, true, but they're also fun for the aspects that are--they're what differentiates RPGs from, y'know, videogame RPGs.

Themrys
2013-10-07, 12:54 PM
Sorry, but your opinion as a player just doesn't weigh as much as that of the GM.

That's hilarious. You didn't expect me to read the rest of your post after that, did you? Because I absolutely didn't.

A GM is not a different kind of person in the world where I live. A GM simply is a person who was decided on as being the best suited to doing a certain job by everyone else in the group. It's like democracy, only that you can get voted out of office every time the group meets, not just every few years.

It gets even better: People who don't like what you do, but cannot get the others to agree with them, can just walk out and find another group, without having to learn a new language or find a new job.

You really should keep that in mind. You're just embarassing yourself by deluding yourself that as GM you're somehow inherently more worthy or important than mere players.
I guess it's the "master" in the word "gamemaster", isn't it? Encourages delusions of grandeur.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-07, 12:55 PM
I'm not so much bothered by the situations but by the level of detail that goes into it.
Anything can happen, even the most gruesome, terribile and tragic stuff, you just need to handle it tastefully and warn beforehand that this sort of things can happen in that campaign.

If I signed up for a horror game then I'm prepared to have my character die horribly or be forever traumatized, but if I signed for a classic fantasy adventure I would guess that the worst thing that can happen would be death in combat and I would be bothered if more heavy stuff was thrown at me without warning.

Basically, everything needs to have context, not go into morbid details and the players must know how far the campaign could go in nightmare fuel territory.

...holy ****e how are we on the same wavelength?

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-07, 12:57 PM
This.
Holy crap. Why would you even bring that level of repulsive horror into your game?!

And this is what I was speaking of earlier in the thread.

Just because your and your group's definition of "fun" would define the inclusion of the broaching of such issues as pure, unadulterated horror doesn't mean that other groups can not include it for their own definition of a "fun" game.

Just like there are people who find more enjoyment reading something from Warhammer than they do from a more lighthearted, bog standard fantasy yarn.

lytokk
2013-10-07, 12:59 PM
This is one of those hard to touch topics that hasn't ever found its way into any of my gaming sessions, be it ones where I was a player or ones where I was a DM. Does it exist in games, well, it has too. Half giants/orcs/monstrous race seems to imply that it does happen with enough regularity to require racial adjustments to describe the offspring. Granted, some of these are going to be the result of a normal relationship, with no violence entailed, but those are a minority.

If a player wants to put it in their backstory, that should be their discretion. I've never vetoed a backstory for any reason, and if I have a player that wants to put that in there, its their story. Their story is the only thing they can have responsibility for in the game, the rest is up to me. Now, what I would like to see is that part of the story come up in mine, be it some sort of trust issues or whatever part of the characters personality the player thinks it should affect. That is all up to them. If they only wanted to put it in there just to have it in there, it's their choice. If they do play with that part of the story involved with their personality, it does give the opportunity for character growth, change, and pretty decent RP. It gives me plot hooks to dangle, and can add to the story.

That being said, I don't think I'll ever have a player character raped in the course of any of my games, and if I actually have a player ask for it, there will end up being a discussion between me and the player as to why. If its just fluff, not a good reason.

LongVin
2013-10-07, 01:05 PM
I don't think rape has ever come up directly in any games I have been involved in. But, I think it is implied to have occurred in the background and the surrounding events of some games. And, I think this is common in most games.

When you think about it, vampires feeding in of itself could be considered rape. Not even considering how the vampire goes about "seducing" his prey.

I think as a whole it depends on what game or setting you are playing it. There are some settings where you expect extremely vile and evil acts to occur. If you're playing Call of Cthulhu or grimdark setting like Warhammer(discounting the comic relief they include in warhammer) you should expect there will be topics that might be uncomfortable, but the settings encourage you to feel uncomfortable.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-07, 01:20 PM
This.
Holy crap. Why would you even bring that level of repulsive horror into your game?! I've been running games - fun games! - for 20 years, and never, never has rape been brought to the table except in the occasional player-provided backstory that I acknowledge and then strenuously avoid.

As someone who put it into a game? (Well, a planned game that never panned out where I communicated a lot with the one player)

It literally was just the way things turned out. I hadn't even planned on that being a thing until its being a thing fit the rest of the story.

For those Interested in the Story (There's actually nothing explicit in it)

(The potential implied perpetrator was basically someone from an old model of the universe that broke down due to a Messiah-type mucking things up on accident, with the potential to serve as a Madonna for another Messiah figure, except then she got written out of reality when the old model was revised to prevent the universe from unraveling into Chaos, and by the time she could finally worm her way back in she was...changed...and wanted to unravel the new universe. And being the mother of the next Messiah was basically the best plan. But the hitch with that plan is that the father also needed the potential to sire a Messiah. And currently the one person in the universe that could serve as that is her sworn enemy. And a PC.)

OverdrivePrime
2013-10-07, 01:21 PM
Just because your and your group's definition of "fun" would define the inclusion of the broaching of such issues as pure, unadulterated horror doesn't mean that other groups can not include it for their own definition of a "fun" game.

Call me inflexible or whatever else you want - I don't even want to meet someone whose idea of fun fantasy exploration includes rape, much less sit down at a game table with them. If that sort of awfulness shows up at my table, the player is going to be asked to leave the house and probably won't be invited back without some serious dialogue happening. If that shows up at a game I'm playing in, I'm out the door as fast as I can pack up my dice and papers. I'm not 16 anymore, so there wouldn't be any violence from me, but you could expect a sternly worded email, and perhaps even getting unfollowed on Pinterest! O__O

At least four of us at my table have had to deal with the fallout of rape/abuse in real life. I've had 20+ years to deal with it in the real world, and I don't want it anywhere near my fantasy games.

I also think that rape and abuse impact so many people in the real world that giving it an un-asked for place in your games is a disservice to your players. If a player wants to do some exploration down that route for their own healing process, I guess that's cool if you clear it with the rest of the players, but for me I can only see that contributing to more nightmares.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-07, 01:34 PM
Call me inflexible or whatever else you want - I don't even want to meet someone whose idea of fun fantasy exploration includes rape, much less sit down at a game table with them.

Glad you're so judgmental.

And I think we're done conversing, you and I.

johnbragg
2013-10-07, 01:47 PM
Glad you're so judgmental.

And I think we're done conversing, you and I.

Utilitarian question: If Player A, on the explore-dark-aspects side, and Player B, on the no-icky-in-my-elfgames side, are in the same gaming group, is the extra fun from "going there" really worth driving the Player B's out of the game?

Is exploring-the-dark-aspects really that much more fun for the Player A's that it's worth it?

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-07, 01:50 PM
Utilitarian question: If Player A, on the explore-dark-aspects side, and Player B, on the no-icky-in-my-elfgames side, are in the same gaming group, is the extra fun from "going there" really worth driving the Player B's out of the game?

Is exploring-the-dark-aspects really that much more fun for the Player A's that it's worth it?

It depends on how it's done, actually.

I actually played in a game with another player who was definitely more on the B side when it came to life in general, that incorpated rape in a major subplot.

That player was specifically told to say if she couldn't handle it. And in the end, she said it was actually alright.
-----------------------------------------------------------

But of course, this is all a pure hypothetical that assumes there will always be someone like Player B in every game. So!

OverdrivePrime
2013-10-07, 02:07 PM
It depends on how it's done, actually.

I actually played in a game with another player who was definitely more on the B side when it came to life in general, that incorpated rape in a major subplot.

That player was specifically told to say if she couldn't handle it. And in the end, she said it was actually alright.
-----------------------------------------------------------

But of course, this is all a pure hypothetical that assumes there will always be someone like Player B in every game. So!

I think that's a good and healthy approach, honestly. I've played in some pretty dark games that were a lot of fun, but there was the disclaimer there that we could be going somewhere uncomfortable. It's when people aren't given prior warning that I think exploring the dark can get really bad.

The angriest I've ever been at a GM/ST was when we were playing Immortal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal:_The_Invisible_War) (which encourages players to play as themselves, something my group took seriously), and the ST out of nowhere had an enemy group kidnap and torture my character's girlfriend. This was also my real-life fiance, and he went into stomach-churning detail about the torture.

I left the game for quite a while, and came back after a lengthy discussion about boundaries with the GM. I don't mind my character getting tortured, but leave the people I love out of it!

Gavran
2013-10-07, 02:11 PM
Two things:

1) I used to think suicide-by-mind-control was a cool power for evil guys to have. My brother shot himself 13 months ago, and now scenes like
Saren or the Illusive Man defying reaper control by taking their lives or the end of the "Possession" Vigor in Bioshock: Infinite drive me away and to a very dismal mental state. Despite the fact that I thoroughly love everything else about both of those things. It is not very rational, but having experienced the severity of it I agree that it's probably worth avoiding things that you know any of your groups may be "survivors" of.

2) As someone who has never experienced anything anywhere near sexual abuse* I have absolutely zero interest in exploring rape in an RPG. I am largely apathetic towards it (in RPGs / fiction), and provided it didn't seem like it was weirdly targeted to a player (i.e. NPCs are raped) my only objection would be that it's a waste of time that should be spent having fun. And kinda awkward, at best. I bring all this up not to say that it's totally okay, but to emphasize how much of a... non-issue it is, and has been for me. I want to emphasize that, because I theorize that the people who do have strong feelings about it (either it's definitely not okay, not ever, and the DM is a horrible human being etc. etc. OR that it is okay and ought to be used in an RPG) are in fact, survivors of some kind of sexual abuse themselves. It is a known fact that the human mind often attempts to reenact traumatic experiences from the past. For me, looking at this in all in that light, and at the parallels to my own trauma explains a lot of what looks like irrationality to me.


*Defined as the performing of sex acts that I didn't want / that I resisted. Interestingly I think a lot of the more vocal posters on this subject might actually classify one event in my past as rape, or attempted rape, though I would never call it that myself at all. Probably completely inappropriate for discussion on this forum though.

Hyena
2013-10-07, 02:13 PM
While I have no problems with rape and torture depicted in game, as long as it's treated as what it is - something worse then murder (because you can justify the murder if you try hard enough), something that shouldn't go unpunished and is a sign of a clear villainy. But there is one special case I want to mention.
In one game I observed, one PC was raped by the rest of the party. It was played for laughs by everyone involved, including "the victim". It actually horrified me very much, because... Duh, man. It's rape played for laughs. I didn't know how I'm supposed to even to talk to these people for quite some time afterwards. It happened three years ago, and I still have this bad taste in my mouth when I remember it.

Gavran
2013-10-07, 02:25 PM
Rape isn't and can't be worse than murder. Rape is the momentary loss of control (and potential lifelong consequences.) Murder is the permanent loss of everything. The only reason murder can be justified and rape can't is because raping someone who is going to kill you won't stop them from killing people. You can take a life to save lives. You can't rape a rapist to prevent rapes.

Rape is thoroughly awful, but let's try for a moment to see through the desensitization and remember that murder is the most awful thing there is.

I couldn't imagine having a loved one that was murdered, I'd probably become a complete hermit to avoid the constant desensitized attitudes (that I myself perpetuate) toward it.

Themrys
2013-10-07, 02:30 PM
I want to emphasize that, because I theorize that the people who do have strong feelings about it (either it's definitely not okay, not ever, and the DM is a horrible human being etc. etc. OR that it is okay and ought to be used in an RPG) are in fact, survivors of some kind of sexual abuse themselves. It is a known fact that the human mind often attempts to reenact traumatic experiences from the past. For me, looking at this in all in that light, and at the parallels to my own trauma explains a lot of what looks like irrationality to me.

Well, I think one doesn't have to be a survivor of that kind of thing to be opposed to it being used as wallpaper (although ... how many women have not at least experienced sexual harassment?) and I do think there is a third possibility why someone could strongly want rape to happen in a game, and those are people I don't want to have anything to do with. You know what I mean.

Whereas someone wanting to reenact their traumatic experience in order to this time be able to do something about it, would have my sympathy and even possible okay if they don't want a graphic description. (The other kind of coping, namely reenacting it in order to make it seem okay, I would not allow, for obvious reasons)
After all, we're all doing that in one way or the other, even if it's only reenacting the "We're social outcasts" scenario to then go on to become famous heroes. :smallwink:


Edit: Regarding the question whether rape is worse than murder, I guess it depends on circumstances. Some rape victims kill themselves, which strongly hints to the fact that to them, it actually was worse than murder.

And, true, murder is sometimes necessary. Only that in that case it's no longer called murder, but self-defense.

@Hyena: You actually witnessed that? Ow. I think I saw a youtube video once, where a player did that to another player (or more precisely, his beloved character) who was ... not amused in the slightest. I thought it horrible.

Hyena
2013-10-07, 02:31 PM
You can take a life to save lives. You can't rape a rapist to prevent rapes
My point exactly.

Tim Proctor
2013-10-07, 02:41 PM
Okay, so murder is completely different than self-defense or killing in order to save other lives. There is a big difference between murder and killing.

There was a comment about how a love potion is a form of rape, it certainly seems similar enough to date rape drugs to be called into question here.

Then there are issues with mind controlling entities, specifically in the HoH book for 3.5 where it talks about mind flayers having massive orgies with their slaves because they sense a portion of that and ten slaves all having an orgy together is a euphoric feeling for them. This is in a similar situation where you have forced sex, i.e. rape.

What about barbarians hordes that invade towns and villages, do they rape when they loot as would be historically accurate?

What about slavery in games, where the master can force himself on slaves and its not legally rape but still forced sex and technically rape?

I've never been in a game where any rape scenes were acted out, described graphically, etc. I think that would cross my tolerance as that would start to be some sick fetish. If a counsellor was doing so in a game environment for therapy that is something different, but I am not a counsellor and think that a player wanting therapy via gaming should seek one.

AgentofHellfire
2013-10-07, 02:42 PM
Edit: Regarding the question whether rape is worse than murder, I guess it depends on circumstances. Some rape victims kill themselves, which strongly hints to the fact that to them, it actually was worse than murder.

Though I can emphatically say I haven't been raped or anything like that, I've thought a lot about this and I think the severe end of traumatic brain injury and/or dementia is probably the worst of all fates.

Because, I mean, you're technically still alive, but you've lost all the stuff that defines you as you.


And, true, murder is sometimes necessary. Only that in that case it's no longer called murder, but self-defense.


Well, there's also the utilitarian-style, "kill one to save 10" murder...

Gavran
2013-10-07, 03:14 PM
Yes rape is always unjustifiable. That doesn't mean the unjustified taking of a life is ever better, though I suppose I should probably stay away from absolutes.

And it's a fair point that murder implies non-justified by itself (though it doesn't quite guarantee it, unless you believe the justice system is flawless.)

The suicide then is still a choice made by the individual. It's deeply tragic that those people would think that it's necessary, but they at least had the potential to recover and live a good life.

But to get back on track, as I said, I just don't see any reason for it to be in the game at all. Short of, perhaps, a therapeutic approach that I don't have the authority to say would actually be helpful - and that certainly shouldn't be attempted by amateurs, and definitely not in a group that includes people playing just for fun.

ellindsey
2013-10-07, 03:38 PM
Before I started GMing my current campaign, I asked each player in private if they had any events or themes that they would prefer I never have in the campaign. Two of the players in my current game have been raped, and requested that I avoid that. As a result of that, rape is not a thing that will ever be occurring in my campaign. At all. Just doesn't happen, not something that even evil people decide to do. You may think that's horribly unrealistic, but this is a world with dragons and magic in it.

None of the players in my game have ever been murdered, so that's still quite possible to have happen. And nobody has ever had their bodies stitched together into a monstrosity animated by negative energy by a necromancer, nor requested that I avoid that as a scene, so even though that's also quite horrible it's something that can turn up.

The way I see it it's not so much a matter of one being worse than the other, than simply working with my players to make a game that's enjoyable for everyone, and part of that is finding out beforehand if there are any bad triggers that they'd be happier if I avoided.

Though honestly even if nobody at the gaming table had a problem with it, I still wouldn't be making rape a common event in my games, merely because I'm not terribly comfortable with it. Fantasy horrors like the undead abomination mentioned above are easier to deal with than real-life horrors that happen every day. At best it might be something I have had happen to some NPCs during a particularly horrible war or something.

Boci
2013-10-07, 04:03 PM
To the "rape is wrong no ifs, ands or buts" crows:

What about games where rape is very, very very heavily implied in core mechanics, like Vampire the Masquerade, where feeding a mortal vampire blood on 3 separate nights causes them to fall madly and near unconditionally in love with the vampire whose blood they drank? (And werewolf: the apocalypse to a lesser extent with their animal magnetism, which applies to humans as well).

What do you feel about those games, and the people who play them?

OverdrivePrime
2013-10-07, 04:11 PM
To the "rape is wrong no ifs, ands or buts" crows:

What about games where rape is very, very very heavily implied in core mechanics, like Vampire the Masquerade, where feeding a mortal vampire blood on 3 separate nights causes them to fall madly and near unconditionally in love with the vampire whose blood they drank? (And werewolf: the apocalypse to a lesser extent with their animal magnetism, which applies to humans as well).

What do you feel about those games, and the people who play them?

My discomfort with the effects of the blood bond, as well as all the wacky garbage you can pull with thaumaturgy, to say nothing of the power of Dominate and Presence are why I stopped playing V:tM back in the late 90s. My characters were continually put in a position that I wasn't comfortable with - either I'd be dominated/compelled to perform some action, or be bound to stand by and watch while higher generation vampires did something reprehensible. I stopped playing, and my friendship with the people who ran those games or played those characters has worn sorely thin over the years, though we run in the same broader social circle and keep up with each other over facebook.

Oddly, this ONLY came up in my experience in Vampire. Not Changeling, not Mage (where with the mind sphere you'd think there'd be all sorts of villainous vehavior), and definitely not Werewolf. I still play Werewolf every once in a blue moon, but it would take quite a lot to bring me back to a Vampire table.

Boci
2013-10-07, 04:19 PM
My discomfort with the effects of the blood bond, as well as all the wacky garbage you can pull with thaumaturgy, to say nothing of the power of Dominate and Presence are why I stopped playing V:tM back in the late 90s. My characters were continually put in a position that I wasn't comfortable with - either I'd be dominated/compelled to perform some action, or be bound to stand by and watch while higher generation vampires did something reprehensible. I stopped playing, and my friendship with the people who ran those games or played those characters has worn sorely thin over the years, though we run in the same broader social circle and keep up with each other over facebook.

Oddly, this ONLY came up in my experience in Vampire. Not Changeling, not Mage (where with the mind sphere you'd think there'd be all sorts of villainous vehavior), and definitely not Werewolf. I still play Werewolf every once in a blue moon, but it would take quite a lot to bring me back to a Vampire table.

Regarding the mind magic thing: its not the same. Any game with mind influencing magic will allow for that, but equally so will super strength, so mage doesn't deserve noteworthy attention. If anything its less likely to happen in D&D, because of the less reliable magic system.

Regarding falling out with players: fair enough if that's your personal experience, but what do you feel about vampire players as a whole? Do you think your personal experience accurately speaks for everyone who plays the game?

Black Jester
2013-10-07, 04:28 PM
I already gave an example in the part of my post you didn't bother to respond to.

But... I did respond to it. That was the part about personal sensitivities. Sure, there are some topics or issues which are more or less comfortable, but that, again, is good. Sometimes a good story requires to leave the comfort zone and go for the darker places. Avoiding all confrontations because they are, essentially confrontational, leads to nothing but boredom and mediocrity.
And not to forget: little I do as a GM or pretty much any more risky issue that appears in any RPG game ever is any worse than what you find in a history book or a news magazine. How could anyone who cannot deal with any issue in the safe and playful environment of an RPG be expected to face the very same non-fictional examples in real life?

Of course there are uncomfortable issues. And most of them are uncomfortable for very good reasons. But: avoiding them through mere escapism is not a viable way to deal with the issue permanently.
That again, links to the maturity issue. Willful ignorance of potentially non-harmonious or slightly inconvenient events, traits and occurrences is in its key essence a trait of immaturity.

Like all fiction, roleplaying games are mostly harmless anyway. It's fiction, after all. The deaths aren't real. There is no need for censorship (and yes, anyone who argues for the exclusion of one issue or the other on principle basically argues for more censorship). I am certainly not using any atrocity I can think of as plot material, especially because I think that any issue relevant enough to argue about also deserves a very careful and appropriate presentation and I am sure I cannot provide that in many cases (rape being the one that is perhaps the most frequently discussed).
I don't even like to use the more touchy stories too frequently, because any good tale needs their highs and lows and I don't like using something anything for mere gratuitous shock value. But, at least in theory, there are no taboos when it comes to the selection of issues, and just because it is hard to make an appropriate, good RPG while including issues like rape, genocide or pandemics doesn't mean that it is impossible or that you shouldn't do it because you could perhaps ruffle some feathers.


That's hilarious. You didn't expect me to read the rest of your post after that, did you? Because I absolutely didn't.

Yes, because the arguments of people who have another opinion than yourself are automatically worthless. If you want to reflect and strengthen your position and general perspective, don't discuss with the people who basically agree with you anyway. I read your contributions to this discussion carefully. I don't share your perspective - obviously -but at least I consider it and I won't ridicule it solely on the base that it doesn't fit my worldview.

OverdrivePrime
2013-10-07, 04:35 PM
Regarding falling out with players: fair enough if that's your personal experience, but what do you feel about vampire players as a whole? Do you think your personal experience accurately speaks for everyone who plays the game?

Certainly not. Just as not everyone who owns a chef's knife is a mugger, not everyone who plays Vampire will play it the same way. When I played Vampire with my original game group, we spent at least a year before one of the players started exploring some of the more twisted (from my perspective) uses of her power. With my college Vampire group, that's just how it always was. I was a 10th gen social Gangrel who wandered into a primogen-focused game.

At some point, playing vampire started making me sad and uncomfortable. So I stopped. I'm pretty sure there are many, many vampire players out there that just keep it about the blood and politics and don't spend game time exploring themes of mental and physical dominance/control or more extreme things.
I do tend to judge habitual Tremere players pretty harshly, but that's probably because I usually played a Gangrel.

Boci
2013-10-07, 04:39 PM
So I stopped. I'm pretty sure there are many, many vampire players out there that just keep it about the blood and politics and don't spend game time exploring themes of mental and physical dominance/control or more extreme things.
I do tend to judge habitual Tremere players pretty harshly, but that's probably because I usually played a Gangrel.

I'm confused on your stance here. Are you saying its not wrong to enjoy Vampire: The Masquerade, as long as it is played in a manner you don't find twisted? Because that's what I'm getting. What do you think about groups that do "exploring themes of mental and physical dominance/control"?

Themrys
2013-10-07, 04:41 PM
To the "rape is wrong no ifs, ands or buts" crows:

What about games where rape is very, very very heavily implied in core mechanics, like Vampire the Masquerade, where feeding a mortal vampire blood on 3 separate nights causes them to fall madly and near unconditionally in love with the vampire whose blood they drank? (And werewolf: the apocalypse to a lesser extent with their animal magnetism, which applies to humans as well).

What do you feel about those games, and the people who play them?

Well, actually, I do play a witch character in a game (Das Schwarze Auge) where witches have a spell that basically forces (although there is the possibility of resistance if someone has sworn chastity or is not attracted to the witch's gender, this is a matter of how the dice fall) a person to have sex with the witch, and give her all their health and magic regeneration for that night. It would be a useful spell from a powergamer's point of view.

Needless to say, my witch does not know that spell. I want to play a hero, after all.

Now, I do strongly dislike that element of the game, but I don't have to use it, and it nowhere says that one should.


If I played VtM, I would just request that this blood feed thing does not turn up in the game. I assume that other players do the same, therefore I do not judge people for liking the game.

Games are there to have fun with them, so I see no reason to include things from the core mechanics if you don't like them. I don't know whether you need that blood-feed-thing in VtM to turn mortals into vampires, but even if ... you could always houserule the rapey aspects out of it and change the mind control or a vampire-turned-mortal to the kind Durkula was subjected to by Malack.

Of course, some games encourage you to play reprehensible people, and that may make already existing problems with the other players worse, but it's not absolute.

OverdrivePrime
2013-10-07, 04:47 PM
I'm confused on your stance here. Are you saying its not wrong to enjoy Vampire: The Masquerade, as long as it is played in a manner you don't find twisted? Because that's what I'm getting. What do you think about groups that do "exploring themes of mental and physical dominance/control"?
It squicks me out, makes me feel sad inside, and I'd rather not hear about their adventures.
It's not wrong for someone else to play those games, but it is definitely wrong for me to. I'm not the game police - if you wanna play dark, play dark and have fun.
I just don't want to be at that table... and I would be careful about joining in other games with that crowd unless the campaigns were explicitly lighter.

Boci
2013-10-07, 04:51 PM
If I played VtM, I would just request that this blood feed thing does not turn up in the game. I assume that other players do the same, therefore I do not judge people for liking the game.

Unlikely to work. The blood bond is a major aspect of the game and the entire world would be vastly different without it, as vampires would not be able to control the humans nearly as well. But you could house rule it to be less about love and more about respect and obedience, but again many players won't like that.


Games are there to have fun with them, so I see no reason to include things from the core mechanics if you don't like them. I don't know whether you need that blood-feed-thing in VtM to turn mortals into vampires, but even if ... you could always houserule the rapey aspects out of it and change the mind control or a vampire-turned-mortal to the kind Durkula was subjected to by Malack.

Any vampire created will be 1st level blood bonded to their sire (so close friend). Second drink is lover, third drink is pretty much slave.


Of course, some games encourage you to play reprehensible people, and that may make already existing problems with the other players worse, but it's not absolute.

It is meant to be a mature RPG, for that and other reasons (loss of control, insanity and loss of humanity, ect).

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-07, 04:53 PM
Utilitarian question: If Player A, on the explore-dark-aspects side, and Player B, on the no-icky-in-my-elfgames side, are in the same gaming group, is the extra fun from "going there" really worth driving the Player B's out of the game?

Is exploring-the-dark-aspects really that much more fun for the Player A's that it's worth it?

I fail to see how that question is relevant to what I said and is anything save a Strawman since I already initially said in this thread that I only believe such topics should be approached by a group that is alright with approaching and handling those topics and that I also respect that this isn't the case with all groups.

I also mentioned that I fail to respect individuals who call the morals into questions of those groups and individuals who don't have the same hang ups as those who do have said hang ups.

Boci
2013-10-07, 04:54 PM
It squicks me out, makes me feel sad inside, and I'd rather not hear about their adventures.
It's not wrong for someone else to play those games, but it is definitely wrong for me to. I'm not the game police - if you wanna play dark, play dark and have fun.
I just don't want to be at that table... and I would be careful about joining in other games with that crowd unless the campaigns were explicitly lighter.

Maybe its just wishful thinking on my behalf, but since I mentioned a game where such a thing is included in the core mechanics, you seem to have gone from "Why would you even bring that level of repulsive horror into your game?!" to "its not my cup of tea, but its their choice to include it".

Themrys
2013-10-07, 05:15 PM
Maybe its just wishful thinking on my behalf, but since I mentioned a game where such a thing is included in the core mechanics, you seem to have gone from "Why would you even bring that level of repulsive horror into your game?!" to "its not my cup of tea, but its their choice to include it".

That's not actually a difference in opinion. I can well ask myself why someone would even want to do something, and still think that it's their choice.

Actually, it IS their choice - what can I do about it, break into their houses and steal their dice, or what?

I only tell people on the internet what I don't like in RPGs, so that they know that there ARE people who dislike that, and they shouldn't assume everyone likes it. Not in any hope that I can change what other people want to bring into their game. (I am largely disillusioned regarding internet discussions. People never change their opinion. Never.)

OverdrivePrime
2013-10-07, 05:16 PM
Maybe its just wishful thinking on my behalf, but since I mentioned a game where such a thing is included in the core mechanics, you seem to have gone from "Why would you even bring that level of repulsive horror into your game?!" to "its not my cup of tea, but its their choice to include it".

A fair point, and my answer might not satisfy you. I'm doing my best to give rational responses to something I'm normally pretty emotional about. Here goes:

A lot of the basic ideas and rules of Vampire creep me out, but I don't believe that rape and violation are central to the game. Just because it is a game that easily facilitates storytelling about violation and loss of control doesn't mean that's the only way it can be played. It's pretty easy to use a hammer to bash in someone's head, but that doesn't mean that you should be afraid of carpenters.

If the game is centrally about physical and mental violation, then that gets my "repulsive horror" response.
If the game is centrally about struggling against one's inner demons, winning some, losing a lot, and having the threat of mental and physical violation constantly held over one's head... then the game is not my cup of tea.

Boci
2013-10-07, 05:19 PM
That's not actually a difference in opinion.

No, but the wording of it has become less harsh.



If the game is centrally about struggling against one's inner demons, winning some, losing a lot, and having the threat of mental and physical violation constantly held over one's head... then the game is not my cup of tea.

Fair enough, although strictly speaking V:tM is about having the threat of violation over someone else's head, not yours. You just have to worry about losing your humanity, becoming a pawn in the Jyhad, losing to your instincts...

LongVin
2013-10-07, 05:26 PM
But... I did respond to it. That was the part about personal sensitivities. Sure, there are some topics or issues which are more or less comfortable, but that, again, is good. Sometimes a good story requires to leave the comfort zone and go for the darker places. Avoiding all confrontations because they are, essentially confrontational, leads to nothing but boredom and mediocrity.
And not to forget: little I do as a GM or pretty much any more risky issue that appears in any RPG game ever is any worse than what you find in a history book or a news magazine. How could anyone who cannot deal with any issue in the safe and playful environment of an RPG be expected to face the very same non-fictional examples in real life?

Of course there are uncomfortable issues. And most of them are uncomfortable for very good reasons. But: avoiding them through mere escapism is not a viable way to deal with the issue permanently.
That again, links to the maturity issue. Willful ignorance of potentially non-harmonious or slightly inconvenient events, traits and occurrences is in its key essence a trait of immaturity.

Like all fiction, roleplaying games are mostly harmless anyway. It's fiction, after all. The deaths aren't real. There is no need for censorship (and yes, anyone who argues for the exclusion of one issue or the other on principle basically argues for more censorship). I am certainly not using any atrocity I can think of as plot material, especially because I think that any issue relevant enough to argue about also deserves a very careful and appropriate presentation and I am sure I cannot provide that in many cases (rape being the one that is perhaps the most frequently discussed).
I don't even like to use the more touchy stories too frequently, because any good tale needs their highs and lows and I don't like using something anything for mere gratuitous shock value. But, at least in theory, there are no taboos when it comes to the selection of issues, and just because it is hard to make an appropriate, good RPG while including issues like rape, genocide or pandemics doesn't mean that it is impossible or that you shouldn't do it because you could perhaps ruffle some feathers.



Yes, because the arguments of people who have another opinion than yourself are automatically worthless. If you want to reflect and strengthen your position and general perspective, don't discuss with the people who basically agree with you anyway. I read your contributions to this discussion carefully. I don't share your perspective - obviously -but at least I consider it and I won't ridicule it solely on the base that it doesn't fit my worldview.

Your post reminds me of something I read a few months back about George R.R. Martin.

As I assume everyone knows that he is the writer of a Song of Ice and Fire(Game of Thrones in laymans) and shall we say he writes some things that could make people uncomfortable or downright freaked out.

In the article Martin explains how he received a letter from a fan stating that he was very upset with the content of the book and that he read as he reads to escape the real world and doesn't want to be reminded of horrible things and he would never read another book of his again. GRRM said that while he was sad to lose a fan, he wouldn't change what he wrote and that, that someone got such an emotional response from his book it actually meant he succeeded as a writer.

A writer/artists job is to elicit emotion in the audience. Whether it is joy, sadness, horror, envy or an array of emotions. An artist succeeds at his craft when his work raises these emotions in people, maybe in a way that they weren't necessarily comfortable with, but it makes them think about the work and makes it more poignant.

And, we can count the DM as an artist. He is creating a world in which the players are population and is attempting to elicit a response from them. And, I don't think we should discount the role of the DM as an artist because of the medium, because a good DM can make you legitimately and emotionally feel attached to characters in the game.

Now, that is not to say you should just include things for the "shock value" of having something horrible done within the game world. It dilutes it and makes it meaningless.

Like in a good horror movie, fear and apprehension is more powerful than just having endless buckets of blood. If you can get inside the audience's mind and exploit their fears it creates a much more visceral experience for the audience as they are just as concerned for the characters as the characters themselves.

johnbragg
2013-10-07, 05:32 PM
I fail to see how that question is relevant to what I said and is anything save a Strawman since I already initially said in this thread that I only believe such topics should be approached by a group that is alright with approaching and handling those topics and that I also respect that this isn't the case with all groups.


You did say that. I'm sorry I used you and probably misconstrued you to make a point. (But incidentally, that means your answer would be "no it's not worth it" if people in the group weren't comfortable with it.)

Themrys
2013-10-07, 05:44 PM
GRRM said that while he was sad to lose a fan, he wouldn't change what he wrote and that, that someone got such an emotional response from his book it actually meant he succeeded as a writer.

I don't think he does, actually. He uses rape and torture. That's more or less shorthand for "horrible, horrible, horrible". You easily get emotional responses with that, even if you're not much of a writer.

Actually, I read one of his books, was disgusted by all the rape and never touched one of his books again. I did not care about the characters. I was not in the least interested in what happened to them next.

Patricia Briggs, on the other hand, managed to write a book where almost all main characters are raped, one of them kept under an obedience-spell from his childhood onward (and raped), one very likable person dies ... and I still like the book - and love the main characters.
That is art.

However, talking about emotional responses, I have more respect for authors who get emotional responses without anything horrible happening. Ms. Briggs handles the rapes appropriately, but I don't think she needs them to get an emotional response.

There are authors who can make readers cry about an old woman dying at the end of her natural lifespan. THIS is proof that the readers cared.

LongVin
2013-10-07, 05:53 PM
I don't think he does, actually. He uses rape and torture. That's more or less shorthand for "horrible, horrible, horrible". You easily get emotional responses with that, even if you're not much of a writer.



I think it depends how you use it. If it is just for the shock value of wanted to include torture and be like, "oh then he was tortured" and then later on "and tortured again..." ad nausuem. While the first time it happens you're going to get an emotional response, probably the second time, and maybe the third time, but after that you're going to just be like "yeah. so I guess this guy is getting tortured now." While he does use torture a lot, I think it works with the story and there are characters that are likeable, who you generally want to succeed, of course there are some characters who you are kinda happy when they get tortured because they were horrible creatures up to that point.

Going back to horror movies it is like how the Saw series fails. You just become desensitized to all the blood and torture. It is like "yeah...more of the same." It is going to freak you the **** out the first or second time, but after that meh.

Now, if we compare that to a psychological horror movie, say the original house on haunted hill, you are kept on edge throughout the movie because it uses the scary stuff properly and doesn't just go for the shock.

I'm going to check out Briggs work. Never read any of her stuff.

Themrys
2013-10-07, 06:02 PM
I think it depends how you use it. If it is just for the shock value of wanted to include torture and be like, "oh then he was tortured" and then later on "and tortured again..." ad nausuem. While the first time it happens you're going to get an emotional response, probably the second time, and maybe the third time, but after that you're going to just be like "yeah. so I guess this guy is getting tortured now." While he does use torture a lot, I think it works with the story and there are characters that are likeable, who you generally want to succeed, of course there are some characters who you are kinda happy when they get tortured because they were horrible creatures up to that point.


Well, to me, Martin's books are exactly that: Torture heaped on torture, heaped on more torture, until I shut down my emotions out of self-defense.

The book by Briggs I was talking about was "Dragon Bones" ... I was surprised I wanted to continue reading it, to be honest, but there were enough nice things between the bad things, so it evened out, somewhat.

Tanuki Tales
2013-10-07, 07:00 PM
You did say that. I'm sorry I used you and probably misconstrued you to make a point. (But incidentally, that means your answer would be "no it's not worth it" if people in the group weren't comfortable with it.)

Yes. I would never force situations into a game that I knew made my players uncomfortable, nor would I introduce "charged" topic into a game without getting the group's opinion first.

A GM/DM does not cater to one part of their group if they know if it's at the expense of another part to such a degree. You can't make everyone happy and not everything is what everyone else would call "fun", but you should always strive to find a happy medium where everyone (yourself included) are having fun and no one feels like an outsider at the table or that leaving is the next correct action to their discomfort with how the game is running.

Scow2
2013-10-07, 08:14 PM
That's hilarious. You didn't expect me to read the rest of your post after that, did you? Because I absolutely didn't.

A GM is not a different kind of person in the world where I live. A GM simply is a person who was decided on as being the best suited to doing a certain job by everyone else in the group. It's like democracy, only that you can get voted out of office every time the group meets, not just every few years.

It gets even better: People who don't like what you do, but cannot get the others to agree with them, can just walk out and find another group, without having to learn a new language or find a new job.

You really should keep that in mind. You're just embarassing yourself by deluding yourself that as GM you're somehow inherently more worthy or important than mere players.
I guess it's the "master" in the word "gamemaster", isn't it? Encourages delusions of grandeur.You are in a truly privileged situation if each one of your players in a group has the skill and system mastery to pull off DMing a game. Without a DM, there is no game. Willing players tend to VASTLY outnumber willing DMs, and thus a DM has a LOT more leeway in selecting who he or she has play with him, making the choice between "Is this DM so bad that I'm better off not playing with him" much harder for a player than the choice a DM has to make with "Is this player so incompatible with my original campaign idea and themes that it's not worth playing with him?"

Of course... it all comes down to demographics. In some places, there IS a better blend of DMs to players, so you DON'T have to put up with disagreeable DMs and players and still play the game, and everything's a lot healthier.

The point I'm trying to make is... you're both right, depending on where you are.

Roland St. Jude
2013-10-07, 11:59 PM
Sheriff: Locked for review.