PDA

View Full Version : What to Watch Out for in Your Players



Pages : [1] 2

Rerem115
2018-06-22, 08:36 PM
Problem players. Everybody knows about them. We've all seen them. Heck, maybe we've even BEEN them. In the relatively short time that I've been both a player and a DM, these are some of the red flags I've seen in problem players.




Thinks that "lol, i so random" is both funny and sufficient characterization
Steals from party members in game
Steals from party members irl
Tries to solve a problem by seducing it
Plays a character that does not match their gender
Has ever forced the DM to roll for pregnancy
Drow
Gives you a handwritten 15 page backstory, or links you to their Tumblr and tells you it's in there somewhere
Uses the word "sexy" to describe their character on a regular basis
Insists on using a class they found on dandwiki
Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory
Insists on using anything they found on dandwiki
Asks to play a class focused on crafting
Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise
Dual Wielding
Katanas
Dual Wielding Katanas



What about you guys? What are your major signs that something isn't right in you party?

kraitmarais
2018-06-22, 08:50 PM
A player who names their character after a character from a different franchise, e.g. Gandalf, Rand, Mileena, etc. Red flag for a problem player.

JoshuaZ
2018-06-22, 09:21 PM
Problem players. Everybody knows about them. We've all seen them. Heck, maybe we've even BEEN them. In the relatively short time that I've been both a player and a DM, these are some of the red flags I've seen in problem players.




Tries to solve a problem by seducing it
Plays a character that does not match their gender
Gives you a handwritten 15 page backstory, or links you to their Tumblr and tells you it's in there somewhere
Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory




Curiously, all of the ones I've included in this quote were done by some extent with one of my players. The player was male. They made a female character with a long (but very nicely typed and entertaining backstory) which made them the lost heir of the ancient dynasty in the major empire. They were a female because they had a metagame goal of eventually marrying the Emperor of the current dynasty (who in the setting was not married and needed an heir). Their character was wonderfully built, using many things from the setting and helped flush many things out with their backstory. The player did a really excellent job of keeping the whole party together and generally on-track. So, yeah, things can be warning signs, but one should keep in mind they really are just warning signs.

Saintheart
2018-06-22, 09:34 PM
Drow


In game, or in real life?

Rerem115
2018-06-22, 09:40 PM
Drow





In game, or in real life?


Yes.


In all seriousness, though, all the people I've seen play drow either wanted to be sadistic puppy eating (in one case, literally) dillweeds, or else they were oh so tortured loners who were misunderstood by literally everyone, and just wanted to mope and be tragic whenever anybody noticed them.

Lord Raziere
2018-06-22, 09:52 PM
some of these "warning signs" don't seem like warning signs at all to me, just character traits that people associate with bad players but are just traits that can be used good or bad. so I'm leery of this list.

Rerem115
2018-06-22, 10:05 PM
I never said that this was by any means perfect or a definitive guide, these are just the traits that the problem players I've experienced possessed. Most of these traits are reasonably innocuous on their own but they provide fault lines that when exaggerated or done poorly, were real breaking points within the gaming group.

For example, the problem wasn't that one of the characters seduced a nobleman in town, it was that the player absolutely needed to know if she was pregnant. Like, pitched a minor fit, and made the DM roll. And then, it happened when the party got to the next town. And the next. Again, it wasn't that there was seduction present; it was the undue focus that was placed upon it that was the real issue.

JoshuaZ
2018-06-22, 10:24 PM
I never said that this was by any means perfect or a definitive guide, these are just the traits that the problem players I've experienced possessed. Most of these traits are reasonably innocuous on their own but they provide fault lines that when exaggerated or done poorly, were real breaking points within the gaming group.

For example, the problem wasn't that one of the characters seduced a nobleman in town, it was that the player absolutely needed to know if she was pregnant. Like, pitched a minor fit, and made the DM roll. And then, it happened when the party got to the next town. And the next. Again, it wasn't that there was seduction present; it was the undue focus that was placed upon it that was the real issue.

Complete agreement. I wanted to make essentially that sort of point essentially explicit.

Algeh
2018-06-23, 12:44 AM
Tries to solve a problem by seducing it





In character or out of character? (Both are problems, but they are different problems.)




Plays a character that does not match their gender




I do this on purpose with new/pickup groups, actually. It clarifies a lot for me when one of their characters starts hitting on my character and I can reply with something like "BeardAxe scratches his beard thoughtfully, dislodging some of the remains of dinner that he was saving in case he got peckish later, and says 'well laddie, I'm not sure if I'm getting your drift or not, but it may be I should warn ye that I drift a different way'" or something of the kind to help figure out if what they're actually trying to do is pick me up out-of-game starting with in-game pick-up lines (which is on my own personal "problem player" list, generally). Playing a male character is the equivalent to putting up a big "I'm not looking for an awkwardly-handled in-game romance plot" sign in my experience, and I definitely prefer to leave games with romance plots to groups of people I've already filtered for problematic behavior rather than new/pick-up groups. (If they're still interested in a romance plot after being reminded of the player/character gender mis-match and try an approach vaguely appropriate to trying to pick up the character rather than me, that's not an automatic problem. I just don't go for RL subtext presented in-game like that, since it almost always leads to problems both in-game and out-of-game.)

Cluedrew
2018-06-23, 07:42 AM
I agree with the general idea of warning signs vs. an actual problem. I remember one campaign I played what appeared to be a gender-swapped version of a character who had destroyed the last campaign. It went wonderfully.

Ones I would add:
Describes their character over and over again without adding details.
Can only describe their character mechanically.
Has trouble understanding why NPCs might not immediately do what their characters suggests.
Takes weaknesses and them makes sure they never come up.
Never considers what the other party might contribute to a situation or has to be reminded.
A couple of these rate pretty highly on my things to look out for. I guess my list different than the standard ones. I guess I haven't met too many who are bad in standard ways for whatever reason.

kraitmarais
2018-06-23, 08:37 AM
Has trouble understanding why NPCs might not immediately do what their characters suggests.


I’ve definitely gamed with players who seemed perplexed about why a really good Cha check didn’t produce approximately the same result as domination magic.

Faily
2018-06-23, 08:55 AM
Oh, you sweet summer child. I can tell it's only been a few years for you, but you know nothing of the true horrors of problem players.

... Mostly because a lot of the stuff on the list isn't actually really a problem for most games or gamers.




Thinks that "lol, i so random" is both funny and sufficient characterization (This tends to be a lot of beginner-gamers in my experience, especially when they're younger. They'll grow out of it)
Steals from party members in game (Same as above. Usually can be solved by talking to them and explaining that it's not cool)
Steals from party members irl (OK, this one is less a problem player and more of a "we have an actual ****ing horrible person here". Leave my house now or I call the cops.)
Tries to solve a problem by seducing it (I wouldn't call this a problem because our playgroups have had so many hilarious stories and situations coming from seductive-type characters. It's a different playstyle, that works better if everyone is more onboard with more mature themes)
Plays a character that does not match their gender (... Well, I better tell most players I know that they are problem players by wanting to crossplay? I think most people I game with have done it at some point)
Has ever forced the DM to roll for pregnancy (I... what? As in asking the GM if they have now impregnated something, or if they are pregnant? In general, I've been in groups where the GMs have rolled randomly for stuff like that, after all the players have given permission to be on board and comfortable with that sort of thing, but... I'm not quite sure what this one means?)
Drow (Really?)
Gives you a handwritten 15 page backstory, or links you to their Tumblr and tells you it's in there somewhere (the laziness of the latter is more of an issue than the former. With the former, I'd ask for the player to at least summarize it into bullet-points for me to start with)
Uses the word "sexy" to describe their character on a regular basis (What about other adjectives?)
Insists on using a class they found on dandwiki (This one I will agree with being a problem, because rarely does anything good come out of "I found it on the internet!")
Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory (I have, and have had players who have, been guilty of this... and still are. As long as it fits the group and the setting, I'm all good)
Insists on using anything they found on dandwiki (same as previous comment about "I found it on the internet!")
Asks to play a class focused on crafting (Not a bad thing. Some players enjoy the tinkerer-type and like to provide support to the group that way. Crafting is not a bad thing)
Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise (That is a problem, and should be adressed in why they do not want to partake in the adventure)
Dual Wielding (Dual-wielding is not an issue. Seriously. Sheesh...)
Katanas (Depends on the setting. If you're playing L5R, it's a must for any samurai. Or is this more of a trench-coat and katanas comment?)
Dual Wielding Katanas (Trench-coats and katanas again...?)

Quertus
2018-06-23, 09:36 AM
I never said that this was by any means perfect or a definitive guide, these are just the traits that the problem players I've experienced possessed. Most of these traits are reasonably innocuous on their own but they provide fault lines that when exaggerated or done poorly, were real breaking points within the gaming group.

For example, the problem wasn't that one of the characters seduced a nobleman in town, it was that the player absolutely needed to know if she was pregnant. Like, pitched a minor fit, and made the DM roll. And then, it happened when the party got to the next town. And the next. Again, it wasn't that there was seduction present; it was the undue focus that was placed upon it that was the real issue.

So, the situation could have been avoided if the GM had just, you know, checked for the possibility of pregnancy when it was first brought up. The problem was that the GM wasn't listening to the players.

Whenever there's a problem in a game, always check the GM's chair first - that's my motto.


What about you guys? What are your major signs that something isn't right in you party?

Well, most of your list doesn't even register on my "red flag" radar. Due to a bout of senility, I can't seem to remember what my main red flag - that I've even asked meta-level for help with on these forums - is.

I will say that players who cannot comprehend that there are multiple ways to play the game, and multiple sources of fun, tend to be problematic. And those who refuse to acknowledge that their play style is detrimental to the fun of others - or acknowledge it, but don't care - are beyond just a red flag.


dating stuff

I was going to reference a story another Playgrounder told, where playing a cross-gender character was literal lifesaver. I guess I'll add this story to my list of stolen acquired stories to tell regarding the benefits of cross-gender characters.

Kaptin Keen
2018-06-23, 10:05 AM
I’ve definitely gamed with players who seemed perplexed about why a really good Cha check didn’t produce approximately the same result as domination magic.

I know a girl who - on several separate occasions - has walked into a fashion fair, smiled prettily at a designer, and walked away with 1-2 original designer dresses over her arm, worth thousands of dollars, and paid not a dime. I doubt she's ever decided she wanted something, and not gotten it.

Beauty, above a certain mundane level, does things that you'd need magic to reproduce in real life.

Not saying you should allow it in-game for that reason. I just feel it's an interesting anecdote.

Cluedrew
2018-06-23, 10:41 AM
... Mostly because a lot of the stuff on the list isn't actually really a problem for most games or gamers.Remember: Warning flags. None of these things are going to be a problem (except the real life ones) but they can be hard to do right and some of the harmless ones more often come with problems. Still, if only problem is they only play cross-gender with twin weapons I would not be worried.


I’ve definitely gamed with players who seemed perplexed about why a really good Cha check didn’t produce approximately the same result as domination magic.
I know a girl who - on several separate occasions - has walked into a fashion fair, smiled prettily at a designer, and walked away with 1-2 original designer dresses over her arm, worth thousands of dollars, and paid not a dime. I doubt she's ever decided she wanted something, and not gotten it.The second post made me realize the magnitude of the issue I was referencing was a bit off. The character wasn't a socialite, they might have even dumped the social stats. Not that it mattered because they didn't try to use them.

PP: I go up to a the guy with some weapons and challenge him to a fight.
GM: He doesn't accept and continues walking...
PP: {Confused}

It was weird. I think the other case where social skills might just be a mismatch in how "powerful" a given stat is. Sort of like expecting to smash a bolder with your bare hands with high physical stats (it might be possible, depends on the system).

Telok
2018-06-23, 05:20 PM
1. Wants to play an evil murder-elf/half-demon/soul-sucking night horror in a setting were drow, tieflings, and undead are hunted down and killed on sight by all civilized races. (Did not read the first two sentences of the one page setting)

2. Has a completely filled out character sheet but cannot describe any aspect of the character's appearance, personality or goals. (Wants to play an in-person computer fighting game)

3. Does not have a filled out character sheet and cannot tell you what the abilities on the sheet do. (Does not read rules)

4. Wants to play an exact of a character from a book or movie and 'found a build online'. (Likes the idea of rpgs but probably hasn't thought about they're actually going to do)

5. A combination of two or three of the above after they have been playing for six or more months.

Jay R
2018-06-23, 11:17 PM
Dual Wielding Katanas

Yup, this is a problem. A samurai's two swords should be a katana and a wakizashi.

BlizzardSucks80
2018-06-24, 02:53 AM
1. Is an overly-vindictive player and plays an edgelord character who will give an extreme beatdown/humiliation to any NPC or other player character for even the smallest slights.

2. Doesn't listen and straight up ignores other players and generally belittles others and treats them like they are meaningless fools.

3. Is not open to new ideas and wants to stick to the same cookie-cutter formula of play and/or setting style.

4. Makes completely off-the-wall characters that the GM will have to sweat and work very hard to squeeze that character into the setting. Extra points if it is pro-bono or on the spot.
Extra points if the character is really hard to get along with or is a straight up monster freak that won't fit in very well in society.

5. Making a character that is a monstrous villain type that really has no business being a player character, and really should be an NPC villain.

6. Rolling the dice in a spot where the GM cannot see the actual die roll, and declaring the result without the GM actually knowing the result for certain. This usually results in lying about the actual result to gain advantage. Extra points if the dice roll takes place in a spot where the GM has to constantly lean over to see the actual die roll result, and after a while the GM really can't be bothered anymore and just accepts whatever the rolling player has said. Extra points if the dice keep rolling off onto the floor.

These are all things that annoy and frustrate the crap out of me both as a GM and a player. I know people aren't perfect, but over the years I have gotten quite cynical and jaded about tabletop games and as a result I'm just not as into them as I used to be. But for some reason I keep playing them anyway.

kyoryu
2018-06-24, 09:46 AM
The number one thing to watch for is an inability to compromise.

If there are class/race/whatever restrictions in you game, and the player unduly fights against them? Danger. Same if you decide to veto something on their character sheet, or in their background (make sure you're willing to compromise, too!)

Otherwise, I start watching for that inability to compromise as quickly as possible. And the smaller the thing, the better! If they can't compromise on buying shoes, they won't compromise when their character's life is on the line.

Most problems with players seem to stem from this. At its core it's a basic lack of empathy and will only create more and more issues down the road.

Quertus
2018-06-24, 10:12 AM
It still blows my mind that people want to cheat in TRPGs. Otoh it's widely accepted when GMs roll out of sight behind a screen and sometimes use that to be able to cheat, so it's hardly surprising that some players would think its okay.

I'm not a fan, but I think I understand the mindset. GMs cheat because they think that they know better than Arangee what would make a good story. By that logic, why shouldn't the players have the narrative power to overrule Arangee?

Personally, I want to come by my victories (and losses!) honest. I can't stand the GM cheating, the idea of 99.99% of the world running on narrativium just isn't worth interacting with. But another PC? Some small statistical anomaly like that may as well be a class feature. Myself, I'd be fine with all the players rolling behind a screen, and the GM rolling in the open.

VincentTakeda
2018-06-24, 10:43 AM
Problem players. Everybody knows about them. We've all seen them. Heck, maybe we've even BEEN them. In the relatively short time that I've been both a player and a DM, these are some of the red flags I've seen in problem players.




Thinks that "lol, i so random" is both funny and sufficient characterization
Steals from party members in game
Steals from party members irl
Tries to solve a problem by seducing it
Plays a character that does not match their gender
Has ever forced the DM to roll for pregnancy
Drow
Gives you a handwritten 15 page backstory, or links you to their Tumblr and tells you it's in there somewhere
Uses the word "sexy" to describe their character on a regular basis
Insists on using a class they found on dandwiki
Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory
Insists on using anything they found on dandwiki
Asks to play a class focused on crafting
Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise
Dual Wielding
Katanas
Dual Wielding Katanas



What about you guys? What are your major signs that something isn't right in you party?

Lets see....


Tries to solve a problem by seducing it GUILTY but never when playing a female character
Plays a character that does not match their gender GUILTY
Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory: sort of GUILTY. Played warhammer once and Noble was a starting class option. Oddly enough one of the few times I also played non matching gender. Most hillarious nobility related situation was when she referred to the dwarf in the party as "my dwarf"... He did a double take and indignantly remarked 'MY dwarf?'... I'm like well. She's a noble. Posessive perspective is sort of their natural state of mind.
Asks to play a class focused on crafting GUILTY but only in pathfinder.
Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise GUILTY
Katanas GUILTY but i'm leaning more towards bokkens and shakujo these days

Aneurin
2018-06-24, 04:46 PM
My big red flags? Probably these, in no particular order. And a few others that haven't come to mind, I'm sure.

These aren't things that'd flat out stop me playing with someone, of course, but they are things that would make me think carefully before agreeing to game with someone.



Someone using 'Good' or 'Evil' to describe their character's personality. Those words tell me absolutely nothing about how I can expect a character to act, and make me think that very little thought has been given to making a unique individual PC.

Large amounts of gore, sex and otherwise taboo subjects in a backstory. I once had a character submission whose background featured murder, incest and cannibalism (not that their character participated, but still...). Suffice to say they were not included in the game in question. That's a pretty extreme example, though.

Characters described as 'beautiful' or 'handsome'. Not everyone has the same standards of beauty as you do, and I find a little more often than I'm happy with that a 'beautiful' character has a player who expects NPCs and/or other PCs to fawn over them.

Players who gets squicked out by cross-play... or at least the idea of it. Some of the actual practice is extremely dodgy, I'll admit (then try and suppress the memories I just conjured up). But someone who vocally opposes cross-play tends to throw up some red flags - don't get me wrong, I don't expect everyone to cross-play or even be completely comfortable with it, but someone shouting about how men can't play women makes me think there might be other issues that may make them an undesirable member of a gaming group (if only because I don't want the drama of them working through said issues interfering with my gaming).

Poor hygiene in a player. Honestly, I just don't want to spend lots of time around someone smelly or gross.

Poor communication skills. Tabletop RPGs are (almost all) social games; you need to communicate. If you can't or won't... well, why are you here? I'm not opposed to helping people improve their skills, heck I'm more than happy to, but I need to be sure that the person's actually going to work on their skills rather than just blame problems on their lack.

Blatant rip-offs of someone else's intellectual property. I don't want to have Obi Wan Kenobi in my game; I know how his story goes. Let's tell a different, new story! Obviously, this one is significantly less relevant in the event of a game playing established fictional characters.

References. Great, you like [Insert Media Here] a lot - I get it, really. Now make your own damn dialogue! I don't mind a few references here and there, but I expect to see something original and creative from people - is that too much to ask?

Being sexist, racist, culturally insensitive, bigoted or whatever else. Also, trying to play a character who is these things. Or loudly protesting that they aren't, in fact, these things (especially unprompted). Probably don't need to mention these are red flags, but they very definitely are. Pretty big ones.

Won't compromise. Doesn't really matter what over, if someone isn't willing to try and come to an agreement... Well, this could cause trouble down the road. Annoyingly hard to spot this one early, though, unfortunately.

Doesn't pay attention. If you won't pay attention to the setting pitch or even what system is in use (honestly, the number of times people assume I'm using/talking about D&D when I'm not is bloody ridiculous), why should I think you'll pay attention to the game or to the other players?

Keltest
2018-06-24, 05:02 PM
A player cheating bothers me, whether GMing or playing. But nowhere near as much as a GM cheating. I won't return to a game where the DM is pretty clearly "fudging" their rolls.

The funniest part is there are GMs that claim the players won't even notice. :smallyuk:

In general, I subscribe to the GM philosophy of "if you don't want a variable result, don't roll for it", but at the same time I don't like my players being able to guess the direction things will be heading just because I rolled some dice (ie theyre searching for hidden enemies, rolling hide checks only when there are enemies to be found reveals very clearly when there are and are not enemies.) So just because there is an action and a roll, I wouldn't necessarily force the GM to make them related.

Hawkstar
2018-06-24, 07:01 PM
My big red flags? Probably these, in no particular order. And a few others that haven't come to mind, I'm sure.

These aren't things that'd flat out stop me playing with someone, of course, but they are things that would make me think carefully before agreeing to game with someone.

-snip-

Characters described as 'beautiful' or 'handsome'. Not everyone has the same standards of beauty as you do, and I find a little more often than I'm happy with that a 'beautiful' character has a player who expects NPCs and/or other PCs to fawn over them.Isn't that part of the fun of high-Charisma characters? Just as high STR characters can do things like throw people around and break them in dozens of different ways, or high INT characters can outwit other people and control the fabric of reality?


[/list]
Blatant rip-offs of someone else's intellectual property. I don't want to have Obi Wan Kenobi in my game; I know how his story goes. Let's tell a different, new story! Obviously, this one is significantly less relevant in the event of a game playing established fictional characters.[/list] Unfortunately, we don't know Obi Wan's story because his movie got canned because The Last Jedi alienated fans and Solo bombed. But aside from that - you may know how Obi Wan trained Anakin to become Darth Vader, but do you know the story of how Obi Wan stormed Malekith's castle of doom alongside Robin Hood, The Fresh Prince of Persia, and Ron Weasley?


References. Great, you like [Insert Media Here] a lot - I get it, really. Now make your own damn dialogue! I don't mind a few references here and there, but I expect to see something original and creative from people - is that too much to ask? Is it really D&D if the players AREN'T constantly quoting Monty Python or The Princess Bride?


[/list] Being sexist, racist, culturally insensitive, bigoted or whatever else. Also, trying to play a character who is these things. Or loudly protesting that they aren't, in fact, these things (especially unprompted). Probably don't need to mention these are red flags, but they very definitely are. Pretty big ones.[/list] So, I can't play Frodo Bigguns (First name pronounced like a-FRO hair-DO), the halfsploitation hero straight out of Neverwinter who's teaming up with all his other mijits (But don't call him that. You ain't got m-word privilege) to constantly fight against The Big Man keeping the Little Guys down?

Mr Beer
2018-06-24, 07:31 PM
Plays a kender.

VincentTakeda
2018-06-24, 11:02 PM
Plays a kender.

Where's my darn 'like' button when I need it

Nifft
2018-06-24, 11:03 PM
It still blows my mind that people want to cheat in TRPGs.

Some people play RPGs specifically to enjoy a power fantasy.

Failing isn't part of their fantasy, so they want to avoid it -- alternately, lying to the group and having the group accept it is a power-move that ticks their need for feeling like they're in control of something.

These are sometimes people who don't like much about their own real life.

I'm torn between pity and revulsion.

Mr Beer
2018-06-25, 12:41 AM
Where's my darn 'like' button when I need it

;)

It's the classic jerkface player choice.

It's not my fault, it's what my character would do! [does more jerkfacing]


Some people play RPGs specifically to enjoy a power fantasy.

Failing isn't part of their fantasy, so they want to avoid it -- alternately, lying to the group and having the group accept it is a power-move that ticks their need for feeling like they're in control of something.

These are sometimes people who don't like much about their own real life.

I'm torn between pity and revulsion.

The one guy I ever kicked was a known RPG cheat. I didn't boot him for cheating, it was some of his other symptoms of being an unhappy person.

Wraith
2018-06-25, 07:36 AM
Tries to solve a problem by seducing it

I feel that this one is a matter of context, rather than specifically being an outright problem. On the one hand, it's usually just a sub-set of the "lol random" problem:
"The party enters the cave, and are immediately surrounded by darkness..." "I roll to seduce the darkness!". It's a silly joke made in many, many different ways, but it's pretty harmless unless the acting out of the scenario begins to encroach on the plot and demanding more time from the party. In that case it's not the seduction which is a problem, but rather it's a symptom of a player demanding too much of the spotlight. When this happens, it's usually very obviously different to just the joke itself.

And on the other hand, playing a character whose means of progression is through seduction - classically Bards in D&D but also including things like Toreador in Vampire - is not inherently bad. It's just something to discuss beforehand, to make sure that it doesn't stray into material that makes the players or GM uncomfortable.

The seduction itself isn't the problem - why they're doing it, and how they're going about it, is more important.


Plays a character that does not match their gender

Again, I don't think this is the issue, so much as the motivation for doing it. If they're player a gender-flipped character because it's an RP opportunity or because they've found a particularly nice miniature that they want to represent themselves with, it's pretty harmless.
If, however, they're doing it because they can use it as a way to demand spotlight time or to disrupt other players' actions, then the problem isn't with the player's choice of gender but rather their overall attitude.


Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory

I doubt that it's specifically 'royalty' that is the problem, rather the fact that they want to be perceived as a person of authority in order to boss around other players or to try and circumvent NPC interactions. It's perfectly possible to play a member of royalty - most game systems let you take "Rank" as a perk or stat, after all, encouraging it mechanically - and not be an overbearing jerk, so long as the player is capable of not being a jerk... :smalltongue:


Asks to play a class focused on crafting

This one surprises me. In my experience, "crafting players" are the ones who sit quietly and pore through books during downtime rather than cause problems at the table; the biggest problem I've ever had is that they're occasionally too engrossed in a book to notice when it's their turn to act, which can usually be solved by a well-aimed dice to the nose. :smallwink:
If it's become a red flag about the player to you, I once again imagine that it's the player specifically, and that the class just happens to be their current method of disruption; the correlation between the two is otherwise lost on me, I'm glad to say.


Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise

Again, I feel that context is more appropriate here. Playing a selfishly evil or possibly just cowardly character can be a lot of fun, providing that they're contributing to the game in other ways; I quite like playing the latter, as it usually gives me an excuse to go somewhere or do something to drive the plot, because where I want to be isn't where the rest of my murder-hobo party is currently hacking through the local constabulary. :smallbiggrin:

Dong it because the encounter looks difficult, or because they want to "win" the game without being challenged, on the other hand? I've seen that before, and that's usually the same person who keeps trying to be the King of the country; they want the authority to make things go their way, which suggests that they're not very good at sharing or working as a team.

That all being said, there are a couple of things that I have seen that still strike me as Red Flags:

Wanting to play an "insane" character

Mental health can be a precarious subject, and role-playing games have very rarely handled it in a sensitive and properly inclusive manner; even less so in the hands of a player who is looking for an in-built excuse to be "Hollywood Insane", that sort of quirkiness that they think let's them get away with their wacky escapades by saying "well of course I hit the God-Emperor in the face with a live chicken - I'm insane!".

Playing a genuinely mentally unbalanced character can be done appropriately. Sometimes it's even encouraged, in games such as Dark Heresy and Call of Cthulhu where admitting that your experiences are unhealthy can actually lead you to better coping with them. Doing it in D&D is, I usually find, another sub-set of the "lol random" archetype that manages to trample over stereotypes and demean other peoples' suffering while they go about it.
If that's all you're trying to do, and you think that you can try to justify it with paper-thin veil of poorly researched illness, my GMing eye will well and truly be upon you.

Boasting about their character being able to kill mine in a fight

A little bit of competition and vying between roles isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially in an established group who are content to bicker and tease each other in an amiable way.
If your character's defining trait, or sole means of interaction, is "I can kill you, so do what I say or else" then that's a different situation. It's one thing to be a boastful character, but another entirely to try to intimidate other players into doing your bidding by using the safety and free agency of their characters as a bargaining tool.
If you do that, I am going to perceive that as you choosing to forgo the major objectives of the game, such as socialising with other people and following the story laid out by the GM, in order to massage your own ego. Power trips over other characters - preventing them from playing the game their way by bullying them into doing it yours or else you'll remove them from the game - suggest to me that you're not there to play the game, just to belittle other players, and I've never played in a game where I haven't made it perfectly clear how unwelcome that behaviour is.

The "My Character Wouldn't Do That" Guy

Another sort of player who expects the game to revolve around them, and them alone.
Role-Playing should run by the social contract; the Players should take part in the game that's being run by the GM, and the GM should run a game that the Player want to take part in.

It's crucial to remember both parts of that theory to prevent the GM from being taken for granted, and to stop the GM railroading the players through his own little fantasy novel.
If the GM is making a reasonable effort to run an entertaining for the group, however, and your response to what is suggested is "No, my character doesn't want to do that", then my advice to you is to go away and roll up a character that does. The game cannot come to a complete halt because your fictional character has come up with an equally fictional and usually entirely arbitrary reason to refuse to take part.

There's always caveats available, of course. "I don't want to do it in that way" is a perfectly valid response, because that means you can suggest an alternative and still take part in the game, albeit from a new angle. Just pointing out the 'problem' and not offering a solution, however, is called 'whining' and to do that at the expense of someone else' freely given time is ungrateful and rude.

EldritchWeaver
2018-06-25, 08:20 AM
But aside from that - you may know how Obi Wan trained Anakin to become Darth Vader, but do you know the story of how Obi Wan stormed Malekith's castle of doom alongside Robin Hood, The Fresh Prince of Persia, and Ron Weasley?

Ron Weasley? Who would play Ron over Harry Potter in such a group?

MrSandman
2018-06-25, 10:27 AM
Ron Weasley? Who would play Ron over Harry Potter in such a group?

Who would play Potter over Hermione?

Segev
2018-06-25, 10:57 AM
Regarding cross-playing, I personally avoid it because I just tend to default to my own sex for most of my characters. I actively avoid it in face-to-face games because hearing my own baritone come out when I'm supposed to be talking for a woman is suspension-of-disbelief breaking for me. I have played female PCs in text-based media (IRC is my most common one). Generally because something about the concept said, "I am a girl!" to me, so I ran with it.


Oh, you sweet summer child. I can tell it's only been a few years for you, but you know nothing of the true horrors of problem players.

... Mostly because a lot of the stuff on the list isn't actually really a problem for most games or gamers. Yeah, that was more or less my reaction, too. I can understand it being, on a player you don't know, a flag to make you pay closer attention in watching for problems, though.


Tries to solve a problem by seducing it (I wouldn't call this a problem because our playgroups have had so many hilarious stories and situations coming from seductive-type characters. It's a different playstyle, that works better if everyone is more onboard with more mature themes)In a Rifts game, we were infiltrating a city that was decidedly NOT controlled by the Coalition States, so psychics and magic are...technically okay. But they still had Psi Stalkers as a big part of their policing force, because, well, psychics and magicians are dangerous.

We had kidnapped and were working on questioning a member of a gang who had, we hoped, information we needed to advance the plot. (How is unimportant to this story.) It was my PC (who currently looked like a teenaged boy - he's a shapeshifter) and a female "super-spy" who were the party members involved on our side of this, with the gang thug being an NPC we'd tied to the most secure piece of furniture in our forward base of operations: the hotel room bed.

After efforts to intimidate and trick the thug failed to yield cooperation, I tried twice to use magic to compel him to talk. (He saved both times, darn it.) Unfortunately, a psi stalker cop was close enough that he felt it, so he came to investigate this repeated use of psychics and magic.

Thinking quickly, my PC unbuttoned his shirt, and tousled his hair before answering the door after we heard the pounding of, "Police! Is everything alright in there?"

So the cop looks through the door, sees the casually-dressed superspy near the man tied to the bed, and looks at the suggestively-dressed teen opening the door a crack. The teen mumbles an explanation that sounds somewhat embarrassing/meant-to-be-euphemistic, and the cop, still suspicious, narrows his eyes. "There was some magic happening in here. What was that?"

My character glanced aside at the bed, then looked down to avoid the cop's gaze. "He paid extra."

The cop wished us a nice day and closed the door and beat a hasty retreat, wanting no more questions answered.

Not actual seduction, but using the ballpark to get the results we wanted for the win!



I was going to reference a story another Playgrounder told, where playing a cross-gender character was literal lifesaver. I guess I'll add this story to my list of stolen acquired stories to tell regarding the benefits of cross-gender characters.This sounds like a fascinating story.


And on the other hand, playing a character whose means of progression is through seduction - classically Bards in D&D but also including things like Toreador in Vampire - is not inherently bad. It's just something to discuss beforehand, to make sure that it doesn't stray into material that makes the players or GM uncomfortable.This makes me think of The Bard from that series of artist's works where he keeps running into past one-night-stands with their half-human children. He apparently seduces female monsters regularly to get out of fighting them. The elf in the party is inexplicably offended by this.


I doubt that it's specifically 'royalty' that is the problem, rather the fact that they want to be perceived as a person of authority in order to boss around other players or to try and circumvent NPC interactions. It's perfectly possible to play a member of royalty - most game systems let you take "Rank" as a perk or stat, after all, encouraging it mechanically - and not be an overbearing jerk, so long as the player is capable of not being a jerk... :smalltongue:Done reasonably, "the runaway prince(ss)" is a perfectly viable PC. But they have to be played with some semblance of understanding that this fluff rank doesn't come with mechanical perks (unless it's a game where you can buy those perks, and they did so). Or, if there are perks, they are things that come in after the downsides have made themselves plot-relevant.

Wraith
2018-06-25, 02:21 PM
This makes me think of The Bard from that series of artist's works where he keeps running into past one-night-stands with their half-human children. He apparently seduces female monsters regularly to get out of fighting them. The elf in the party is inexplicably offended by this.

Sounds like Fredrik KT Anderson. He's done all sorts of webcomic stuff over the last 20 years, some of it being "almost NSFW", and the hopelessly naive Bard is one of his reoccurring characters. :smallsmile:

Segev
2018-06-25, 02:25 PM
Sounds like Fredrik KT Anderson. He's done all sorts of webcomic stuff over the last 20 years, some of it being "almost NSFW", and the hopelessly naive Bard is one of his reoccurring characters. :smallsmile:

That's the one!

WindStruck
2018-06-25, 03:43 PM
I don't agree with most things on the list. After all, I'm doing several of them right now, and I wouldn't consider myself a problem.

Things I would look out for are players who get easily offend at nothing, who argue incessantly, and who try way too hard to optimize.

LaserFace
2018-06-25, 04:11 PM
Really, there are so many individual little details that can strike me as dumb or bad in a vacuum, that trying to name and categorize them seems like a waste of time. The biggest thing for me is just, are these people my friends, or recommended by my friends, or at the very least would I like for us to become friends. Like, I can't just play D&D with a stranger; I need to communicate with them as a human being first. My friends are good people with good judgment, so, if you pass that test, I don't get alarmed by having a stupidly-named character, or dual-wielding katanas, or any of that. If anything, I trust they'll try to find a way to make it really entertaining.

Nifft
2018-06-25, 04:22 PM
Things I would look out for are players who get easily offend at nothing, who argue incessantly, and who try way too hard to optimize.

It's almost like you're describing this forum.

AtlasSniperman
2018-06-25, 04:39 PM
6. Rolling the dice in a spot where the GM cannot see the actual die roll, and declaring the result without the GM actually knowing the result for certain. This usually results in lying about the actual result to gain advantage. Extra points if the dice roll takes place in a spot where the GM has to constantly lean over to see the actual die roll result, and after a while the GM really can't be bothered anymore and just accepts whatever the rolling player has said. Extra points if the dice keep rolling off onto the floor.


I know I don't need to"defend" myself here but; I feel bad at times about rolling into the middle of our table where there's a lot going on and I'd have to walk around the table and lean over people to get my distance-loving dice back. So I roll in a tray to my right at those times and ask the player beside me to verify my rolls. The problem is; I roll quite well. With any D20, even in the open I have like a 50% chance of 16 or better. Which makes me feel bad because the player to my right could be seen as helping me cheat.

WindStruck
2018-06-25, 06:27 PM
It's almost like you're describing this forum.

Burlew Fallacy.

Hawkstar
2018-06-25, 11:14 PM
Ron Weasley? Who would play Ron over Harry Potter in such a group?

Because Harry Potter is not a really great character to have in a party. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0253.html)

Mordaedil
2018-06-26, 06:39 AM
I'll just address the ones I find relevant here...


Steals from party members irl


I would have to say I've never experienced this and if you have, your group has bigger problems than "lol, wacky backstory!".


Tries to solve a problem by seducing it


I've seen this one happen a lot and while I don't get it, some of the people I play with seem to think this is what D&D is actually all about. But they also come from a background where they think a happy life means a white picket fence, marrying a rich husband and have 2.5 children, a dog and a cat. There's some mental disturbances going way back there.


Plays a character that does not match their gender


This is one I see frequently, because I do it all of the time, so forgive me if I feel a tad targeted by this one. Sure, it could be a warning sign, and I'd definitely talk to the player ahead of time about it, but in our group we are pretty confident and trusting of each other, so we don't have a problem with someone playing the other gender. Generally, it's fairly easy to figure out if the player if going to be a problem, but it never hurts to try, but there's things in the description of the player where you can see problems. If they describe the body in vivid detail, it might not be a character they made as much as a cariacture. Especially if the emphasis is on touch of skin, size of members, or describing their figure. Saying they have long flowing hair is fine, saying it curves along her surfaces might be a warning. Pants bulge is also a warning sign.


Has ever forced the DM to roll for pregnancy


I don't know what table you play at, but at ours, you can't "force" the DM to do anything. The DM rules, but he must rule fairly, the players follow or leave. The subject matter is of valid concern, I have friends who DM'd for players who had characters that got pregnant, and now have a baby in the setting that they must be a neglectful mother for, only to regret it later. Though as far as warning signs go, "roll for anal circumference" is a far brighter red bulb to me than "roll for pregnancy".


Drow
Dual Wielding
Katanas
Dual Wielding Katanas


This might be an issue to me if I was 15 and still cared about what other people read as far as fictive material goes. Honestly, this isn't a problem, but if they are insisting on using a katana, I'd ask them to roll up a samurai and if they wanted to dual-wield katanas, I'd tell them "your sidearm is a wakizashi, the equivalent of a shortsword, as per tradition of samurai". If they then insist on being a ronin I'd tell them it still doesn't matter. Dual-wielding itself is fine. Seriously, what is wrong with dual-wielding, it is a legitimate form of fighting and very extravagant. As for drow, they are dark-skinned elves, not a problem.


Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise


I think I know what this comes from, it's based on the heroic journey where they want to play a reluctant hero who needs a call to action. Their fault lies in assuming you'll provide that call instead of them figuring it out themselves. Certain archetypes don't perform as well for roleplaying scenarios and its just a thing you'll have to inform the players of early if you see them adopting this trend. As others have said, this is why playing as a Harry Potter doesn't work as well. You aren't on this journey alone or as the only one who contributes to the end goal.


Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory


I've done this before and it's actually really easy to deal with. You just say okay, you are a noble. The first thing that happens is a rebellion and your kingdom is shattered and you are on the run or in slavery. You just barely managed to escape and are on the run shortly before the game begins, but you know that all your allies before have now turned on you and some are actively hunting you to execute you for the crimes your family enured upon the people and the mighty kingdom is now a republic and its people are happier, to an extent.

And that's how you work around royalty. Well, that or you lean into it.

CharonsHelper
2018-06-26, 07:11 AM
To all of the people getting grumpy about the list -

The OP didn't actually say that most/any of these things are inherently problems in and of themselves, just that they're warning signs of potentially problem players.

The cross-gender play seems to be getting the most grump. I both agree with the OP and agree that it can be done well. My first long campaign had a guy play a female changeling - and it wasn't ever an issue.

But I have seen it be an issue since then. And frankly - those players would have likely been an issue without the cross-gender character, but it's a common correlation with such problem players.

Rerem115
2018-06-26, 08:01 AM
Plays a character that does not match their gender


This is one I see frequently, because I do it all of the time, so forgive me if I feel a tad targeted by this one. Sure, it could be a warning sign, and I'd definitely talk to the player ahead of time about it, but in our group we are pretty confident and trusting of each other, so we don't have a problem with someone playing the other gender. Generally, it's fairly easy to figure out if the player if going to be a problem, but it never hurts to try, but there's things in the description of the player where you can see problems. If they describe the body in vivid detail, it might not be a character they made as much as a cariacture. Especially if the emphasis is on touch of skin, size of members, or describing their figure. Saying they have long flowing hair is fine, saying it curves along her surfaces might be a warning. Pants bulge is also a warning sign.


Drow
Dual Wielding
Katanas
Dual Wielding Katanas


This might be an issue to me if I was 15 and still cared about what other people read as far as fictive material goes. Honestly, this isn't a problem, but if they are insisting on using a katana, I'd ask them to roll up a samurai and if they wanted to dual-wield katanas, I'd tell them "your sidearm is a wakizashi, the equivalent of a shortsword, as per tradition of samurai". If they then insist on being a ronin I'd tell them it still doesn't matter. Dual-wielding itself is fine. Seriously, what is wrong with dual-wielding, it is a legitimate form of fighting and very extravagant. As for drow, they are dark-skinned elves, not a problem.


Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise


I think I know what this comes from, it's based on the heroic journey where they want to play a reluctant hero who needs a call to action. Their fault lies in assuming you'll provide that call instead of them figuring it out themselves. Certain archetypes don't perform as well for roleplaying scenarios and its just a thing you'll have to inform the players of early if you see them adopting this trend. As others have said, this is why playing as a Harry Potter doesn't work as well. You aren't on this journey alone or as the only one who contributes to the end goal.


Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory


I've done this before and it's actually really easy to deal with. You just say okay, you are a noble. The first thing that happens is a rebellion and your kingdom is shattered and you are on the run or in slavery. You just barely managed to escape and are on the run shortly before the game begins, but you know that all your allies before have now turned on you and some are actively hunting you to execute you for the crimes your family enured upon the people and the mighty kingdom is now a republic and its people are happier, to an extent.

And that's how you work around royalty. Well, that or you lean into it.

These points seem to be the ones people bring up a lot, so I'll explain a little why I included them. A lot of these stem from more inexperienced players, which I tend to see while at the convention my university hosts.

Cross-play is, 9 times out of 10, perfectly fine. I've seen a couple times, though, where it went extravagantly awry, actually much for the same reasons you described. The were invariably teenage boys, and they were playing a pair of balloons on stilts. This tended to overlap with a couple of other red flags on my list, namely seduction and only being able to describe their character in terms of attraction. I have to repeat, I'm perfectly fine with cross play, but especially from that demographic, it'll make me pay a bit more attention.

Regarding Drow, I've seen it done well and I've seen it done poorly. For every genuine character, I've seen at least one Drizz't clone, and somebody who is in it for the evulz. The problem with Drow is that they attract people trying to make "cool", "edgy" characters that don't have much characterization, and people who just want to play an evil character in a more or less heroic campaign (see teenage boys at a convention).

Katanas and Dual Wielding fall under the same sphere as Drow, honestly. They're usually used for the coolness factor by people who haven't had much experience, and/or wandered in from the anime half of the convention. These kind of players aren't usually problems, per say, they just require a more attentive DM to keep things under control, since due to their newness, they often possess other, much more problematic tendencies.

For the running away thing, I think it was supposed to be played for comedy? I haven't seen too many people that did this, but the time that will always stick in my mind was when I was helping out with a one-shot, as soon as the first encounter began, the ranger took his animal companion and making sure to cover his tracks, just left town to go deep into the woods, where he proceeded to build a campsite, and have his character sleep through the session. The entire session. Beyond that, he was fine; he just kind of sat there and listened, but the level of disruption this caused left a bad taste in my mouth.

I've seen royalty done well, and I've seen royalty done poorly. It's mostly a matter of clearing it with the DM beforehand. It only tends to be a problem when not enough effort is put into characterizing this, and they don't really have a good reason to be adventuring royalty. Provide me with sufficient backstory, and it's fine, just don't do what one of the people I played with recently did and have "is a princess, like for real" be the sum total of your character.

ijon
2018-06-26, 08:30 AM
I haven't seen too many people that did this, but the time that will always stick in my mind was when I was helping out with a one-shot, as soon as the first encounter began, the ranger took his animal companion and making sure to cover his tracks, just left town to go deep into the woods, where he proceeded to build a campsite, and have his character sleep through the session. The entire session. Beyond that, he was fine; he just kind of sat there and listened, but the level of disruption this caused left a bad taste in my mouth.

"okay so the first thing I'm gonna do is... sit out the entire one-shot. yeah. that's what I'm gonna do."

that's hilarious, but seriously why even show up at that point

VincentTakeda
2018-06-26, 12:10 PM
"okay so the first thing I'm gonna do is... sit out the entire one-shot. yeah. that's what I'm gonna do."

that's hilarious, but seriously why even show up at that point

Hedge wizard logging some magic item crafting time.

Calthropstu
2018-06-26, 12:14 PM
I am going to have to disagree with most of this list. My problem players experience has been much different.

It has also been numerous. From pvp tards to "let's rape party members" I've seen and suffered a lot of player dickery.

Warning signs are generally:
Bragging who's character they can beat up.
Sexual jokes in large numbers.
Tries to romance other pcs.
Initiates pvp at the drop of a hat.
Torments players and laughs about it.
Rolls dice out of view of the gm or other players.
Screws over quests because lulz.

I've seen so much bull****. But I tolerate it because this game is so much fun to play.

Segev
2018-06-26, 02:47 PM
But they also come from a background where they think a happy life means a white picket fence, marrying a rich husband and have 2.5 children, a dog and a cat. There's some mental disturbances going way back there.

It...kind-of worries me that you see this as a life goal/having this mental image of what a happy life would look like as "mental disturbance." :smalleek:

kyoryu
2018-06-26, 03:24 PM
It...kind-of worries me that you see this as a life goal/having this mental image of what a happy life would look like as "mental disturbance." :smalleek:

I think it's less the mental image, but combined with the description of the player type, it's more the idea of someone who believes that their goal in life is to "land" a husband and basically treats that as their job.

KillianHawkeye
2018-06-26, 04:14 PM
Thinks that "lol, i so random" is both funny and sufficient characterization
Steals from party members in game
Steals from party members irl
Tries to solve a problem by seducing it
Plays a character that does not match their gender
Has ever forced the DM to roll for pregnancy
Drow
Gives you a handwritten 15 page backstory, or links you to their Tumblr and tells you it's in there somewhere
Uses the word "sexy" to describe their character on a regular basis
Insists on using a class they found on dandwiki
Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory
Insists on using anything they found on dandwiki
Asks to play a class focused on crafting
Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise
Dual Wielding
Katanas
Dual Wielding Katanas



And now I have an inexplicable urge to play a sexy female drow thief whose extensive backstory includes the goal of returning to claim her rightful throne, and who runs away from anything that can't be seduced or killed by the slice and dice of her twin katanas (which she crafted herself, obviously). Sexy drow ninja princess! :smallamused::smallwink:

Segev
2018-06-26, 04:19 PM
And now I have an inexplicable urge to play a sexy female drow thief whose extensive backstory includes the goal of returning to claim her rightful throne, and who runs away from anything that can't be seduced or killed by the slice and dice of her twin katanas (which she crafted herself, obviously). Sexy drow ninja princess! :smallamused::smallwink:

Sexy Drow Ninja Princess! sounds like the title of a parody web comic or youtube series. Right up there with Single Female Lawyer, the show-within-a-show in Futurama.

Telok
2018-06-26, 09:02 PM
Cyborg wookie motorcycle princess!

King of Nowhere
2018-06-26, 09:56 PM
I think there are only two red flags:

- can't compromise/solve problems by talking
- harrasses other people

those are big issues worth kicking for. everything else is purely situational.

Some are markers of lack of experience/system mastery but are not problem per se. Some are problems, but not insurmontable ones. For example, one of my players has been playing a wizard for two years and she still can't tell how her saving throw dc is calculated, or even what her int modifier is ("here it says i have intelligente 26 (+8), so I have intelligence 34"). I would call her a problem player; however, she never caused any problem at the table, besides forcing me to work extra to figure out her numbers every time, or forcing another player with more system mastery to take care of her build to an extent. her turn is slower than normal because of those reasons, but that's not a banning offence.

Danoobie
2018-06-26, 10:10 PM
IME, problem players aren't some deep mystery, which take "warning signs " to tip you off to their presence.
They pretty much get into being a PITA at the outset of game play. We had one guy who liked to use those
mini-dice. Turned out every "roll" he made, before we started checking, was 13 or higher. Once we started
checking every roll, magically, he was back to having normal rolls, just like everybody else. He had a multi-class character,
and either purposely read all his bonuses wrong, or had no idea what he was doing. We started watching him like a hawk
the first session, and he never returned.

Mordaedil
2018-06-27, 01:11 AM
It...kind-of worries me that you see this as a life goal/having this mental image of what a happy life would look like as "mental disturbance." :smalleek:
There's a story behind why I consider it like this, but suffice to say it has a lot to do with the millenial bubble and life being way more complicated than just landing those things as a minimum goal.

War_lord
2018-06-27, 02:43 AM
I'm not going to comment on individual items, but I feel there's something to be pointed out here. D&D is social, every table is a social group. Every social group has its own rules, expectations, tone and culture. So one group's "dire sign of a problem player" is another group's "business as usual".

Delta
2018-06-27, 08:46 AM
Honestly, even if there are some valid points in the list (obviously, I don't think it needs pointing out that players actually stealing other players stuff irl is a problem), a lot of the things OP put on the list would make me more wary of him as a player rather than a lot of the people he put on the list. I'd be hard pressed to think of any long-running campaign I GM'ed where a significant number of players wouldn't have registered on that list, some in multiple ways.

While I freely admit that every time I had a "problem player" on my hand, he or she checked at least one of the boxes on the list, I feel like a list like that is pretty much missing the point since if you get a problem player to make a non-crossgendered, non-katanawielding core book class character, he or she will most likely still be just as much of a "problem player"

Segev
2018-06-27, 09:48 AM
There's a story behind why I consider it like this, but suffice to say it has a lot to do with the millenial bubble and life being way more complicated than just landing those things as a minimum goal.
Fair enough.

I would personally love to have those things (well, a wife and kids; I don't want a fence around my yard), but most would consider me a reasonably successful adult. Other than my inability to figure out how people find places to meet attractive girls with similar interests (because any place I try to go to do stuff is full of people who are married and/or not female), I'm doing pretty well.

Telok
2018-06-27, 10:32 AM
Other than my inability to figure out how people find places to meet attractive girls with similar interests

Try taking a belly-dancing class. The worst case scenario is you get some moderate exercise.

Segev
2018-06-27, 11:14 AM
Try taking a belly-dancing class. The worst case scenario is you get some moderate exercise.

...do boys even DO that?

I mean, I have plenty of belly to dance. O_o That's an interesting option I hadn't considered. I might just look into it. I don't know if I'm brave enough to TRY it, but looking into it can't hurt. I have considered ballroom dance, but failed to find any classes within a reasonable driving distance. (i.e., less than an hour and starting late enough to make it there from work)

But hey, worth examining, at least. Thanks!

VincentTakeda
2018-06-27, 11:15 AM
I am going to have to disagree with most of this list. My problem players experience has been much different.

It has also been numerous. From pvp tards to "let's rape party members" I've seen and suffered a lot of player dickery.

Warning signs are generally:
Bragging who's character they can beat up.
Sexual jokes in large numbers.
Tries to romance other pcs.
Initiates pvp at the drop of a hat.
Torments players and laughs about it.
Rolls dice out of view of the gm or other players.
Screws over quests because lulz.

I've seen so much bull****. But I tolerate it because this game is so much fun to play.

This here is a far more accurate list as far as I'm concerned.

Jay R
2018-06-27, 12:05 PM
Also watch out for people who are watching you closely for signs that they can use to decide that you're the wrong sort of player.

Rerem115
2018-06-27, 12:13 PM
Also watch out for people who are watching you closely for signs that they can use to decide that you're the wrong sort of player.

Hey, to judge is to be human. At least for me, since a lot of the games I've been in were one-shots with total strangers, watching for things like this has helped me figure out when I need to try to steer a game back on track and what I need to do to avoid disruptions with the group in question.

Pex
2018-06-27, 12:15 PM
Players who refuse to tell other players their character's name let alone class or race or other get to know you/what can you do so we can play well together trivia.

Players who keep party treasure to themselves.

Players who run off to have their own solo encounters. This has nothing to do with scouting and reporting back.

Players who constantly pass notes to the DM even if they don't say or mean anything to be mysterious.

Players who learn important information and refuse to share it with the party.

Players who pompously tsk tsk when other PCs are in a pickle.

Players who refuse to help other PCs when they are in a pickle.

Players who help other PCs when they are in a pickle but pompously exclaim what idiots they are they need to be saved again.

Lord Raziere
2018-06-27, 12:58 PM
My personal warning signs about for other players are:
"My character has only one weakness and I'm not telling you what it is, otherwise they're invincible"
"My character can shapeshift into literally anything. ANYTHING"
"My character is unable to die."
"My character is a master of all the X's of Y"
"fantasy races are pointless, just play a human."
"I hate special snowflakes"
"I don't like anime."

because chances are if your too focused on being powerful I won't be able to give you a challenge, and if your too against my more fantastical aspects of what I want to play, your not going to like my games because they're all about being fantastical.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-27, 01:03 PM
Enjoys playing D&D.

Jay R
2018-06-27, 01:27 PM
Hey, to judge is to be human. At least for me, since a lot of the games I've been in were one-shots with total strangers, watching for things like this has helped me figure out when I need to try to steer a game back on track and what I need to do to avoid disruptions with the group in question.

Yup. But it's worthwhile remembering that to be excessively judgmental is equally human.

Of course we will judge other players. But while doing it, we should remember that we have flaws as well. This can help us be more charitable about their flaws, and perhaps make it easier to find common ground.

Quertus
2018-06-27, 01:39 PM
This sounds like a fascinating story.

I think it was. Sadly, I'm too senile to remember the details, but, IIRC, a Playgrounder, um, discovered that their birth gender didn't match their, um... psychological gender? I don't know the words here... through playing cross-gender characters, and, suddenly, so much of their life and depression made sense?

Well, that's the horribly mangled way I remember it, and I certainly remember the phrase "saved my life" being involved, which I wasn't certain how literally to take.

Yeah, apologies to whichever playgrounder's story I'm mangling, but that's as good as "left a huge impression" works out on this poor senile mind. :smallredface:


Enjoys playing D&D.

This would be the funniest answer imaginable if I weren't afraid that you were serious. :smalleek:

AshfireMage
2018-06-27, 01:48 PM
Things from games I've been in:

* Anyone who brags repeatedly about how well they know a system or lore- it's one thing if they're just talking about it, but if they're bragging about how good they are at optimizing, how comprehensive their knowledge is, etc. then I've found: A. They aren't and B. They're going to be rude to newer players and/or have trouble listening to the GM.

In at least one memorable example, I played with someone who went on about how well they knew VtM lore, in particular one specific clan. I later had a different player who understood the clan and the lore better after a 5-minute explanation from the GM, the girl had never even picked up a Vampire book.

* People who overshare ooc- most are drama magnets, whether that means creating it at the table or constantly dragging it in from somewhere else

* People who respond to being called out on bad behavior by offering flimsy excuses or playing the victim- Everyone screws up sometimes- metagames a bit, won't shut up, etc. But those who can't admit it and move on will likely be trouble. should be obvious, but I've gamed with a player that justified using metagame knowledge IC with "but I'm going to put ranks in that skill next time I level up!"

* People who seem to be trying to "win"- success is cool. We all love success. But watch out for players who seem to think it's a competition between them and the GM, or them and the other players, unless that's the presmise the game was operating under.

Floret
2018-06-27, 02:17 PM
Well, that's the horribly mangled way I remember it, and I certainly remember the phrase "saved my life" being involved, which I wasn't certain how literally to take.

Given the context of this, probably pretty damn literally...

(If you care to know, generally "assigned gender" (As in, assigned at birth by some doctor saying "It's a boy") and "actual/true gender" are the terms I see used most often in the respective circles. Tons of different terms circulating, yours are generally fine as well :smallwink: )

Generall, while I used to be strongly against the idea, my exposure to different people and ideas has made me wayyyy more open about it.

Where my first exposure was my pubescent sister playing a guy in about the same way you usually see horror stories about teenage boys playing women, growing older (for a given value of "older" in comparison with some people here...) has given me plenty good examples. And appreciation for the good things it can bring.

Getting to know people for whom "cross gender" begged the question of "which would that even be" or "at the day of creation, or do I swap characters then?" also rather quickly cured me of any assumptions that forbidding crossgender characters was more than a figleaf fix for a problem that needs to be tackled way elsewhere.

In fact, way more a sign of a problem player, ime? Inability to differentiate character and player gender. Or, in some cases, character gender and percieved player gender...

JNAProductions
2018-06-27, 02:39 PM
On crossplaying, I tend to ask people to play their gender IRL. I do the same thing, simply because when you hear a deep, bassy man voice playing a gemale character or the opposite, it pulls me out a little.

I certainly wouldn't outright forbid it, but it'd be a "If possible, you're a dude, please play a dude or get real good at female voices." (Note: I've never gamed IRL with someone who was assigned a gender different to their actual one, so that's never been an issue for me. Were it to come up, I'd stick to the guideline-if you're a lady, play a lady; if you're a dude, play a dude; matching their ACTUAL gender, not assigned.)

In PbP games or text-based games or in any other type of game where I can't hear voices, go nuts. It doesn't affect my suspension of disbelief in the slightest if there's a woman behind the keyboard typing out a man's words, or vice versa.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-27, 03:24 PM
This would be the funniest answer imaginable if I weren't afraid that you were serious. :smalleek:

I'm slightly serious. In my experience people who play a lot of D&D pick up a lot of bad habits that make them poor fits for systems that I like. It's also not a huge deal, which I am exaggerating for comic effect.

Delta
2018-06-27, 03:59 PM
I certainly wouldn't outright forbid it, but it'd be a "If possible, you're a dude, please play a dude or get real good at female voices." (Note: I've never gamed IRL with someone who was assigned a gender different to their actual one, so that's never been an issue for me. Were it to come up, I'd stick to the guideline-if you're a lady, play a lady; if you're a dude, play a dude; matching their ACTUAL gender, not assigned.)

I feel this is a really limiting view on things. Would you also recommend for someone with a deep voice not to play an elf, or likewise, someone with a high voice not to play a dwarf? Or to take this further, isn't it kind of tough to imagine the five foot nothing girl next to you as an intimidating tall half-orc fighter chick, so would you recommend against her playing that too?

Lord Raziere
2018-06-27, 04:31 PM
On crossplaying, I tend to ask people to play their gender IRL. I do the same thing, simply because when you hear a deep, bassy man voice playing a gemale character or the opposite, it pulls me out a little.

I certainly wouldn't outright forbid it, but it'd be a "If possible, you're a dude, please play a dude or get real good at female voices." (Note: I've never gamed IRL with someone who was assigned a gender different to their actual one, so that's never been an issue for me. Were it to come up, I'd stick to the guideline-if you're a lady, play a lady; if you're a dude, play a dude; matching their ACTUAL gender, not assigned.)


THIS post is warning sign to me actually. that kind of sentiment doesn't strike me as very welcoming or open, and I see it causing more problems than not.

AceOfFools
2018-06-27, 04:41 PM
(Note: I've never gamed IRL with someone who was assigned a gender different to their actual one, so that's never been an issue for me.
You'd be surprised.

I certainly was.

Segev
2018-06-27, 04:55 PM
Where my first exposure was my pubescent sister playing a guy in about the same way you usually see horror stories about teenage boys playing women, growing older (for a given value of "older" in comparison with some people here...) has given me plenty good examples. And appreciation for the good things it can bring.

Because I absolutely love gender-swapping scenarios to see how unexamined biases, expectations, etc. are revealed, I have to ask for examples. What did her playing the male PC "the way you usually see horror stories about teenage boys playing women" actually look like? I obviously can make guesses and imagine, but having some real anecdotes to compare my imagination to will do wonders for helping me make my imaginings more accurate.

In other words, I hope this will reveal to me the answer to the question: What does a teenaged girl who's thinking with her hormones want a male character to be?

JNAProductions
2018-06-27, 05:02 PM
Allow me to rephrase:

“As a general rule, unless there’s a specific reason not to, please play as your gender.”

Does that seem less strict? Because that’s basically what it is.

Keltest
2018-06-27, 05:04 PM
Allow me to rephrase:

“As a general rule, unless there’s a specific reason not to, please play as your gender.”

Does that seem less strict? Because that’s basically what it is.

Not really. Either "a specific reason not to" includes "because you want to" in which case its a meaningless rule, or it doesn't, in which case youre still just locking people out of playing characters because you don't want to give them the chance to do so.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-27, 05:06 PM
“As a general rule, unless there’s a specific reason not to, please play as your gender.”

This is a big old warning sign.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-27, 05:08 PM
On the topic of gender-flips, my current (on hiatus) group as a player has two of them. Since we don't do first person, generally, or voices at all, that part isn't an issue.

I'm playing a male-at-birth human whose sex got changed as a result of a poorly-worded Warlock contract. She is starting to accept that change but makes frequent pronoun "mistakes". I don't make much of a deal about it, except when I ended up spending way too much cash on a set of clothes to try to persuade a potential witness. I play her as relatively androgynous most of the time, actually.

My buddy is playing a dainty human barbarian with a Noble background. She walks around with a huge (for her, she's not a big person) axe and a bad attitude. Very not lady-like, even though her rages are fluffed as channeling ancestor spirits (5e Ancestor Barbarian)

The other two characters are a tiny, angry gnome evocation wizard (female, played by the barbarian player's wife) with a love for burning things, and a (male, played by a male) half-orc paladin who gets knocked out once per session.

I'd be concerned if certain of my teenagers tried to cross-play, but it's not a red flag for me.

I've only walked away from one table because of characters. That group had a selection whose first acts in a town, about 20 minutes into the session, were

a) one guy got drunk and wandered off carrying a cask of ale.
b) another guy bought all the cups he could and tried to get the town kids drunk. Yes, specifically the kids.
c) The other two said they were going to have graphic, public sex in front of everybody.

I quickly realized that their wants and my style didn't match, so I called the session (since I was the DM) and didn't go back. It was a test run anyway.

There was another character who, as a cleric, wanted the rest of the party to pay him up front (and unrecoverably) for possible resurrection; if you said no he wouldn't heal you at all. That left a bad taste in my mouth.

Mr Beer
2018-06-27, 05:10 PM
Fair enough.

I would personally love to have those things (well, a wife and kids; I don't want a fence around my yard), but most would consider me a reasonably successful adult. Other than my inability to figure out how people find places to meet attractive girls with similar interests (because any place I try to go to do stuff is full of people who are married and/or not female), I'm doing pretty well.

I have thought about this and if I was single, I would take up both yoga and cookery classes. Another good option is any sort of dance class but I hate dancing so it wouldn't be high up on my list.

Gym classes are good as well but I do that anyway. Cardio bunnies FTW.

EDIT

I don't do it for the cardio bunnies, just saying...they're there.



* Anyone who brags repeatedly about how well they know a system or lore- it's one thing if they're just talking about it, but if they're bragging about how good they are at optimizing, how comprehensive their knowledge is, etc. then I've found: A. They aren't and B. They're going to be rude to newer players and/or have trouble listening to the GM.

Hell yes this is a good one. I find it very odd when I come across someone who boasts about knowing a system, it's a weird thing to be proud of IMO. Kind of like saying 'I know everything about fishing rods'...umm OK? Really the aim of the exercise is the fishing rather than the rods, right? Also if you need to tell people you are good at something, you aren't.

JNAProductions
2018-06-27, 05:13 PM
This is a big old warning sign.

Am I not allowed to have a preference?

Keltest
2018-06-27, 05:15 PM
Am I not allowed to have a preference?

I mean, theres having a preference, and then theres shutting down something off hand because their player has a deep voice. At the very least, its pretty disrespectful to your players to insist that they try to make their characters conform to how they actually are IRL.

Recherché
2018-06-27, 05:26 PM
Am I not allowed to have a preference?

You can have a preference but I'm going to consider it a sign that the two of us might not get along well and probably avoid you for it. Then again one of my best friends came to the realization that she's a woman precisely because she was so much more comfortable playing a female character in game than presenting as a man in meatspace.

Besides there are people in my games playing an anthropomorphized spirit of a city, a shape-shifting fox and a genderless hive of nanobots. These are all far far stranger and less realistic than hearing an elven woman speaking with a human male's voice.

Mr Beer
2018-06-27, 05:32 PM
You can have a preference but I'm going to consider it a sign that the two of us might not get along well and probably avoid you for it. Then again one of my best friends came to the realization that she's a woman precisely because she was so much more comfortable playing a female character in game than presenting as a man in meatspace.

Besides there are people in my games playing an anthropomorphized spirit of a city, a shape-shifting fox and a genderless hive of nanobots. These are all far far stranger and less realistic than hearing an elven woman speaking with a human male's voice.

Ha ha ha. Yes fellow human, a genderless hive of nanobots is very strange. Ha ha ha. Such a thing does not exist in the real world. It is a good joke we are making together. This is normal human joking. Ha ha ha.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-27, 05:39 PM
Am I not allowed to have a preference?

Not when it comes to choices that belong exclusively to people other than you, no. Or rather, you're certainly allowed to have preferences but you aren't allowed to try to push those preferences on other people.

JNAProductions
2018-06-27, 06:06 PM
Alright-I don’t think what I’m trying to say came across right, but looking at what I wrote... yeah, I can see why people are upset at me.

So I’m sorry-if anyone was offended or hurt by what I said, I can assure you that was not what I intended, and if I can make it better, please let me know how.

ijon
2018-06-27, 06:08 PM
On crossplaying, I tend to ask people to play their gender IRL. I do the same thing, simply because when you hear a deep, bassy man voice playing a gemale character or the opposite, it pulls me out a little.

I certainly wouldn't outright forbid it, but it'd be a "If possible, you're a dude, please play a dude or get real good at female voices." (Note: I've never gamed IRL with someone who was assigned a gender different to their actual one, so that's never been an issue for me. Were it to come up, I'd stick to the guideline-if you're a lady, play a lady; if you're a dude, play a dude; matching their ACTUAL gender, not assigned.)

In PbP games or text-based games or in any other type of game where I can't hear voices, go nuts. It doesn't affect my suspension of disbelief in the slightest if there's a woman behind the keyboard typing out a man's words, or vice versa.

okay, so unlike the other guys here, I get this. my immersion is not going to survive an elven queen or whatever with the voice of a burly black dude. it just ain't happening.

then again, the few games I've played in haven't exactly been very immersive anyway. most of the fighting ends up with one guy basically needing to re-learn the rules every time, and I almost never have enough of a clue to make informed decisions regarding the plot. so I guess I'd be able to handle that disconnect too.

but this whole "just shut up and accept it" attitude from everyone else is aggravating. seriously, you're not even allowed to ask for a concession? that's a big red warning flag right there.

Nifft
2018-06-27, 06:10 PM
Alright-I don’t think what I’m trying to say came across right, but looking at what I wrote... yeah, I can see why people are upset at me.

So I’m sorry-if anyone was offended or hurt by what I said, I can assure you that was not what I intended, and if I can make it better, please let me know how.

It seems like you had a legit bad experience, and you associate that experience with certain behaviors.

Unfortunately, your description of the problematic behavior overlaps with some non-problematic preferences -- which happen to be uncommonly well-represented on this forum.

I suspect this is a case where you being more specific about the negative experience would help.

Delta
2018-06-27, 06:13 PM
THIS post is warning sign to me actually. that kind of sentiment doesn't strike me as very welcoming or open, and I see it causing more problems than not.

Yeah, the one RL group I thought about joining where the GM immediately said "Absolutely no cross-gender characters!" I ended up passing on. Never even planned on playing a female in that, but it was indeed a good first warning sign that me and the GM most likely wouldn't see eye to eye on some things.

JNAProductions
2018-06-27, 06:17 PM
There’s no bad experience, but the general rule is also not a very strong one.

If someone had a character concept that required being female (say, Drow noble) and were a man, that’d be fine. But since most character concepts tend to be gender neutral, I prefer people to play their own gender, just to make suspension of disbelief easier.

And a reason I ask this for gender and not, say, race, is that I speak to people on a daily basis. I don’t speak to elves and orcs very often, so I don’t really have a frame of reference for how they should sound.

Finally, if someone told me “I want to crossplay because I just feel more comfortable playing as the other gender,” I’d probably direct them to talk to some of the lovely trans people here on the playground, or a gender therapist or someone, since that sounds a lot like they might be trans themselves, and lacking direct experience with that, I’d be ill-equipped to give them proper advice. (Oh, and let them crossplay. If they literally feel more comfortable crossplaying, then that means they are uncomfortable not doing that, and D&D is about having fun. Can’t have fun if you’re not comfortable.)

Delta
2018-06-27, 06:33 PM
Alright-I don’t think what I’m trying to say came across right, but looking at what I wrote... yeah, I can see why people are upset at me.

So I’m sorry-if anyone was offended or hurt by what I said, I can assure you that was not what I intended, and if I can make it better, please let me know how.

Okay, I'll try to explain my view on things:

Roleplaying is about playing a role. Most likely, a role that's in many ways not like yourself. This is a pretty accepted thing no one has a problem with. If I, who has trouble handing a LARP sword with even basic competence, want to play a master swordsman, that's no problem. If a bearded ripped six foot five guy wants to play an elven wizard, I've never heard anyone complain about that. There's so many things where we around the table are willing to suspend our disbelief at a moments notice because everyone accepts that we play people in RPGs who are not like us.

But then, when the question of gender is concerned, everything about that seems to change for some people. Suddenly, it's all about how to do it the "right" way (I'm not talking about you specificially here, but it's something I've heard so often it made me wary), which for me has a lot of unfortunate implications because to me, the idea there's a "wrong" way to play a man or a woman is pretty much ridiculous. While I wouldn't flat out say "I'm out" and walk out the door, it would be a clear warning sign to me that I better make sure that this is a group I want to play in. It's not a deal breaker by itself, but it's a warning sign that there might be some ahead.

To put it like that: If it's really just the voice that's your problem and everyone in your group is really intense about method acting their characters and handling everything in character with appropriate voices, I'd have no problem accepting that (yet still would probably not want to join because that style of play sounds way too intense for me, but that's just a matter of preference), but that's just not my personal experience on the subject.

Delta
2018-06-27, 06:39 PM
Finally, if someone told me “I want to crossplay because I just feel more comfortable playing as the other gender,” I’d probably direct them to talk to some of the lovely trans people here on the playground, or a gender therapist or someone, since that sounds a lot like they might be trans themselves, and lacking direct experience with that, I’d be ill-equipped to give them proper advice.

Um... as a general word of advice, I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but do NOT do that. That person you're talking to is NOT asking you about advice concerning their sexuality, so it's most certainly NOT okay to give it to them just because they ask to play a crossgender character in your group. But if you say "If someone felt more comfortable playing as that character in my group, I'd let them" then what's the problem? Isn't that pretty much what said person is already implicitly telling you in the first place when saying "I'd like to play this character (who happens to be CG)"?

Mr Beer
2018-06-27, 06:49 PM
Yeah, the one RL group I thought about joining where the GM immediately said "Absolutely no cross-gender characters!" I ended up passing on. Never even planned on playing a female in that, but it was indeed a good first warning sign that me and the GM most likely wouldn't see eye to eye on some things.

See I would have assumed the GM said that because they had experienced some of the cross-gender horror stories that get described on this forum now and again. As in, people using it as an opportunity to loudly 'roleplay' an offensive stereotype.

Delta
2018-06-27, 06:53 PM
See I would have assumed the GM said that because they had experienced some of the cross-gender horror stories that get described on this forum now and again.

To make it clear: His aversion to CG characters was not in the end the reason I passed on the group, as I said it was just a first sign that made me wary.

If there's one thing the guy said that really turned me away during our session 0, it was during small-talk when he explained his philosophy on how to handle bad players in LARP that no-sell being hit in combat, he found it awfully funny to hit those people hard enough till they get actually hurt so they "learn" to sell their hits better next time. When I pointed out that his behaviour is the much more objectively awful one (call me crazy, but I consider intentionally hurting people somewhat worse than bad roleplaying, apart from being grounds for being expelled from the con by every organizing team I've ever worked with) he still couldn't see anything wrong with it.

Again, the CG thing was not crucial, it was just that when we first sat down and he asked if anyone already had a character concept ready, "And of course no CG!" was pretty much the first thing he said, so that was my first warning sign we might not get along so well.

But maybe to get this post back on topic: "Being an awful person that likes hurting people IRL" is probably one of the things that belongs on such a list.

Nifft
2018-06-27, 06:54 PM
See I would have assumed the GM said that because they had experienced some of the cross-gender horror stories that get described on this forum now and again. As in, people using it as an opportunity to loudly 'roleplay' an offensive stereotype.

Yeah same.

A rule like "Don't RP any offensive stereotypes." seems quite reasonable.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-27, 06:59 PM
Yeah same.

A rule like "Don't RP any offensive stereotypes." seems quite reasonable.

As long as there's a decent common understanding of what's offensive, I can support that rule. I mean people vary so strongly on that front--what's offensive to one is tuesday to another. And vice versa.

My basic rule is "play with people you trust and are friends with. If anything goes wrong, talk about it like adults." That solves 99% of the problems, but does restrict the playing field quite a bit.

Mr Beer
2018-06-27, 07:06 PM
<snip>

But maybe to get this post back on topic: "Being an awful person that likes hurting people IRL" is probably one of the things that belongs on such a list.

Yeah 'no sadists' seems like a good rule.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-06-27, 07:10 PM
Yeah 'no sadists' seems like a good rule.

I thought all proper DMs were supposed to get their thrills from the anguished cries of the players?

Note: I was debating whether that should be in blue...

Nifft
2018-06-27, 07:12 PM
As long as there's a decent common understanding of what's offensive, I can support that rule. I mean people vary so strongly on that front--what's offensive to one is tuesday to another. And vice versa.

My basic rule is "play with people you trust and are friends with. If anything goes wrong, talk about it like adults." That solves 99% of the problems, but does restrict the playing field quite a bit.

Sure, if you play with adults who were already your friends.

Not everyone has pre-existing friends with the same interest, nor does everyone play exclusively with adults.

Rules allow better interactions with strangers by helping to set expectations. I mean, if you're already good friends and you already know each other pretty well, why would you even need table rules?

If you never play with relative strangers, you're a bit like the farmer who only eats the cows she raised herself -- "Why does there need to be any kind of meat safety standard? Just eat healthy cows." Sounds great, but not always an option for everyone.

Delta
2018-06-27, 07:15 PM
Yeah same.

A rule like "Don't RP any offensive stereotypes." seems quite reasonable.

No discussion there. If I came up with "bikini chainmail fighter chick that ****s everything that moves" and the GM said "Please don't", that's something completely different (although amusingly, I have seen pretty much that stereotype ingame played as both male and female (if you swap out the chainmail for cloth/leather armor), both crossgendered, in a serious campaign I ran that had some of the most interesting roleplaying scenes I've ever witnessed, just saying...)

Hawkstar
2018-06-27, 07:19 PM
Okay, I'll try to explain my view on things:

Roleplaying is about playing a role. Most likely, a role that's in many ways not like yourself. This is a pretty accepted thing no one has a problem with. If I, who has trouble handing a LARP sword with even basic competence, want to play a master swordsman, that's no problem. If a bearded ripped six foot five guy wants to play an elven wizard, I've never heard anyone complain about that. There's so many things where we around the table are willing to suspend our disbelief at a moments notice because everyone accepts that we play people in RPGs who are not like us.

But then, when the question of gender is concerned, everything about that seems to change for some people. Suddenly, it's all about how to do it the "right" way (I'm not talking about you specificially here, but it's something I've heard so often it made me wary), which for me has a lot of unfortunate implications because to me, the idea there's a "wrong" way to play a man or a woman is pretty much ridiculous. While I wouldn't flat out say "I'm out" and walk out the door, it would be a clear warning sign to me that I better make sure that this is a group I want to play in. It's not a deal breaker by itself, but it's a warning sign that there might be some ahead.

To put it like that: If it's really just the voice that's your problem and everyone in your group is really intense about method acting their characters and handling everything in character with appropriate voices, I'd have no problem accepting that (yet still would probably not want to join because that style of play sounds way too intense for me, but that's just a matter of preference), but that's just not my personal experience on the subject.

The voice is a major problem when it comes to accepting cross-play. While people aren't half-arcs or dwarves IRL, we generally have miniatures or sketches of our characters to convey their physical appearance.

IRL groups, in my experience, also ridicule players who's miniatures vastly misrepresent their characters

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-27, 07:26 PM
It's a ridiculous complaint. Do you also claim that GMs should only make NPCs of their own gender? Am I restricted to playing characters from the mid-west because I can only do a ridiculous caricature of someone Japanese, or Russian, or British?

Nifft
2018-06-27, 07:33 PM
It's a ridiculous complaint. Do you also claim that GMs should only make NPCs of their own gender? Am I restricted to playing characters from the mid-west because I can only do a ridiculous caricature of someone Japanese, or Russian, or British?

"Ridiculous caricature" sounds somehow different from "offensive stereotype", and the latter is what you should be restricted from doing (as a player or DM).

Delta
2018-06-27, 07:36 PM
The voice is a major problem when it comes to accepting cross-play. While people aren't half-arcs or dwarves IRL, we generally have miniatures or sketches of our characters to convey their physical appearance.

My problem with that is simply when I see said bearded six foot something bear playing a slender, androgynous V-style elven wizard, and no one around the table seems to have any problem accepting that when his voice is probably about as far from an appropriate "elven wizard" voice as mine is from a woman's, and generally see no one having a problem with the half-orc player not slurring and growling every word out of his mouth, all of which would in my experience be pretty much standard stuff in almost every group, then yeah, it's tough for me to take that complaint about the "wrong voice" being the main issue with a crossgender character completely at face value.

And does everyone in the group do accents? Because rather often, the main language of the campaign setting isn't necessarily the native language of all characters, but I don't think I've even once seen a GM tell someone "Sorry, you can't play a character who is not native to the country we play in because you can't do a good accent", yeah, some players have fun with stuff like that and it's great when it works, but I've never seen any group make a big fuzz about it when a player doesn't want to do it.

Cluedrew
2018-06-27, 07:40 PM
"fantasy races are pointless, just play a human."The way main people player them though, they really are. If physical descriptions and how long ago major events in your life were are the only way I know you are not playing a human, I think you should just play a human. Same with alternate sci-fi races. If an alien isn't alien it is basically a human.


I'm slightly serious [that I consider plays D&D to be a warning sign]. In my experience people who play a lot of D&D pick up a lot of bad habits that make them poor fits for systems that I like. It's also not a huge deal, which I am exaggerating for comic effect.I actually agree with this. Maybe not for the same reasons you do though. I don't see it so much as bad habits (although that is also there) but just the assumptions you can get from Dungeons & Dragons often don't carry over. And that can lead to problems, but the new player types of problems that you generally just have to get them up to speed.

... I think. My one case I played with someone who had only played D&D before they killed the campaign. But that wasn't (just) because of the D&D assumptions.

Delta
2018-06-27, 07:42 PM
I actually agree with this. Maybe not for the same reasons you do though. I don't see it so much as bad habits (although that is also there) but just the assumptions you can get from Dungeons & Dragons often don't carry over. And that can lead to problems, but the new player types of problems that you generally just have to get them up to speed.

... I think. My one case I played with someone who had only played D&D before they killed the campaign. But that wasn't (just) because of the D&D assumptions.

Well, to put it like this: If a player tells me all he's ever played is one specific game and I know the game I'm running is different from that game, yeah that is a clear sign to take a closer look and make sure everything works out.

King of Nowhere
2018-06-27, 08:10 PM
I think my two rules apply even more in this case


I think there are only two red flags:

- can't compromise/solve problems by talking
- harrasses other people


"I prefer if people don't crossgender, unless they really have a good reason"
"I would like to crossgender. Would it be too much of a bother?"
Problem is going to be solved one way or the other. Good players.

Or

"Absolutely no crossgender""
"No way, I'm playing crossgender at all costs!"
This is going poorly. Bad players.

And seriously, what's wrong with sexualized stereotypes? Isn't a woman free to choose about her sexuality? All this gender issues are actually limiting people's freedom. Just look at how many people suddenly went and post about how a man or a woman should or should not behave.
The only thing, if someone is playing a rapist then he's not going to be portrayed in an heroic light. And a sexualized woman is not going to be a cleric of heironeous. if people can play murderhobos and commit genocide on a regular base, I see no reason to restrict them from playing a misoginist or a jerk. Just as long as the separation beween what happens in-game and out-of-game is clear. If a woman at my group was playing a dumb barbarian thinking with his nether regions I would not be insulted by the male stereotype. See again point 2), no harrassing people, and point 1), discuss and be willing to compromise.

Nifft
2018-06-27, 08:20 PM
And seriously, what's wrong with sexualized stereotypes? Isn't a woman free to choose about her sexuality?

Not while she's in my basement.

But seriously, sex as a topic is often problematic in games, and that's very much due to differing levels of maturity / values of appropriateness. It's disheartening, because I really like the drama that adult relationships can bring to a game, but in my experience it's best to just avoid sex.

Pex
2018-06-27, 08:48 PM
Not while she's in my basement.

But seriously, sex as a topic is often problematic in games, and that's very much due to differing levels of maturity / values of appropriateness. It's disheartening, because I really like the drama that adult relationships can bring to a game, but in my experience it's best to just avoid sex.

And DMs will never roleplay it with the PC.

WindStruck
2018-06-27, 08:49 PM
Yeah, I'd agree the suspension of disbelief argument is bupkis. There's about a million things going on in real life, from the physical qualities of the players and environment, down to how they actually conduct themselves, and distractions that pop up, that I really don't see a voice different from what one might expect to be an issue.

When the comedian says, "I shoot magic missile at the darkness!" or makes some other reference, does that not disrupt the flow of the game? Or dropping dice on the floor? Texting on your phone while you're waiting for your turn? How about when the doorbell rings and it's time to eat pizza. So you're wading deep into battle at the foot of Mount Doom.. casually eating a slice of pizza in your offhand... yeah... suspension of disbelief, bologna.

I think that yes, it's good to try to give your characters a unique voice. It would be nice if every single NPC and character had a unique voice that seemed to fit them perfectly. But that's not the reality, and I think it's a pointless quibble to focus on that and not allow crossplay. So long as players handle it responsibly (as with anything else) it can be another fun aspect of the game.

Lord Raziere
2018-06-27, 08:59 PM
The way main people player them though, they really are. If physical descriptions and how long ago major events in your life were are the only way I know you are not playing a human, I think you should just play a human. Same with alternate sci-fi races. If an alien isn't alien it is basically a human.


your triggering the warning flag even now. Good thing I got it, cause now I know at least one person I don't want to play with. helps me avoid you so that each others funs aren't ruined.

Mordaedil
2018-06-28, 01:46 AM
Regarding the current discussion with regards to people playing cross-gender and whether they should be allowed to play using their normal voices, I gotta say, please don't be a ****. I get where you're coming from, but please don't tell people what they can or cannot do. That just makes the situation worse.

I'll relate some of my own experiences if you don't mind. So, I often play women in games, because I just feel more comfortable exploring that mindset and I have a hard time relating to most kind of male characters, I can play suave swashbucklers, but that's about it. I don't really consider myself trans, because I'm happy with my body (as far as I can be) and while I can find some men attractive, I don't find myself drawn to them sexually. I'm fine with it being a fantasy and nothing more.

I've been doing a lot of the roleplay voiced recently at request that I give it a try and I don't want to do a silly voice or do much at all with my voice besides maybe speaking in a lighter tone, as I find trying to change it doesn't really work and would just go and drive people more out of their comfort seat. And I get it, I didn't really want to do voice either as I find it harder to convey myself the way I want. There is still one scenario I refuse to budge on, which is when I play a younger girl in her early teens where I refuse to do it outside of text typed, because I need to add prose and cutesy words to my vocabulary and I feel that would really drag people out of the game if I had to do it with my voice. So I ended up typing into the text chat to what other people said out loud.

And it worked out for us. I don't think it works at every group or at every table, but that's how it worked for us. So I get it and I can agree at times. But it's not always necessary either.


Fair enough.

I would personally love to have those things (well, a wife and kids; I don't want a fence around my yard), but most would consider me a reasonably successful adult. Other than my inability to figure out how people find places to meet attractive girls with similar interests (because any place I try to go to do stuff is full of people who are married and/or not female), I'm doing pretty well.
I think my original point when I wrote it was that meeting the minimal bar to achieve those things was what defined happiness, but then they are ignoring their kids to play games, not tending to their garden, buy a farm, land a massive debt that they can't pay their way out of and their pets fight constantly because they tried to make a cat and dog live together without seeing if they were compatible first. Material possessions without thinking any further about "will this actually make me happy" kind of deal.

Anyway, I didn't mean for it to reflect upon you or anything, this is a very specific pair of people I know. But this person in our games always makes a character that seems to just look for a guy to hook up with and have babies with, even while we're in a dungeon. She recently had to take a break from our campaign, so I asked her "alright, so what is your character going to be doing while you take a break from the campaign?" and she jumped straight to "elope with a lover". Her character in this game is 16 years old by request (I'm playing one of her older sisters and another player is playing the other middle sister) which put me on edge immediately.

Floret
2018-06-28, 02:14 AM
Because I absolutely love gender-swapping scenarios to see how unexamined biases, expectations, etc. are revealed, I have to ask for examples. What did her playing the male PC "the way you usually see horror stories about teenage boys playing women" actually look like? I obviously can make guesses and imagine, but having some real anecdotes to compare my imagination to will do wonders for helping me make my imaginings more accurate.

In other words, I hope this will reveal to me the answer to the question: What does a teenaged girl who's thinking with her hormones want a male character to be?

I'm not sure how well it generalises, but it is certainly an example of how it can look. Keep in mind this was maybe 8 or so years ago (...as I said, for a given value of growing up), and the group lasted only 2 sessions (back then we couldn't really stick with things). This was also Dark Eye 4th edition, there are gonna be some rules comments.


Point 1. The character was, of course, good looking. (There is a rules advantage to that effect, good for a socialite... so far, alright) Also, well endowed (Decidedly not for that... until a joke supplement for 5th edition but I digress). He also had clothes tight enough to show that off. ...as a jester (see below), somewhat fitting?
Point 2. The character had a "Constantly horny" disadvantage. (Dark Eye... has its moments...)
Point 3. The character was a child taken from his parents by Kobolds (myth kind, not reptile kind), kicked out when growing too big, equipped with magic only usable when doing so in a "funny" manner, and an "lack of knowlege: Human humor" disadvantage. That's a... debated... class in the game. Has been mightily improved for 5th ed... But that is often an auto-ban in Dark Eye games. I was young. ...now I'm gonna play one myself soon... how the tables turn...

So far, we have... The game system having options that can work in and of themselves, but combine poorly.

Point 4. The class also has a spell that can strip people. To make the overzealous Inquisitor or the tyrant noble look silly while standing around naked. They usually keep their hat on, as well.
Point 5. She only ever used that spell. And I think a grease spell, once.
Point 6. She hit on everyone. Especially the character of her best friend (Woman, playing a woman). While we're on the topic of hormonal teenage girls, the friend found that funny and the two were at it five minutes after "you meet in an inn", decidedly uncaring about facts as "noone has rented a room". Fade to black worked, though.

So, bad impulses, enabled by the system having a few elements in them that maybe should only be handed to players who use them responsibly. I should have pulled the breaks way earlier than I did, but I only have two years on my sis and it was like the third time GMing, with no prior RPG experience outside of watching the Gamers one New years morning slightly drunk and sleepdeprived.



I do the same thing, simply because when you hear a deep, bassy man voice playing a gemale character or the opposite, it pulls me out a little.

Note: I've never gamed IRL with someone who was assigned a gender different to their actual one, so that's never been an issue for me. Were it to come up, I'd stick to the guideline-if you're a lady, play a lady; if you're a dude, play a dude; matching their ACTUAL gender, not assigned.)

See, here I get wary, or at least see your inexperience, since while trans peeps can, through testosterone or training achieve voices that wouldn't trigger your stated reason for aversion, some have not the access or the time. I mean, I'm sure you'd let the dude with a soprano play a dude (I have. Worked out wonderfully for the Northman fighter, with no issue of immersion), or the woman with a baritone play a woman (Been there, done that), but it shows a certain lack of awareness :smallwink:

Incidentally, all that voice training does help magnificently to increase your range for GMing.


okay, so unlike the other guys here, I get this. my immersion is not going to survive an elven queen or whatever with the voice of a burly black dude. it just ain't happening.

Solution: Mandatory voice training for all GMs. And players, if they want to play anyone who'd have a voice they do not.


Other than my inability to figure out how people find places to meet attractive girls with similar interests (because any place I try to go to do stuff is full of people who are married and/or not female), I'm doing pretty well.

If I look at my dating history... Larps. Or maybe renfairs. Make friends on the internet and meet up. Ask out friends?



Finally, if someone told me “I want to crossplay because I just feel more comfortable playing as the other gender,” I’d probably direct them to talk to some of the lovely trans people here on the playground, or a gender therapist or someone, since that sounds a lot like they might be trans themselves, and lacking direct experience with that, I’d be ill-equipped to give them proper advice.

That would require people to be aware of the issue to a degree that people "just maybe wanting to try crossplay because it sounds interesting" would not be, and on top of that admit it to the GM as the reason. "I feel more comfortable playing the gender you don't see me as" is a giant potential risk to say.

And just letting someone be themselves and be (if only in character) be treated as "the other" gender for once would help lots. Gender therapist is a way later step in many cases.


IRL groups, in my experience, also ridicule players who's miniatures vastly misrepresent their characters

Shame on those of us who don't have the money, time and talent to produce a fitting mine for every new charakter. **** them, right?

Seriously, if I ever heard that of any group that would be like a giant red flag.

...and even beyond the fact that I don't like the style of playing with minis.

Wraith
2018-06-28, 04:28 AM
"Insisting that I must 'do the voice' for every single IC interaction" is absolutely going on my list of red flags.

I mean, don't get me wrong - I'm here to have fun and do the silly make-believe game as well as you are... but I'm primarily here for my own amusement. I'll make the effort as I can, but I won't let it be demanded of me for someone else's pleasure, whether I'm playing a comfortably familiar 30-something year old male human or a more taxing 8 year old pixie princess.

ijon
2018-06-28, 05:37 AM
Solution: Mandatory voice training for all GMs. And players, if they want to play anyone who'd have a voice they do not.

yes, good job ignoring the very next paragraph where I said that despite that, I can deal with it. nice one.

again, am I not allowed to at least ask? why are all of you jumping to "demand"? who said demand?
I'm not holding a gun to people's head or anything, jesus christ. it's a small request, and I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other if you respond "yes" or "no".

but responding with scathing sarcasm? no, screw off. I'm not dealing with that.

Keltest
2018-06-28, 06:29 AM
yes, good job ignoring the very next paragraph where I said that despite that, I can deal with it. nice one.

again, am I not allowed to at least ask? why are all of you jumping to "demand"? who said demand?
I'm not holding a gun to people's head or anything, jesus christ. it's a small request, and I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other if you respond "yes" or "no".

but responding with scathing sarcasm? no, screw off. I'm not dealing with that.

Frankly? No, you really aren't allowed to ask. Were roleplayers, not voice actors. Most people can only do their own voice. If they want to try something else, that's great, but its their decision, and only theirs, to decide whether to try or not. Putting pressure on them to do it is just disrespectful unless you already know they have a gift and desire to try out multiple voices.

King of Nowhere
2018-06-28, 07:37 AM
I'm not sure how well it generalises, but it is certainly an example of how it can look. Keep in mind this was maybe 8 or so years ago (...as I said, for a given value of growing up), and the group lasted only 2 sessions (back then we couldn't really stick with things). This was also Dark Eye 4th edition, there are gonna be some rules comments.


Point 1. The character was, of course, good looking. (There is a rules advantage to that effect, good for a socialite... so far, alright) Also, well endowed (Decidedly not for that... until a joke supplement for 5th edition but I digress). He also had clothes tight enough to show that off. ...as a jester (see below), somewhat fitting?
Point 2. The character had a "Constantly horny" disadvantage. (Dark Eye... has its moments...)
Point 3. The character was a child taken from his parents by Kobolds (myth kind, not reptile kind), kicked out when growing too big, equipped with magic only usable when doing so in a "funny" manner, and an "lack of knowlege: Human humor" disadvantage. That's a... debated... class in the game. Has been mightily improved for 5th ed... But that is often an auto-ban in Dark Eye games. I was young. ...now I'm gonna play one myself soon... how the tables turn...

So far, we have... The game system having options that can work in and of themselves, but combine poorly.

Point 4. The class also has a spell that can strip people. To make the overzealous Inquisitor or the tyrant noble look silly while standing around naked. They usually keep their hat on, as well.
Point 5. She only ever used that spell. And I think a grease spell, once.
Point 6. She hit on everyone. Especially the character of her best friend (Woman, playing a woman). While we're on the topic of hormonal teenage girls, the friend found that funny and the two were at it five minutes after "you meet in an inn", decidedly uncaring about facts as "noone has rented a room". Fade to black worked, though.

So, bad impulses, enabled by the system having a few elements in them that maybe should only be handed to players who use them responsibly. I should have pulled the breaks way earlier than I did, but I only have two years on my sis and it was like the third time GMing, with no prior RPG experience outside of watching the Gamers one New years morning slightly drunk and sleepdeprived.




dunno, seems like it could be fun. Maybe it gets old after a few sessions, but still. depends on how seriously you take your campaign, and especially on how often you go out of your way to display that behavior.

ijon
2018-06-28, 07:53 AM
Frankly? No, you really aren't allowed to ask. Were roleplayers, not voice actors. Most people can only do their own voice. If they want to try something else, that's great, but its their decision, and only theirs, to decide whether to try or not. Putting pressure on them to do it is just disrespectful unless you already know they have a gift and desire to try out multiple voices.

seriously? asking someone for a concession, and being okay with them saying no, is "putting pressure on them" and "disrespectful" and isn't allowed? if something like this truly bothers me, I should just sit there and be miserable instead of asking the other person and working something out, even if it turns out to be "we're just plain incompatible players, and I should find another game"?

people have spines, you know. they aren't gonna fall apart because you questioned a choice they made. saying this is forbidden is utterly pathetic, and I would never want to play with someone who'd stifle something as innocuous as that.

my time might not be worth much, but it's definitely worth more than dealing with built up tensions because you find it disrespectful when I bring up my issues with how someone else is playing.

edit: and just to make it clear? you have absolutely every right to complain about how I play the game. maybe I'll care. maybe I won't. but I'm not gonna stop you.

Cluedrew
2018-06-28, 08:12 AM
Well, to put it like this: If a player tells me all he's ever played is one specific game and I know the game I'm running is different from that game, yeah that is a clear sign to take a closer look and make sure everything works out.It generalizes quite nicely doesn't it? Which is to say yes.


your triggering the warning flag even now. Good thing I got it, cause now I know at least one person I don't want to play with. helps me avoid you so that each others funs aren't ruined.Don't worry, it is more "I am unimpressed" than it actively being a problem. I have played with enough pointy-eared humans that I can continue on. I think it is a real missed opportunity more than anything else.

Still I am not including any non-human playable races in my system. Not because I have considered it I haven't found a reason to justify putting in the time.

Keltest
2018-06-28, 08:17 AM
seriously? asking someone for a concession, and being okay with them saying no, is "putting pressure on them" and "disrespectful" and isn't allowed? if something like this truly bothers me, I should just sit there and be miserable instead of asking the other person and working something out, even if it turns out to be "we're just plain incompatible players, and I should find another game"?

people have spines, you know. they aren't gonna fall apart because you questioned a choice they made. saying this is forbidden is utterly pathetic, and I would never want to play with someone who'd stifle something as innocuous as that.

my time might not be worth much, but it's definitely worth more than dealing with built up tensions because you find it disrespectful when I bring up my issues with how someone else is playing.

edit: and just to make it clear? you have absolutely every right to complain about how I play the game. maybe I'll care. maybe I won't. but I'm not gonna stop you.

Im sorry, but youre the one who suggested that you could plausibly be leaving a gaming table over this (or worse, trying to prompt somebody to leave your group). If you want to talk about petty and pathetic, maybe start looking there first.

I know I don't want to game with somebody who will throw a fit over their right to game with professional voice actors.

Floret
2018-06-28, 08:28 AM
yes, good job ignoring the very next paragraph where I said that despite that, I can deal with it. nice one.

I didn't ignore it, no. It was a joke, chill... I find the argument of unfitting voice to be a bit ridiculous for reasons lined out by all sorts of people, but you are reading way more malice into this than I put there.

"Scathing" sarcasm is a bit much, considering in that same post I pointed out the benefits of voice training for GMing unironically.


dunno, seems like it could be fun. Maybe it gets old after a few sessions, but still. depends on how seriously you take your campaign, and especially on how often you go out of your way to display that behavior.

Eh... It wasn't.

I mean, as I said, the class isn't the problem. The class can be done well, and I myself am planning one of them. Even got that same spell.

Good looking characters, likewise. My current group has one character that isn't. The socialite, funnily enough... Its mainly just be a bit of flavor.

Seduction as a game element, sure. Have done that. How characters deal with their sexuality can be a great tool for roleplaying, and while I can understand the restrictions people place on it sometimes, I like it being an option.

It was the way she did it, with the social graces, experience, knowlege and humor of a 14 year old. The way she combined it. The feelig for appropriate situations (...or lack thereof). "How often you go out of your way" seems to be the core issue :smallwink:

ijon
2018-06-28, 08:53 AM
Im sorry, but youre the one who suggested that you could plausibly be leaving a gaming table over this (or worse, trying to prompt somebody to leave your group). If you want to talk about petty and pathetic, maybe start looking there first.

I know I don't want to game with somebody who will throw a fit over their right to game with professional voice actors.

... sigh.

my stance on the crossplay/voices issue has been clear from post 1, and it has been "it'd ruin my immersion if I had any, but I didn't anyway so I can deal with it". that is a different conversation (one where I'd end up talking about STALKER a lot), and more importantly, that is not the problem.

the problem is shutting down any discussion of it at the table because you find it disrespectful, and in the process stifling any other such disagreements. that's the problem. that's what I'd leave the table over. that's why I led with "seriously, you can't even ask?".

the goal is that everyone has fun. your fun at the table is no more valuable than mine. so if you have a problem with the way I'm playing, whatever it is, which way do you think is the better way to handle it?

1. bring it up with me ("hey, I don't like this thing you're doing, could you do something about it"), wait for me to respond ("sure, what's bothering you specifically"/"no, I'm not compromising on this"), and then going from there to reach some sort of agreement ("it's just that... "/"oh, ok then" and then consider whether it's really a big deal to you)
2. shut up and let the issue fester, making the game even less fun for you
3. just immediately leave

hint: it's never 2, and it's hardly ever 3. but by saying I'm not allowed to ask, you've shut out 1. you see why I got a problem with that?

edit: and what's this "(or worse, trying to prompt somebody to leave your group)" garbage? when did I ever come anywhere near saying that?


I didn't ignore it, no. It was a joke, chill... I find the argument of unfitting voice to be a bit ridiculous for reasons lined out by all sorts of people, but you are reading way more malice into this than I put there.

"Scathing" sarcasm is a bit much, considering in that same post I pointed out the benefits of voice training for GMing unironically.

well, the way you said it, I thought you assumed I actually had a real problem with the unfitting voices. since you didn't, I apologize.

Keltest
2018-06-28, 09:11 AM
... sigh.

my stance on the crossplay/voices issue has been clear from post 1, and it has been "it'd ruin my immersion if I had any, but I didn't anyway so I can deal with it". that is a different conversation (one where I'd end up talking about STALKER a lot), and more importantly, that is not the problem.

the problem is shutting down any discussion of it at the table because you find it disrespectful, and in the process stifling any other such disagreements. that's the problem. that's what I'd leave the table over. that's why I led with "seriously, you can't even ask?".

the goal is that everyone has fun. your fun at the table is no more valuable than mine. so if you have a problem with the way I'm playing, whatever it is, which way do you think is the better way to handle it?

1. bring it up with me ("hey, I don't like this thing you're doing, could you do something about it"), wait for me to respond ("sure, what's bothering you specifically"/"no, I'm not compromising on this"), and then going from there to reach some sort of agreement ("it's just that... "/"oh, ok then" and then consider whether it's really a big deal to you)
2. shut up and let the issue fester, making the game even less fun for you
3. just immediately leave

hint: it's never 2, and it's hardly ever 3. but by saying I'm not allowed to ask, you've shut out 1. you see why I got a problem with that?

edit: and what's this "(or worse, trying to prompt somebody to leave your group)" garbage? when did I ever come anywhere near saying that?

Lets be clear here. I don't care how you play. If you enjoy making voices, or listening to voices, or setting dramatic background music when your actions come up, that's your prerogative. Its when you try and change how other people play that it becomes a problem. Your individual ability to affect how the other members of your group play is limited to putting ideas in their heads for them to form opinions on. If you need players to behave in a specific manner for you to enjoy the game, well, that sucks for you if you cant find a group that conforms to that, but the fact of the matter is your personal enjoyment is not important enough that you get to go around trying to change how people game.


edit: and what's this "(or worse, trying to prompt somebody to leave your group)" garbage? when did I ever come anywhere near saying that?

I apologize, I misread your post, you did indeed limit it to yourself leaving the group, and not the other player.

Delta
2018-06-28, 09:16 AM
dunno, seems like it could be fun. Maybe it gets old after a few sessions, but still. depends on how seriously you take your campaign, and especially on how often you go out of your way to display that behavior.

That's kind of the problem most groups (including mine) have with the character class described. It's a pretty ridiculous class based on practical jokes and not taking anything seriously in a fantasy world that takes itself very seriously. Doesn't really work out well in most cases.

ijon
2018-06-28, 09:24 AM
Lets be clear here. I don't care how you play. If you enjoy making voices, or listening to voices, or setting dramatic background music when your actions come up, that's your prerogative. Its when you try and change how other people play that it becomes a problem. Your individual ability to affect how the other members of your group play is limited to putting ideas in their heads for them to form opinions on. If you need players to behave in a specific manner for you to enjoy the game, well, that sucks for you if you cant find a group that conforms to that, but the fact of the matter is your personal enjoyment is not important enough that you get to go around trying to change how people game.

the corollary to that is that your fun is not so important that you can just shut other people's opinions up because they get in the way of your fun. and by getting rid of the option to even ask about an issue, which you have explicitly advocated for, you have shut them up. therefore, you are saying that your fun is more important than theirs, and therefore, you are a problem.

I have literally never advocated forcing them to do as you say. never. not once. the entire time, I have used terms like "asking" and "working things out" and "compromise". I have been okay with the idea of someone being adamant with their decisions from the beginning, and when I play games with other people, I'm the one encouraging them to do whatever the hell they want. my entire problem has been with shutting the other person up and poisoning the atmosphere.

your choices are never so sacred that someone else can't question them. plain and simple.

Keltest
2018-06-28, 09:33 AM
the corollary to that is that your fun is not so important that you can just shut other people's opinions up because they get in the way of your fun. and by getting rid of the option to even ask about an issue, which you have explicitly advocated for, you have shut them up. therefore, you are saying that your fun is more important than theirs, and therefore, you are a problem.

I have literally never advocated forcing them to do as you say. never. not once. the entire time, I have used terms like "asking" and "working things out" and "compromise". I have been okay with the idea of someone being adamant with their decisions from the beginning, and when I play games with other people, I'm the one encouraging them to do whatever the hell they want. my entire problem has been with shutting the other person up and poisoning the atmosphere.

your choices are never so sacred that someone else can't question them. plain and simple.

That's a huge leap. Ultimately, youre the only person responsible for making sure youre entertained at a group. If the other members want to help out and are volunteering to change for you, good on them, but without that, youre the only person you have the right to try and change at the table. "Hey guys, have you ever considered doing X?" is as far as it should go.

And yeah, if youre somebody who is so petty about the voices that they cant have fun without them, youre probably going to have a rough time finding a table to enjoy. Youll have to forgive me if I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that picky about their gaming.

ijon
2018-06-28, 09:47 AM
That's a huge leap. Ultimately, youre the only person responsible for making sure youre entertained at a group. If the other members want to help out and are volunteering to change for you, good on them, but without that, youre the only person you have the right to try and change at the table. "Hey guys, have you ever considered doing X?" is as far as it should go.

And yeah, if youre somebody who is so petty about the voices that they cant have fun without them, youre probably going to have a rough time finding a table to enjoy. Youll have to forgive me if I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that picky about their gaming.

how many times do I have to say it's not about the voices? do I need a glowing neon sign? should I paint it on a blimp? good lord.

as for the other stuff, no I'm pretty sure you have the right to bring up grievances and work them out with the other people you're playing with. if someone brings a ludicrously overpowered build to the table, I have every right to go "dude, that's ludicrously overpowered, don't ruin the game". if someone walks into a gritty post-apocalyptic game and brings the USS enterprise with him, I have every right to go "dude, that completely ruins the atmosphere, don't do that". if someone's intruding on your niche, you have every right to go "hey our roles are overlapping and I'm not a fan of that, let's work something out". and so on and so forth.

you are presumably reasonable people. you can presumably work out disagreements amicably. and the end result of working it out is that the total amount of fun is increased (or at least that the total amount of not-fun is decreased). where is the downside?

and if you can't work out differences - if you really can't compromise on anything - then I don't want to play a game with you anyway, because we're gonna constantly be butting heads, and that's what arguing on the internet is for.

Keltest
2018-06-28, 09:58 AM
how many times do I have to say it's not about the voices? do I need a glowing neon sign? should I paint it on a blimp? good lord.

as for the other stuff, no I'm pretty sure you have the right to bring up grievances and work them out with the other people you're playing with. if someone brings a ludicrously overpowered build to the table, I have every right to go "dude, that's ludicrously overpowered, don't ruin the game". if someone walks into a gritty post-apocalyptic game and brings the USS enterprise with him, I have every right to go "dude, that completely ruins the atmosphere, don't do that". if someone's intruding on your niche, you have every right to go "hey our roles are overlapping and I'm not a fan of that, let's work something out". and so on and so forth.

you are presumably reasonable people. you can presumably work out disagreements amicably. and the end result of working it out is that the total amount of fun is increased (or at least that the total amount of not-fun is decreased). where is the downside?

and if you can't work out differences - if you really can't compromise on anything - then I don't want to play a game with you anyway, because we're gonna constantly be butting heads, and that's what arguing on the internet is for.

One, if you don't want to be associated with a position, don't defend it. Two, im aware its not specifically about the voices, theyre just a convenient example that's already been established in the conversation.

Anyway, if you would describe a sub-optimal gaming environment as a "grievance" that needs "working out", you really need to adjust your expectations. Your given examples actually support my point, because theyre all people, intentionally or not, affecting your ability to play the game how you want to play it. Something petty and cosmetic that doesn't affect your ability to play the game at all? No, leave that alone. Your chair is uncomfortable? Sure, say something. You don't like the color of the paint on the walls? Get over it or go somewhere else.

Gravitron5000
2018-06-28, 10:04 AM
So you're wading deep into battle at the foot of Mount Doom.. casually eating a slice of pizza in your offhand... yeah... suspension of disbelief, bologna.

Bologna on pizza is a giant red flag. :smallbiggrin:

MrSandman
2018-06-28, 10:09 AM
One, if you don't want to be associated with a position, don't defend it. Two, im aware its not specifically about the voices, theyre just a convenient example that's already been established in the conversation.

Anyway, if you would describe a sub-optimal gaming environment as a "grievance" that needs "working out", you really need to adjust your expectations. Your given examples actually support my point, because theyre all people, intentionally or not, affecting your ability to play the game how you want to play it. Something petty and cosmetic that doesn't affect your ability to play the game at all? No, leave that alone. Your chair is uncomfortable? Sure, say something. You don't like the color of the paint on the walls? Get over it or go somewhere else.

What I don't quite get is why bringing up an issue, any issue, is a problem. Somethings may be a problem for some people but not for others. In university, we had a common laundry room for the people in my dorm, and one year I was in charge of it. Some people came to me because other people were taking their clothes out of the washing machine when the cycle was done, and they really did not like to have their clothes touched by other people. I personally, and many others, couldn't care less about other people touching my clothes, as long as they put them nicely in the basket, I have no problem with it. Does that mean that I should shut them up because their issue is a non-issue for me? No, it means that we need to respectfully find a way to compromise and live in harmony. At least, I'd rather do that than adjudicating to myself the job of deciding what is a valid issue and what isn't.

So, if someone has an issue with voices or the colour of the walls, what's wrong with saying it? Whatever the answer may be, I find no reason to tell people not to talk about it.

Keltest
2018-06-28, 10:18 AM
What I don't quite get is why bringing up an issue, any issue, is a problem. Somethings may be a problem for some people but not for others. In university, we had a common laundry room for the people in my dorm, and one year I was in charge of it. Some people came to me because other people were taking their clothes out of the washing machine when the cycle was done, and they really did not like to have their clothes touched by other people. I personally, and many others, couldn't care less about other people touching my clothes, as long as they put them nicely in the basket, I have no problem with it. Does that mean that I should shut them up because their issue is a non-issue for me? No, it means that we need to respectfully find a way to compromise and live in harmony. At least, I'd rather do that than adjudicating to myself the job of deciding what is a valid issue and what isn't.

Bringing up that you have an opinion isn't quite the same thing as trying to get people to change for your sake. To use your analogy, you can make it known that you don't like people touching your clothes, but if they decide they don't care, that's as far as you can take it unless theres an actual consequence to their touching your stuff.

AceOfFools
2018-06-28, 10:37 AM
yes, good job ignoring the very next paragraph where I said that despite that, I can deal with it. nice one.

again, am I not allowed to at least ask? why are all of you jumping to "demand"? who said demand?
I'm not holding a gun to people's head or anything, jesus christ. it's a small request, and I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other if you respond "yes" or "no".

but responding with scathing sarcasm? no, screw off. I'm not dealing with that.

Let me share with you a non-hypothetical story of a friend of mine.

Due to her genetics, she cannot present as female without it being really obvious she is trans. At gaming conventions, where some attendees are poorly socially adjusted and/or have problems with women, to avoid harassment and unwelcome attention--in order to feel safe--she's been known to go back into the closet and attend presenting as male.

If this friend sat down at your table with a female character, you would (either implicitly or explicitly) say "I could never picture you as a woman, can't you just be a man?"

This in an incredibly hateful, hurtful thing to say to a trans woman. It's also something she hears from transphobic bigots on a regular basis.

So yes, just asking that particular question can absolutely ruin someone's day.

And now you know.

kyoryu
2018-06-28, 11:25 AM
I don't mind people playing cross-gender.

I do consider it a warning flag for new players, and will generally ask new players not to. Because while it can be utterly fine, it's one of the things that when it goes sideways tends to go really, really sideways. Built up some trust? Sure! New guy off the street! Hell no!

In that way, it's basically the same thing as someone playing an Assamite in Vampire or CN in D&D. Can be fun, can be utterly the worst thing ever. Someone asking for it puts me on heightened alert - I'm not judging yet, but I will be slightly more aware of their behavior.

Telling someone "hey, I'd prefer you not this time 'round til we've built some history" also secondarily ends up being a good test for "can you compromise and empathize?" So, double win!

Segev
2018-06-28, 11:41 AM
I'm not sure how well it generalises, but it is certainly an example of how it can look. Keep in mind this was maybe 8 or so years ago (...as I said, for a given value of growing up), and the group lasted only 2 sessions (back then we couldn't really stick with things). This was also Dark Eye 4th edition, there are gonna be some rules comments.


Point 1. The character was, of course, good looking. (There is a rules advantage to that effect, good for a socialite... so far, alright) Also, well endowed (Decidedly not for that... until a joke supplement for 5th edition but I digress). He also had clothes tight enough to show that off. ...as a jester (see below), somewhat fitting?
Point 2. The character had a "Constantly horny" disadvantage. (Dark Eye... has its moments...)
Point 3. The character was a child taken from his parents by Kobolds (myth kind, not reptile kind), kicked out when growing too big, equipped with magic only usable when doing so in a "funny" manner, and an "lack of knowlege: Human humor" disadvantage. That's a... debated... class in the game. Has been mightily improved for 5th ed... But that is often an auto-ban in Dark Eye games. I was young. ...now I'm gonna play one myself soon... how the tables turn...

So far, we have... The game system having options that can work in and of themselves, but combine poorly.

Point 4. The class also has a spell that can strip people. To make the overzealous Inquisitor or the tyrant noble look silly while standing around naked. They usually keep their hat on, as well.
Point 5. She only ever used that spell. And I think a grease spell, once.
Point 6. She hit on everyone. Especially the character of her best friend (Woman, playing a woman). While we're on the topic of hormonal teenage girls, the friend found that funny and the two were at it five minutes after "you meet in an inn", decidedly uncaring about facts as "noone has rented a room". Fade to black worked, though.

So, bad impulses, enabled by the system having a few elements in them that maybe should only be handed to players who use them responsibly. I should have pulled the breaks way earlier than I did, but I only have two years on my sis and it was like the third time GMing, with no prior RPG experience outside of watching the Gamers one New years morning slightly drunk and sleepdeprived.
Huh, interesting. The similarities (attractive, well endowed, tight clothes, always horny) to the teen-boy-playing-a-girl-stereotype are obvious in some respects. All things the hormone-addled player would like to see in a potential piece of eye-candy (or theoretical paramour).

I find the "spell that strips people" interesting. There are a couple of layers, here, to where the standards are different. Let's start with "male character stripping female characters." Overtly, this is as creepy as it sounds. Even "played for laughs," it's got sexual harassment/predation dripping from it. But then we turn it around and have a female player controlling the male character. Still skeevy behavior from the character, but if a girl is directing it, that confuses the gut reaction.

Reversing it, a female character doing it to males will almost always be accompanied by a literal - or at least implied - laugh track. Men being pursued by women in an aggressive fashion is rarely depicted as sexual harassment/predation. The weird thing is that when we step it back and have it be the hormonal teen boy playing the girl... he'd be looked at weirdly for having her trying to seduce men by stripping the men.

But perhaps we're looking at this wrong. The "expected" use of the stripping spell on an overly-endowed and oversexed female character controlled by a teen male would be to rapidly strip HERSELF for what he considers seduction purposes. Perhaps that is what the oversexed male character controlled by the teen girl is also doing. However, again, a woman stripping herself to seduce a man is inappropriate, but will be viewed as the man being the one who's in the awkward position and implicate the man in any social wrongdoing. It makes him, STILL, the assumed predator/harasser. A male character doing it is a flasher, with all the negative connotations that entails.

The male player of the female ecdysiast will be looked askance at by most of society. Eye-rolling at his immaturity is perhaps the BEST he can hope for. The female player of the male flasher, however, might well get away with "it's FUNNY!" as the default reaction.

Oh, and I suppose there's one trope that applies equally to male and female players of oversexed characters of the opposite sex: the character being gay or bi in order to strip and seduce other members of the same sex the player finds attractive. That doesn't seem to have arisen, here, as the "Getting it on" was between opposite-sexed characters.



If I look at my dating history... Larps. Or maybe renfairs. Make friends on the internet and meet up. Ask out friends?Actually meeting new people at such things is hard. :( I'm not very good at casual party talk. Also, all my friends are male or married. (Or both, but at that point the 'male' part is the first no-go on a romantic relationship. :P)


This in an incredibly hateful, hurtful thing to say to a trans woman. It's also something she hears from transphobic bigots on a regular basis.
I will agree that it would be hurtful. But it probably isn't hateful, especially if the person saying it didn't know the trans- status of your friend.

It is bad, bad practice to ascribe hate to people just because they hurt your feelings. If they're doing it on purpose, it's mean, but assuming they're intentionally hurting your feelings is a recipe for misery.

AceOfFools
2018-06-28, 12:22 PM
I will agree that it would be hurtful. But it probably isn't hateful, especially if the person saying it didn't know the trans- status of your friend.

It is bad, bad practice to ascribe hate to people just because they hurt your feelings. If they're doing it on purpose, it's mean, but assuming they're intentionally hurting your feelings is a recipe for misery.

FWIW: I was describing the statement as intrinsically hateful regardless of any intent of the speaker, because it is verbatim a statement used by bigots to deliberately inflict pain.

Someone meeting you under circumstances where they feel compelled to hide their gender to avoid harassment has no reason to believe a very hurtful comment could be benign.

My whole point is that it is possible to unwittingly and unintentionally really hurt someone specifically by asking that exact question.

It's not a thing I expect most people to realize until it's pointed out to them--I certainly needed it pointed out to me.

Delta
2018-06-28, 12:40 PM
Actually meeting new people at such things is hard. :( I'm not very good at casual party talk. Also, all my friends are male or married. (Or both, but at that point the 'male' part is the first no-go on a romantic relationship. :P)


I agree on LARPs or pen & paper conventions. Met my own gf of 15 years there, my best friend met his wive there, and among my larp-ing friends, it's gettting hard to count the couples who met on larps.

Or to make it simple: If you want to meet people who are interesting in something, go to where people with that interest go and meet up. Sounds trivial, but there's really not much more to it than that. P&P cons and larps have the added advantage that you are in a setting you're comfortable with and don't just have to chat up people you don't know with random small talk (which is something I'm truly horrible at as well, don't think I could ever just meet someone at a bar or something like that)

Calthropstu
2018-06-28, 12:54 PM
Yeah, the one RL group I thought about joining where the GM immediately said "Absolutely no cross-gender characters!" I ended up passing on. Never even planned on playing a female in that, but it was indeed a good first warning sign that me and the GM most likely wouldn't see eye to eye on some things.

See, I have no problem with a gm doing this. I have seen gender bending done horribly on several occasions, especially by gay men trying to secretly hit on other players who aren't gay. And, since replacing players is so difficult, it's easier to ban the practice than deal with it after it gets abused.

Personally, I have a table rule of "zero inter-pc attempts at romance unless you are a couple in rl." That puts a stop to a lot of creepy bs.

But that's not the only bad effect of gender bending. It's a widely known fact that men and women think differently. It's very difficult for men to play women effectively without being insultingly bad at it. At a mixed gender table, it can undoubtedly lead to problems. Saw a woman tear into a guy at a table because she thought he was being insulting for the way he portrayed his female character.

So a gm banning cross gender play isn't really a red flag to me. I myself avoid playing female characters at a tabletop game, only 2 of my last 12 characters were female. It is definitely a challenge playing them believably.

Segev
2018-06-28, 01:51 PM
FWIW: I was describing the statement as intrinsically hateful regardless of any intent of the speaker, because it is verbatim a statement used by bigots to deliberately inflict pain.

Someone meeting you under circumstances where they feel compelled to hide their gender to avoid harassment has no reason to believe a very hurtful comment could be benign.

My whole point is that it is possible to unwittingly and unintentionally really hurt someone specifically by asking that exact question.Hurtful is not necessarily hateful.

No statement, other than one that overtly expresses hatred, is "inherently hateful." Declaring things "hateful" just because they sometimes happen to be said by people who mean them that way is a bad practice, because it discourages discussion of issues. It instead attempts to create a dogmatic catechism of acceptable speech and topics, and positions one must take on topics. Even ignorance is "hateful" under such circumstances.

It is toxic.

Informing somebody that they hurt another's feelings, or that they could if they behave a certain way around them, is one thing. Telling them that they're hateful for having said it, even (especially) when they didn't mean it to be hurtful, is needlessly antagonistic. Rather than seeking reconciliation, it seeks to reprimand, which, when somebody didn't mean any harm, is more likely to cause fights than prevent them.


It's very difficult for men to play women effectively without being insultingly bad at it. At a mixed gender table, it can undoubtedly lead to problems. Saw a woman tear into a guy at a table because she thought he was being insulting for the way he portrayed his female character.Generally speaking, when playing a character, I assume they're a character first. If I had a reason for her to be female, that reason might color the character, but I have never - in my admittedly rare instances of playing a female character - had anybody tell me I was insulting women by playing one.

Delta
2018-06-28, 01:55 PM
It's very difficult for men to play women effectively without being insultingly bad at it.

In my experience, that statement is objectively false in every possible way.

Lord Raziere
2018-06-28, 02:41 PM
In my experience, that statement is objectively false in every possible way.

Agreed, Calthropstu is kind of triggering a red flag to me by even by even making the argument, personally.

Delta
2018-06-28, 02:51 PM
Agreed, Calthropstu is kind of triggering a red flag to me by even by even making the argument, personally.

That whole post triggered more red flags than a soviet military parade for me. I'm just not going into more of it because I don't think that discussion would be heading to a good place for anyone, so I just limited myself to the one statement that I simply know to be wrong.

Floret
2018-06-28, 02:52 PM
I find the "spell that strips people" interesting.

Well, she did mostly use it to make fun of NPCs. Actually used it on authority figures most, irrespective of attractiveness.


Actually meeting new people at such things is hard. :( I'm not very good at casual party talk. Also, all my friends are male or married. (Or both, but at that point the 'male' part is the first no-go on a romantic relationship. :P)

Is it? I always come back with at least a handful of new acquaintances. Take the time to chat with people, or just nerd out at them about a shared topic of interest. Scratch casual party talk. If it's not who you are, chances are you're not gonna click with the people whom you'd attract with it anyways. Try and recall how you started your current friendships. Repeat that.

Most importantly, treat people as people and friends first, potential partners a distant second (and genuinely be interested in their friendship, not just as a stepping stone to romance).

Also you may find that personal connection can make people be attractive that while glancing at them you would never have given the time of day.



And, since replacing players is so difficult, it's easier to ban the practice than deal with it after it gets abused.

Replacing players, ime, is quite easy. Continuing to play with a creep that can't take no for an answer, or that used IC flirting as an excuse/figleaf for OC flirting, especially after being told no, is a bad idea.


Personally, I have a table rule of "zero inter-pc attempts at romance unless you are a couple in rl." That puts a stop to a lot of creepy bs.

If you need to put in place several rules to rule in the creeps, I'm gonna assume you play with too many creeps. Stop doing that.


It's a widely known fact that men and women think differently. It's very difficult for men to play women effectively without being insultingly bad at it.

It is a widely known truism, and also utter horse****. Seriously. People think differently from each other - those differences do not break down (least of all neatly) along gender lines.

The only issue men have with playing women is assuming there is some fundamental difference in thinking, or assuming there is a way to play "a woman", the same sentiment behind an "inability to understand women". The problem is easily solved by the approach of George R.R. Martin: Always consider women to be people, first, fundamentally the same as men. Everything else comes naturally from that.

War_lord
2018-06-28, 02:58 PM
Well, I've never had any issues with anyone crossplaying, even though all the people in question were very much not trans. Although I must say none of my players are "horny teenage boys", although I question how frequently adult players are gaming with with teenagers in settings where they can't just be told to just knock it off. By contrast I'd consider a DM throwing around a no crossplay rule a problem sign to watch out for, because it's so often a clear indicator of sheltered thinking. People (usually male and nerdy) who might not be intentionally intolerant about sexuality and gender, but whose overly categorical thought processes and inability to move beyond a simplistic worldview leads to the same kind of rhetoric and an unpleasant table.

WindStruck
2018-06-28, 03:03 PM
Finally, if someone told me “I want to crossplay because I just feel more comfortable playing as the other gender,” I’d probably direct them to talk to some of the lovely trans people here on the playground, or a gender therapist or someone, since that sounds a lot like they might be trans themselves, and lacking direct experience with that, I’d be ill-equipped to give them proper advice. (Oh, and let them crossplay. If they literally feel more comfortable crossplaying, then that means they are uncomfortable not doing that, and D&D is about having fun. Can’t have fun if you’re not comfortable.)

Wait.... so if someone wants to crossplay, or to be fair, 'feels more comfortable playing as the other gender' you think they should see a therapist? :smallconfused:

Have you considered that role-playing games can simply be an outlet, such that one who feels like maybe they were better off as the other gender can just play out a fantasy, but otherwise be content with their body?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-28, 03:08 PM
Saying "Hey do you mind not playing a PC of another gender?" is exactly as inappropriate as saying "Hey do you mind not playing a gay character?" It doesn't matter if it's only a request. It's inappropriate. Don't do it.

Delta
2018-06-28, 03:08 PM
Although I must say none of my players are "horny teenage boys", although I question how frequently adult players are gaming with with teenagers in settings where they can't just be told to just knock it off.

On a recent convention, I played in a Shadowrun group together with two teenagers whose characters were both female, who are basically the cyberpunk equivalent of murderhobos, who even insisted on their characters basically pimping themselves out to get the gang boss we were after into a situation where we could grab him, even though my character had a completely viable alternative to offer where no one would have had to do anything like that.

Fun fact for the people thinking "See! That's why crossgender is bad!": None of the characters was CG, both players were female. Had they been male, I'm sure those two characters, played completely identically, would've been used as a perfect example for why "Men just can't play women 'well'!"

The reality is: There is a LOT that was problematic with those characters. The fact that they were female was not one of them, regardless of the players gender.

King of Nowhere
2018-06-28, 03:27 PM
Let me share with you a non-hypothetical story of a friend of mine.

Due to her genetics, she cannot present as female without it being really obvious she is trans. At gaming conventions, where some attendees are poorly socially adjusted and/or have problems with women, to avoid harassment and unwelcome attention--in order to feel safe--she's been known to go back into the closet and attend presenting as male.

If this friend sat down at your table with a female character, you would (either implicitly or explicitly) say "I could never picture you as a woman, can't you just be a man?"

This in an incredibly hateful, hurtful thing to say to a trans woman. It's also something she hears from transphobic bigots on a regular basis.

So yes, just asking that particular question can absolutely ruin someone's day.

And now you know.
shouldn't be either when done in ignorance, which is the default. if nothing else, it means she's doing well at passing for a men, which is exactly what she wants in that case (I don't know how much surgery she had, she could be obviously masculine or not).
Anyway, I've known a few trans people, and they all understand that people can involuntarily say things that look bad because they ignore their trans status. And they all understand that there is no reason to be hurt or offended. You can't go around taking offence at every innocent comment made by people in ignorance.
Plus, I'd suggest to avoid the issue your friend may as well go publicly as a trans woman. that way, if someone insults her, it will be intentional, and if someone intentionally insults her just because she's trans then he's a dumbass and can be easily dismissed.

More in general, I find the concept of not asking questions or making comments because it may hurt somebody to be terribly misguided at best. There are so many potentially hurtful things to say, one should not say anything at all. adult people should be able to handle hurt feelings and talk things out anyway. And, when done by sensible adults, it leads to greater understanding. If people never talk about sensitive topics because they are afraid of accidentally be politically uncorrect, they will always remain ignorant in such matters.

I believe in the power of talking. very few problems cannot be solved by talking them out. Anything that discourages talking, I vocally oppose.

Nifft
2018-06-28, 03:30 PM
On a recent convention, I played in a Shadowrun group together with two teenagers whose characters were both female, who are basically the cyberpunk equivalent of murderhobos, who even insisted on their characters basically pimping themselves out to get the gang boss we were after into a situation where we could grab him, even though my character had a completely viable alternative to offer where no one would have had to do anything like that.

Fun fact for the people thinking "See! That's why crossgender is bad!": None of the characters was CG, both players were female. Had they been male, I'm sure those two characters, played completely identically, would've been used as a perfect example for why "Men just can't play women 'well'!"

The reality is: There is a LOT that was problematic with those characters. The fact that they were female was not one of them, regardless of the players gender.

Given privacy and a lack of consequences, I think that teens can make bad choices.

I think that immaturity is a much larger and more common issue than hatefulness.

Being a murder-hobo is another instance of immaturity, but a widely accepted one.

Delta
2018-06-28, 03:40 PM
Given privacy and a lack of consequences, I think that teens can make bad choices.

I think that immaturity is a much larger and more common issue than hatefulness.

Being a murder-hobo is another instance of immaturity, but a widely accepted one.

Yeah, that wasn't my point. My point was, had those characters been played the same way, simply by men, quite a few people would've argued that those characters would've been "badly played women" or something similar, while in reality, they really weren't. Women are like that. There are three to four billion women in the world, give or take, I'm sure for any set of character traits, you could find many, many women somewhere in the world who are pretty much exactly like that.

What that phrase really means it "That character isn't how I expect a woman to be like", which says really more about the person making the statement than about the player of the character.

War_lord
2018-06-28, 03:52 PM
Women are like that. There are three to four billion women in the world, give or take, I'm sure for any set of character traits, you could find many, many women somewhere in the world who are pretty much exactly like that.

Particularly when we consider that the majority of those women aren't going to be of the cultural and social background of the person whose stereotype of female behavior they're being judged by.

Nifft
2018-06-28, 04:22 PM
Yeah, that wasn't my point. My point was, had those characters been played the same way, simply by men, quite a few people would've argued that those characters would've been "badly played women" or something similar, while in reality, they really weren't. Women are like that. There are three to four billion women in the world, give or take, I'm sure for any set of character traits, you could find many, many women somewhere in the world who are pretty much exactly like that.

Hmm.

It looks like your argument is: if there's a man or woman out there in the world who exhibits a behavior, then it's fine to use that behavior at any table, and nobody should have a problem with it.

Is that accurate?

If so, then I see some flaws.

If not, then I'd ask you to clarify.

War_lord
2018-06-28, 04:35 PM
Hmm.

It looks like your argument is: if there's a man or woman out there in the world who exhibits a behavior, then it's fine to use that behavior at any table, and nobody should have a problem with it.

Is that accurate?

If so, then I see some flaws.

If not, then I'd ask you to clarify.

No, he's saying that the argument that a male player can't play a female character because women are supposedly intrinsically "different" then men is wrong, because in the real world women don't all act in stereotypically "feminine" ways. I'm not sure how you're reading it the way you're reading it. It's not arguing about whether playing a certain character is appropriate at the table, just the idea that, for example, a man playing a female character that hits on NPCs frequently is "playing women wrong".

Delta
2018-06-28, 04:35 PM
It looks like your argument is: if there's a man or woman out there in the world who exhibits a behavior, then it's fine to use that behavior at any table, and nobody should have a problem with it.

Is that accurate?

No, that is completely, and absolutely wrong.

If you don't want murderhobos at your table and you have a problem with player characters pimping themselves or each other out, be my guest. If you don't want someone to play a prostitute at your table because sexual topics don't have a place there, absolutely no discussion there. There are a LOT of valid reasons not to want a character in a group that I have no problems accepting, it's just that "men can't play females well" is not one of them, in my opinion.

Nifft
2018-06-28, 04:40 PM
No, that is completely, and absolutely wrong.

If you don't want murderhobos at your table and you have a problem with player characters pimping themselves or each other out, be my guest. If you don't want someone to play a prostitute at your table because sexual topics don't have a place there, absolutely no discussion there. There are a LOT of valid reasons not to want a character in a group that I have no problems accepting, it's just that "men can't play females well" is not one of them, in my opinion.

That makes a lot more sense.

Thanks for clarifying.

Calthropstu
2018-06-28, 04:45 PM
Saying "Hey do you mind not playing a PC of another gender?" is exactly as inappropriate as saying "Hey do you mind not playing a gay character?" It doesn't matter if it's only a request. It's inappropriate. Don't do it.

So you're saying religious people shouldn't play d&d? Intollerant much? Some people are uncomfortable with that topic. Forcing it on them at a roleplaying table is just as unethical as proclaiming things against gays. I see nothing wrong with banning the subject altogether at some tables.

This is one of those topics that should be agreed upon before the game starts if it's going to be an issue. One of the groups I run for is a group of kids from my neighbor's church Believe it or not, there's actually a LOT of christian, jewish and even muslim people who play rpgs. And many of them are uncomfortable or even vehemently opposed to the topic.

Forcing the issue isn't good for anyone. So it's best to discuss that sort of thing ahead of time. Believe it or not, just because someone does or does not support a given issue does not indicate you won't enjoy playing with them.

Delta
2018-06-28, 04:54 PM
So you're saying religious people shouldn't play d&d?

No one ever said that so please don't imply it. You're dragging this into a really bad place.

For the record: If someone ever actually told me "I don't want anyone I roleplay with to play a gay character", yeah, that would not only be a simple red flag, that would be reason enough for me to flat out say "Yeah, then we're not gonna play together." and be done with it.

Lord Raziere
2018-06-28, 05:25 PM
No one ever said that so please don't imply it. You're dragging this into a really bad place.

For the record: If someone ever actually told me "I don't want anyone I roleplay with to play a gay character", yeah, that would not only be a simple red flag, that would be reason enough for me to flat out say "Yeah, then we're not gonna play together." and be done with it.

Agreeeeeeeed with all of this. for pretty much the same reasons

that and my more recent and better character concepts have been exploring such nonbinary characters, their identities and how they become very lifelike because of it. not because they show or outright speak about their traits openly, but because they have that trait I think more about to better portray them as person and thus even if they don't say they're gay or whatever straight out, they still have opinions that are colored by that experience. the world is connected and one experience often has things connected to it that relate to other things that eventually relate to other things. its a touch of reality that can make the character more fun as long as you keep in mind HOW it affects them like a person would.

War_lord
2018-06-28, 05:26 PM
So you're saying religious people shouldn't play d&d? Intollerant much? Some people are uncomfortable with that topic. Forcing it on them at a roleplaying table is just as unethical as proclaiming things against gays. I see nothing wrong with banning the subject altogether at some tables.

You're really throwing around the term intolerant around when discussing the possibility of players whose bigotry makes them uncomfortable with the fact that their DM and fellow players exist openly?


This is one of those topics that should be agreed upon before the game starts if it's going to be an issue. One of the groups I run for is a group of kids from my neighbor's church Believe it or not, there's actually a LOT of christian, jewish and even muslim people who play rpgs. And many of them are uncomfortable or even vehemently opposed to the topic.

I would ask the question of, if they're so genuinely convinced that LGBT+ people are a sinful abomination, why they're interacting with me at all? If they're capable of putting aside that conviction to try and get into my D&D game, that suggests to me that their "vehement opposition" is, at the very least, not really spiritually motivated.


Forcing the issue isn't good for anyone. So it's best to discuss that sort of thing ahead of time. Believe it or not, just because someone does or does not support a given issue does not indicate you won't enjoy playing with them.

Homophobia isn't like pineapple pizza or dogs vs cats, the issue not being supported is "LGBT people have the right to exist openly, free from any social or political persecution, no matter the pretext". If someone doesn't support the right of my friends and I to exist, I'm really not interested in forcing myself or my group to spend what's meant to be leisure time in safe surroundings tiptoeing around something that's part of who I and most of my group are.

Calthropstu
2018-06-28, 05:34 PM
No one ever said that so please don't imply it. You're dragging this into a really bad place.

For the record: If someone ever actually told me "I don't want anyone I roleplay with to play a gay character", yeah, that would not only be a simple red flag, that would be reason enough for me to flat out say "Yeah, then we're not gonna play together." and be done with it.

Which is a fair statement. But not everyone feels that strongly about it, which goes both ways. Some people who are opposed might tolerate it for the sake of the game while others who are for might be willing to let it lie. Like I said, it should be discussed with maturity. If you won't, or can't, budge on the issue nothing forces you to be there... But I find refusing to compromise is fairly limiting.

Segev
2018-06-28, 05:43 PM
While I've probably played more than this, I can think of two female PCs I've played where their femininity was actually quite important to the character.

One, a young Japanese woman (it was set in Japan) named Seishou Rin, was and deliberately cultivated being a Yamato Nadeshiko - the ideal flower of Japanese femininity. It was expected by her family, and she pretty well identified with the image as how she thought of herself. She was polite, but not timid. Respectful, but not overbearing. She also was on her school Kendo team, and her magical girl transformation item could morph from a folding fan to a real katana to a bokken. She loathed that her transformed state was a bishounen, but she definitely behaved more masculine when transformed. Still formal, but fitting the different social role.

The other was a student at the Xavier School for the Gifted in a game set in the early 90s. She was shapely, in the manner of comic book females, and wore not skin-tight, but still snug shirts and jeans. She wasn't overtly sexual, but she wasn't above teasing the shy, retiring nerd-boys who populated the rest of the PC cast (well, there were other girls, too, but still). It was more about their reactions to her than her desire to be desired; she was quite comfortable with who she was, and was forward. Her most stylized traits came more from her feline than feminine behaviors, as part of her power was to transform into a black cat. She also was the party member with her own car, which was relevant when people wanted to go into town to party. I think the biggest problem she faced was that all the other PCs acted terrified of her, as if she were going to bully them and shove them into their lockers. She never so much as threatened anybody; she just wasn't shy about talking to people and joking around. This apparently meant "scary bully" to the wilting lilies that made up the rest of the cast.

Calthropstu
2018-06-28, 05:48 PM
You're really throwing around the term intolerant around when discussing the possibility of players whose bigotry makes them uncomfortable with the fact that their DM and fellow players exist openly?



I would ask the question of, if they're so genuinely convinced that LGBT+ people are a sinful abomination, why they're interacting with me at all? If they're capable of putting aside that conviction to try and get into my D&D game, that suggests to me that their "vehement opposition" is, at the very least, not really spiritually motivated.



Homophobia isn't like pineapple pizza or dogs vs cats, the issue not being supported is "LGBT people have the right to exist openly, free from any social or political persecution, no matter the pretext". If someone doesn't support the right of my friends and I to exist, I'm really not interested in forcing myself or my group to spend what's meant to be leisure time in safe surroundings tiptoeing around something that's part of who I and most of my group are.

If someone is seeking to join an established group and ask them to change their dynamic of course it's probably unreasonable. But let me propose this scenario:

A person you know well is going to be running a game. His brother and sister-in-law are either hardcore religious or gay (opposite of where you stand on the issue call them a and b.) You know he won't uninvite them and he asks the others at the table to be mindful of their viewpoints and not overtly offend them by either acting gay/playing gay characters (a) or (b) playing anti gay characters or discussing rl religion at the table.

You know this guy runs amazing campaigns and know he won't allow them to insult you either. You meet them and they seem ok with playing with you. Would you join the campaign?

War_lord
2018-06-28, 06:02 PM
If someone is seeking to join an established group and ask them to change their dynamic of course it's probably unreasonable. But let me propose this scenario:

A person you know well is going to be running a game. His brother and sister-in-law are either hardcore religious or gay (opposite of where you stand on the issue call them a and b.) You know he won't uninvite them and he asks the others at the table to be mindful of their viewpoints and not overtly offend them by either acting gay/playing gay characters (a) or (b) playing anti gay characters or discussing rl religion at the table.

You know this guy runs amazing campaigns and know he won't allow them to insult you either. You meet them and they seem ok with playing with you. Would you join the campaign?

First, there's no such thing as "hardcore gay", gay is not a political orientation, it's a sexual orientation, you can't be "far gay" like you can be "far right". That makes this entire point a fallacy, being openly gay and proud of it isn't the same as being a bigot calling for the intimidation or even outright extermination of homosexuals. You seem unable to accept this very basic point I make from my perspective as a bisexual man. I'm not interested in kowtowing to nasty people. And I choose my group based on how much I enjoy spending time with them, not on the supposed "amazing" game, an amazing game to me is one where I'm having fun surrounded by people I can be myself with. Humoring nasty people doesn't fit with that. I'm sure they can find someone they don't consider a blight on the world to play with instead.

AceOfFools
2018-06-28, 06:12 PM
shouldn't be either when done in ignorance, which is the default. if nothing else, it means she's doing well at passing for a men, which is exactly what she wants in that case (I don't know how much surgery she had, she could be obviously masculine or not).

I'm going to chose to believe this was an honest mistake.

If someone "hides their gender" and "goes back into the closet" by presenting as a man, it's because they're not a man.

I use "she" for my friend because she is a woman. She just happens to be woman whose genetics makes obvious that she was assigned male at birth. She and the very fabulous dresses she enjoys would prefer not to look as masculine as she does, but there's only so much than can she can do.

Calthropstu
2018-06-28, 06:39 PM
I am going to graciously bow out of this conversation. I have been careful to avoid breaking the rules and fear if this conversation continues someone will say something they will regret.

I will leave with this tidbit:

I have played at the table with several gay people in the past, many without issue. There have been some problems with a few of them, but I've dealt with them as needed.

I have also played with hardcore religious folk, and aside from wanting to add "the one true god" into the game, there was few issues with them.

I have fun with both sets and I see intolerance of intolerance is... Intolerance. And is just as ugly, and limiting, in practice.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-28, 06:49 PM
You know this guy runs amazing campaigns and know he won't allow them to insult you either. You meet them and they seem ok with playing with you. Would you join the campaign?

Is this a trick question?

No, obviously. And no one else should either.

War_lord
2018-06-28, 06:59 PM
If I need to seek assurances from the DM that they'll stop a person from insulting me or questioning my right to exist, it's a huge warning sign that I shouldn't play in that game.

Knaight
2018-06-28, 07:53 PM
So you're saying religious people shouldn't play d&d? Intollerant much? Some people are uncomfortable with that topic. Forcing it on them at a roleplaying table is just as unethical as proclaiming things against gays. I see nothing wrong with banning the subject altogether at some tables.

This is one of those topics that should be agreed upon before the game starts if it's going to be an issue. One of the groups I run for is a group of kids from my neighbor's church Believe it or not, there's actually a LOT of christian, jewish and even muslim people who play rpgs. And many of them are uncomfortable or even vehemently opposed to the topic.

Forcing the issue isn't good for anyone. So it's best to discuss that sort of thing ahead of time. Believe it or not, just because someone does or does not support a given issue does not indicate you won't enjoy playing with them.
Bolding mine.

This isn't a "topic" or an "issue". We're not talking about running games about activists and politicians fighting for gay rights. We're not talking about games where the primary antagonist is defined by anti-gay actions they take in game. We're talking about having a character who happens to be gay.

That moves this from "topic", "subject", "issue", etc. to "people". The players uncomfortable with the people can suck it up and deal; the players vehemently opposed to the people can piss off.

2D8HP
2018-06-28, 08:12 PM
If I need to seek assurances from the DM that they'll stop a person from insulting me or questioning my right to exist, it's a huge warning sign that I shouldn't play in that game.


I came to the thread to say that a "red flag" is if they ask if you want to see their ferret (I'll save that anecdote and others from the 1980's), but this thread has gone into deeper issues.

I really like playing D&D.

And I really, really like playing Pendragon.

Traveller is good too.

But I have a hard time imagining a game so good that...

....look, during my apprenticeship I had to listen to a lot of bigotry, and I had to bite my tongue to stay in the program, but even then sometimes I couldn't hold back, and it's only just barely, and because my old locals Vice President also couldn't stand bigotry and vouched for me that I was able to stay on.

I'm a Journeyman now, and I don't have to bite my tongue like I did, and if I'm not going to stand that noise to stay employed.

Oh just call me a humorless scold, or whatever, but yeah a "red flag" is certain comments and "jokes" that will make me walk.

I just don't have patience for to explain again that I don't want to hear certain slurs, because I know the folks being slured, their among my friends and family (one thing I did as an apprentice upon yet again hearing racial bigotry was to say "Have I ever shown you a picture of my kid?"), yeah I'd just walk.

I guess I've just been real lucky at game tables (unlike at work) in that I don't remember stuff like that, but I went to a large "diverse" urban high school (many different racial, religous, and sexualities "groups), and while boys outnumbered girls at the game tables, players were diverse, and after high school as well.

This Forum seems good, but I've seen other corners of the internet to know that not all gamers are welcoming, and yeah I'm going to stop here with slurs are a red flag.

Mr Beer
2018-06-28, 09:42 PM
There's a difference between people who have opinions you find distasteful but keep quiet about it and people who think it's OK to make distasteful remarks during social activities. I might be OK gaming with the former, depending on the opinions involved and of course if I even know about them, the latter not so much.

War_lord
2018-06-28, 11:05 PM
There's a difference between people who have opinions you find distasteful but keep quiet about it and people who think it's OK to make distasteful remarks during social activities. I might be OK gaming with the former, depending on the opinions involved and of course if I even know about them, the latter not so much.

I don't find a person questioning my right to exist any less "distasteful" (and homophobia is far more then just a "distasteful" opinion) when they have the sense to be ashamed of it in public. I'd rather they say it so I can take all necessary steps to not associate with that person anymore.

Mr Beer
2018-06-28, 11:20 PM
I don't find a person questioning my right to exist any less "distasteful" (and homophobia is far more then just a "distasteful" opinion) when they have the sense to be ashamed of it in public. I'd rather they say it so I can take all necessary steps to not associate with that person anymore.

I mean if someone tells you that your right to existence is questionable due to your sexuality, or for whatever reason really...it's not surprising that's not a person you want to associate with. I'd feel much the same way, as would most people I think.

Lord Raziere
2018-06-29, 12:09 AM
If I need to seek assurances from the DM that they'll stop a person from insulting me or questioning my right to exist, it's a huge warning sign that I shouldn't play in that game.

Exactly. it should be a given that people at a game won't be a jerk to me. The starting assumption is that we're all cool with each other. if we're not, thing aren't going to well before any IC reason. if people think IC jerk behavior is bad, OOC jerk behavior is WORSE. being a jerk IC is one thing, there is a chance that you can talk with someone to tone it down.

but if we have to talk about OOC jerk behavior thats very bad. thats "this group is either not right for me or is going to fall apart" bad.

Mordaedil
2018-06-29, 01:25 AM
So you're saying religious people shouldn't play d&d? Intollerant much?
As a Christian man, please don't use our faith to justify bigotry.The Pope himself has spoken out against bigotry of gay people. The only ones still perpetuating bigotry are priests with a bigoted agenda in secular societies such as America, where they turned what ought to be a basic human right into a political issue.

TIA.

Delta
2018-06-29, 01:34 AM
A person you know well is going to be running a game. His brother and sister-in-law are either hardcore religious or gay (opposite of where you stand on the issue call them a and b.) You know he won't uninvite them and he asks the others at the table to be mindful of their viewpoints and not overtly offend them by either acting gay/playing gay characters (a) or (b) playing anti gay characters or discussing rl religion at the table.

You know this guy runs amazing campaigns and know he won't allow them to insult you either. You meet them and they seem ok with playing with you. Would you join the campaign?

Um, what exactly is a "hardcore gay" person supposed to be? The whole point that you're trying to make "religious" and "gay" into counterpoints on the same spectrum is pretty baseless and insulting to both religious and gay people, to be honest (which is pretty obvious by both already having made that clear in this very thread)

As to the rest: No, of course not. If I know the only thing that keeps other players from insulting me to my face is that the GM doesn't allow it, that's most definitely not a group I'd want to be in, and I can't imagine why anyone else would be, either. We're not in kindergarten anymore, and the GM is not the strict principle.

Astofel
2018-06-29, 01:55 AM
As far as I'm concerned there is one, and only one, cardinal sin of TRPGs, and thus only one type of problem player. And that's anyone who makes the game less fun for the others at the table, but does not change their behaviour when it is pointed out. People make mistakes and sometimes do something the other players don't like, and that's fine. The problem is when they know what they're doing makes others uncomfortable but make no effort to stop doing it.

Thankfully I almost exclusively play with friends I've known for a while, so it isn't a problem for me. But if a player like that ever shows up in a game I'm DMing, I'll tell them to walk.

Elanasaurus
2018-06-29, 01:55 AM
Bigotry incoming! Don't read if you don't want to be upset!
:elan:

they're so genuinely convinced that LGBT+ people are a sinful abomination They aren't, any more than they're convinced that they're sinful abominations.
If someone doesn't support the right of my friends and I to exist, Then they're not religious bigots. Just morons.
This isn't a "topic" or an "issue". We're not talking about running games about activists and politicians fighting for gay rights. We're not talking about games where the primary antagonist is defined by anti-gay actions they take in game. We're talking about having a character who happens to be gay.

That moves this from "topic", "subject", "issue", etc. to "people". The players uncomfortable with the people can suck it up and deal; the players vehemently opposed to the people can piss off.Of course it's still an "issue". It's "characters", not "people".
I don't find a person questioning my right to exist any less "distasteful" (and homophobia is far more then just a "distasteful" opinion) when they have the sense to be ashamed of it in public. I'd rather they say it so I can take all necessary steps to not associate with that person anymore.In theory, a bigot doesn't bring up their homophobia in public because there's just no reason to.

Okay. Fire away.
:elan:

Floret
2018-06-29, 01:57 AM
Like I said, it should be discussed with maturity. If you won't, or can't, budge on the issue nothing forces you to be there... But I find refusing to compromise is fairly limiting.

It is not "immature" in any way to not wanna budge on the "issue" of "I have a right to exist openly". Refusing to be walked over like that is limiting in much the same way that denying myself the "pleasure" of drinking gasoline is.


I have fun with both sets and I see intolerance of intolerance is... Intolerance. And is just as ugly, and limiting, in practice.

It is not. Intolerance of Intolerance is not only appropriate, but neccesary if we want to keep living in a tolerant society.

So speaking of red flags? Any comments that make me wary of being myself around one of the group members, which usually includes things like talking about what's going on in my life before the game. Or to be honest, indications of bigotry in general, if being potentially aimed at me or not, because if you hate on one group, likelyhood is it doesn't stop there.

WindStruck
2018-06-29, 02:09 AM
https://i.imgflip.com/2d3lxv.jpg

Lord Raziere
2018-06-29, 02:29 AM
Breaking up the debate with a dank meme (and getting it in before this thread is locked)

repeating lazy jokes doesn't help any discussion. :smallsigh::smallyuk:

honestly, meme culture only lowers discourse. is it any wonder that internet debate is the way it is when people constantly express ideas using tweets and memes- the simplest and most extreme way of communicating, without any nuance or subtlety? the logical end result of polarizing internet debate: people just shouting memes back and forth without any effort at understanding. while treating the whole matter as a joke, when we need to stop treating it as a joke when appropriate.

WindStruck
2018-06-29, 02:37 AM
See, I'm not seriously involved with any discussion in this thread anymore... because I know full well that trying to debate with people online is utterly pointless. You all ought to realize that too by now, but it baffles me how these threads just keep growing and growing and growing.

Maybe what you actually need is to "lower the discourse", lighten the mood, and thus prevent you all from tearing each other apart and saying something you regret saying?

The whole matter is a joke at this point. How many times now have people tried to describe what qualifies another person of deserving a red flag, just for someone else to throw red flags at them?

Maybe a whole thread starting off with the premise of judging people from the get go wasn't the most brilliant of ideas...

:smallbiggrin:

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-29, 02:43 AM
How DARE people care about things and then discuss them on the internet? Don't they know that expressing themselves is painfully uncool and they should slouch in a corner saying "Whatever, dude" instead?

War_lord
2018-06-29, 03:13 AM
Cus as we all know, the parts of the internet were everyone covers themselves in a shield of apathy and "ironic memes" are the height of discussion.

Delta
2018-06-29, 03:30 AM
See, I'm not seriously involved with any discussion in this thread anymore... because I know full well that trying to debate with people online is utterly pointless.

I can only speak for myself of course, but in the last two decades, discussions very much like these have changed a lot about the way I play and approach problems that come up during play. So I think calling it utterly pointless is taking it a bit too far.

I mean, if having debates is pointless, what's the point of a forum like this?

MrSandman
2018-06-29, 08:28 AM
https://i.imgflip.com/2d3lxv.jpg

Personally, I find it funny and rather pertinent. You guys will fire at me because I'm frivolous and I don't tackle a delicate issue with all the care it needs, but there is a huge point behind that meme.

Here, several people have been accusing each other of being red flags (on several of the topics that have been brought up). This kinda points that the problem is not so much particular people but the intolerance of both sides on an issue, which kinda leads us back to what someone said earlier about the only real red flags being unwillingness to talk and compromise.

So, in sum? You get a red flag, I get a red flag, and my neighbour gets a red flag.

Knaight
2018-06-29, 08:35 AM
Here, several people have been accusing each other of being red flags (on several of the topics that have been brought up). This kinda points that the problem is not so much particular people but the intolerance of both sides on an issue, which kinda leads us back to what someone said earlier about the only real red flags being unwillingness to talk and compromise.

This boils down to "a conflict exists, therefore both sides must be responsible", which is abject nonsense.

MrSandman
2018-06-29, 08:49 AM
This boils down to "a conflict exists, therefore both sides must be responsible", which is abject nonsense.

I don't know what you boil it with, but that's not it. I never said or implied that both sides on any conflict must be responsible.

Or, sorry, sorry. Let me change my answer. This boils down to "you're a red flag," which kinda proves my point. Yes, I think I'm getting the knack of arguing on the Internet.

Delta
2018-06-29, 08:59 AM
I don't know what you boil it with, but that's not it. I never said or implied that both sides on any conflict must be responsible.

The problem is, "everyone should always be willing to compromise" effectively boils down to the same thing, it legitimizes every position on every issue, and that is both dangerous and wrong in my experience. On some things, you should not be willing to compromise.

To make a very simple example to illustrate the issue: If one player steals stuff (real life stuff, to make that clear) from other players around the table, no, I do not have to compromise with that player. He needs to stop stealing stuff, it's that simple, I think we can all agree on that?

War_lord
2018-06-29, 09:25 AM
The center point between any two positions is not inherently the sensible one. That's false equivalence.

WindStruck
2018-06-29, 10:40 AM
Yes.. everyone should be able to express themselves on the forums!

...except me, and my memes, trying to make a joke....

carry on


This boils down to "a conflict exists, therefore both sides must be responsible", which is abject nonsense.
More like, a conflict exists, and most people involved either happen to be or are accusing each other of being responsible for it. And if you try to "boil" that statement down further, you'll inevitably lose pertinent information, so of course whatever you come up with after will be "nonsense".

Delta
2018-06-29, 10:50 AM
More like, a conflict exists, and most people involved either happen to be or are accusing each other of being responsible for it. And if you try to "boil" that statement down further, you'll inevitably lose pertinent information, so of course whatever you come up with after will be "nonsense".

But doesn't the same I said above apply here? Sometimes, only one side is responsible for a conflict. It happens. In some conflicts, not every side needs to be willing to compromise.

Knaight
2018-06-29, 11:08 AM
More like, a conflict exists, and most people involved either happen to be or are accusing each other of being responsible for it. And if you try to "boil" that statement down further, you'll inevitably lose pertinent information, so of course whatever you come up with after will be "nonsense".

Assuming that any conflict where both sides blame the other must also be the fault of both sides is also ridiculous. That restriction doesn't help at all. If anything it hurts it - conflicts with an actual distinct aggressor are going to lean towards the recipient blaming the aggressor for their aggression, and the aggressor blaming the recipient so that they don't have to take responsibility.

Elanasaurus
2018-06-29, 11:42 AM
But doesn't the same I said above apply here? Sometimes, only one side is responsible for a conflict. It happens. In some conflicts, not every side needs to be willing to compromise.Both sides are always responsible for the conflict, even if all one side did was to refuse to lie down and shut up. Conflict's often good.
:elan:

Delta
2018-06-29, 11:55 AM
Both sides are always responsible for the conflict, even if all one side did was to refuse to lie down and shut up. Conflict's often good.
:elan:

Okay, now we're down to semantics, but you're of course right, technically. But the point I was trying to make is still valid, there are conflicts where one party is simply in the wrong, and the other is in the right.

To get back to the topic that started it all and trying to put it into constructive terms: Asking "I'm not comfortable handling sexual or romantic topics around the table, can we leave those out?" is completely legitimate. But saying "I don't want to roleplay with gay characters!" simply is not. In the first case, yes, it's valid to ask for everyone around the table to be willing to compromise. But in the second case, it's just as valid for the other players to say "No." and leave it at that.

2D8HP
2018-06-29, 12:55 PM
Moving away from serious stuff with real world resonance...

...besides how someone smells, most "red flags" for me are related to play style:

Do they want gunslingers?

Do they like Naruto or The Seven Samurai more?

Ars Magica or Pendragon?

Hide, sneak, and/or ambush or a conga-line of melee with whatever?

More murder or more hobo?

World savin' or survivin'?

Demi-gods or rat-catchers?

Champions or Call of Cthullu?

Do they even know who Errol Flynn was?

The main 'red flag' is: "No Monty Python and the Holy Grail quotations at the table", and if "Ni", "a shrubbery", "use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch", "Please, this is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker about who killed who", "Look, let me go back in there and face the peril, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can", and "Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?", are all right out then I'm going:

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"
"Demon Dogs!"

"What is best in life?

"This goes to eleven".

"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"

"When do we get there?" "Real soon!"

Otherwise, where's the sport?

Delta
2018-06-29, 01:04 PM
Moving away from serious stuff with real world resonance...

...besides how someone smells, most "red flags" for me are related to play style:

Do they want gunslingers?

Do they like Naruto or The Seven Samurai more?

Ars Magica or Pendragon?

Hide, sneak, and/or ambush or a conga-line of melee with whatever?

More murder or more hobo?

World savin' or survivin'?

Demi-gods or rat-catchers?

Champions or Call of Cthullu?

Do they even know who Errol Flynn was?

Those are some good questions, although I think neither answer is a "red flag" by itself, it only becomes a red flag if the player looks at me as if I'm crazy for even asking the question because the answer is self-evident.

Arbane
2018-06-29, 01:13 PM
The main 'red flag' is: "No Monty Python and the Holy Grail quotations at the table"

This is why my group has 'the imaginary reference jar'. Whenever anyone quotes Python (or pretty much any pop-culture quote), they have to mime putting a dollar in the jar.

Oddly, it does seem to help keep the quoting down.

WindStruck
2018-06-29, 01:24 PM
But doesn't the same I said above apply here? Sometimes, only one side is responsible for a conflict. It happens. In some conflicts, not every side needs to be willing to compromise.

No, it doesn't apply. I am not talking conflicts in general. I am talking about this conflict.

It's not an argument along the lines of, there is a conflict, and therefore X. I am flat out stating, regarding this particular conflict, that many people are being very trigger happy, and this judgmental passing out of red flags based on what other people would throw a red flag for is ironic and getting a little ridiculous.

Calthropstu
2018-06-29, 01:29 PM
Both sides are always responsible for the conflict, even if all one side did was to refuse to lie down and shut up. Conflict's often good.
:elan:

To be fair, aren't these games generally all based on conflict?

Delta
2018-06-29, 01:30 PM
To be fair, aren't these games generally all based on conflict?

Not on social conflicts between players, no.

VincentTakeda
2018-06-29, 01:31 PM
If my player wants to play a gelatinous cube... Is the character's gender 'fluid'?

Segev
2018-06-29, 01:39 PM
I mean if someone tells you that your right to existence is questionable due to your sexuality, or for whatever reason really...it's not surprising that's not a person you want to associate with. I'd feel much the same way, as would most people I think.

I have seen this used as an accusation many times. I've been accused of it many times. But I can honestly say that I have never heard anybody who is not a supporter of militant gay and "gender spectrum" politics (which I differentiate from merely happening to identify as something that would fall under the umbrella) use the phrasing that gay/trans/etc. people "don't have a right to exist."

It seems a popular thing to accuse those who don't agree with the politics of believing, but I haven't actually seen it spouted by any real people. It seems a straw man, to me. And I'm sure you can find an example or two, if only because there are people who will always advocate for extermination of whatever they dislike. But to hold it up as if it were some sort of majority opinion, even amongst those who simply oppose the militant agenda, is ridiculous and either the result of successful fear-mongering, or deliberately insulting.

It's as ludicrous as if I claimed that environmentalists told me I had no right to exist because I happen to like having a car. No environmentalist that anybody takes seriously - at least to my knowledge - has advocated for the murder/extermination of people who drive cars.

Speaking as a Christian of the Mormon denomination, our Prophet has never advocated anything but love and understanding towards those who fall into the discussed categories. No, we don't agree with their conclusions, even about themselves. But that doesn't mean we want to hurt them, deny their personhood, or in any way even interfere in their lives if they don't wish us to.

Those who use slurs and who spout nastiness are mean people.

Those who simply do not agree that a particular belief about human nature is true are not mean. They just think you're factually wrong.

I can be friends with people who think I'm factually wrong on a number of issues. I can be friends with people I think are factually wrong on a number of issues. As long as neither of us are trying to force the other to live their lives the way we want them to, rather than the way they wish to, there's no need to be hostile over it. Maybe concerned; I mean, if you saw a friend doing something you thought was dangerous or foolish and which you felt would lead them to misery (perhaps dating a man or woman who you are certain is just using him, or who has more issues than National Geographic and will tear his or her life apart with them), you'd be worried and probably advise against it, but there also would likely come a point where you'd just try to be there for them, even if you didn't feel you could support the marriage he or she was talking about having with this person.

But that's not hateful. That's disagreement about reality and concern that the choices being made and the beliefs your friend has are harmful to your friend.



Honestly, bringing this back around to the topic, a red flag is anybody who wants to highlight their personal politics, sexual identity, or religious beliefs in a game where it isn't welcome. You can be gay or trans without it being a character-defining trait for your character, let alone it being a major theme of a game. You can be conservative and Christian without it being something that your character has to preach to every passing peasant. The Christian God probably doesn't even exist in the campaign setting.

Tolerance is good. So is temperance. IF you know there's a hot button issue, don't press the button. This goes both ways, because there are some things where simply saying, "Don't bring it up," is basically asking one side to cede to the other entirely. The red flag is when somebody is unwilling to tolerate things just coming up, or if somebody tries to force it inappropriately.

And, honestly, there is nothing wrong with people who have incompatible game desires not playing together. The ultra-religious girl who doesn't want sex at the table (especially not gay sex) asking that romance not be played out in any graphic detail is not being evil or intolerant. She's expressing her comfort zones. That may be a red flag if your table likes playing things a bit more hot and steamy (including - gasp - KISSING between CHARACTERS happening on screen!).

Likewise, the girl who wants to play a gay boy in a table full of people who generally leave sex as something mentioned briefly along the lines of, "And then Barbarian Ben spent his evening ale-ing and whore-ing," might be a red flag when she wants her gay boy to flirt with everything in pants and describes lovingly his seduction techniques. Even if they never get explicit, the table may not be comfortable with it getting into that kind of amorous territory.

And even if there's a double standard, that's fine. If the table really doesn't like homosexuality but is fine with heterosexual romance, then part in peace if you want the former. IF a table likes having a lot of homosexual relationships (I've seen more than a few fictional stories and web comics - and even Marvel comics - where the gay couples vastly outnumbered the hetero- ones, and the hetero- couple was dysfunctional), and you want a heterosexual romance that they're uncomfortable with, part ways amicably and go find a table more to your liking.

Tolerance is great. But it isn't a bludgeon. If people want to have private clubs catering to their interests and excluding things not to their interest, that's fine. It doesn't even mean they're hateful. My Star Trek club that has a "NO STAR WARS!" sign on it does indicate that I don't want to discuss Star Wars in my Star Trek Club Time, and may even indicate that Star Wars annoys me if it's brought up too much, but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate it. I just happen to have carved out a space for my interest, and I'd like to keep it from being tainted by that other thing that disinterests/annoys me.

If you use "TOLERANCE!" as a bludgeon to demand that I open my club up to your Wookie-cosplaying contest, lest I be a bigot, you're not really advocating tolerance. That is the point at which YOU become the intolerant one.

This doesn't give me the right to take my Star Trek club and move it out into the middle of public space and then yell about Star Trek while shouting down Star Wars, either. It's about who's intruding and who's retreating to have something of their own.

Knaight
2018-06-29, 01:43 PM
It's not an argument along the lines of, there is a conflict, and therefore X. I am flat out stating, regarding this particular conflict, that many people are being very trigger happy, and this judgmental passing out of red flags based on what other people would throw a red flag for is ironic and getting a little ridiculous.

Yes, it's funny how people's response to direct hostility towards groups they're in isn't "I'd love to have you in my game".

Calthropstu
2018-06-29, 01:51 PM
I have seen this used as an accusation many times. I've been accused of it many times. But I can honestly say that I have never heard anybody who is not a supporter of militant gay and "gender spectrum" politics (which I differentiate from merely happening to identify as something that would fall under the umbrella) use the phrasing that gay/trans/etc. people "don't have a right to exist."

It seems a popular thing to accuse those who don't agree with the politics of believing, but I haven't actually seen it spouted by any real people. It seems a straw man, to me. And I'm sure you can find an example or two, if only because there are people who will always advocate for extermination of whatever they dislike. But to hold it up as if it were some sort of majority opinion, even amongst those who simply oppose the militant agenda, is ridiculous and either the result of successful fear-mongering, or deliberately insulting.

It's as ludicrous as if I claimed that environmentalists told me I had no right to exist because I happen to like having a car. No environmentalist that anybody takes seriously - at least to my knowledge - has advocated for the murder/extermination of people who drive cars.

Speaking as a Christian of the Mormon denomination, our Prophet has never advocated anything but love and understanding towards those who fall into the discussed categories. No, we don't agree with their conclusions, even about themselves. But that doesn't mean we want to hurt them, deny their personhood, or in any way even interfere in their lives if they don't wish us to.

Those who use slurs and who spout nastiness are mean people.

Those who simply do not agree that a particular belief about human nature is true are not mean. They just think you're factually wrong.

I can be friends with people who think I'm factually wrong on a number of issues. I can be friends with people I think are factually wrong on a number of issues. As long as neither of us are trying to force the other to live their lives the way we want them to, rather than the way they wish to, there's no need to be hostile over it. Maybe concerned; I mean, if you saw a friend doing something you thought was dangerous or foolish and which you felt would lead them to misery (perhaps dating a man or woman who you are certain is just using him, or who has more issues than National Geographic and will tear his or her life apart with them), you'd be worried and probably advise against it, but there also would likely come a point where you'd just try to be there for them, even if you didn't feel you could support the marriage he or she was talking about having with this person.

But that's not hateful. That's disagreement about reality and concern that the choices being made and the beliefs your friend has are harmful to your friend.



Honestly, bringing this back around to the topic, a red flag is anybody who wants to highlight their personal politics, sexual identity, or religious beliefs in a game where it isn't welcome. You can be gay or trans without it being a character-defining trait for your character, let alone it being a major theme of a game. You can be conservative and Christian without it being something that your character has to preach to every passing peasant. The Christian God probably doesn't even exist in the campaign setting.

Tolerance is good. So is temperance. IF you know there's a hot button issue, don't press the button. This goes both ways, because there are some things where simply saying, "Don't bring it up," is basically asking one side to cede to the other entirely. The red flag is when somebody is unwilling to tolerate things just coming up, or if somebody tries to force it inappropriately.

And, honestly, there is nothing wrong with people who have incompatible game desires not playing together. The ultra-religious girl who doesn't want sex at the table (especially not gay sex) asking that romance not be played out in any graphic detail is not being evil or intolerant. She's expressing her comfort zones. That may be a red flag if your table likes playing things a bit more hot and steamy (including - gasp - KISSING between CHARACTERS happening on screen!).

Likewise, the girl who wants to play a gay boy in a table full of people who generally leave sex as something mentioned briefly along the lines of, "And then Barbarian Ben spent his evening ale-ing and whore-ing," might be a red flag when she wants her gay boy to flirt with everything in pants and describes lovingly his seduction techniques. Even if they never get explicit, the table may not be comfortable with it getting into that kind of amorous territory.

And even if there's a double standard, that's fine. If the table really doesn't like homosexuality but is fine with heterosexual romance, then part in peace if you want the former. IF a table likes having a lot of homosexual relationships (I've seen more than a few fictional stories and web comics - and even Marvel comics - where the gay couples vastly outnumbered the hetero- ones, and the hetero- couple was dysfunctional), and you want a heterosexual romance that they're uncomfortable with, part ways amicably and go find a table more to your liking.

Tolerance is great. But it isn't a bludgeon. If people want to have private clubs catering to their interests and excluding things not to their interest, that's fine. It doesn't even mean they're hateful. My Star Trek club that has a "NO STAR WARS!" sign on it does indicate that I don't want to discuss Star Wars in my Star Trek Club Time, and may even indicate that Star Wars annoys me if it's brought up too much, but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate it. I just happen to have carved out a space for my interest, and I'd like to keep it from being tainted by that other thing that disinterests/annoys me.

If you use "TOLERANCE!" as a bludgeon to demand that I open my club up to your Wookie-cosplaying contest, lest I be a bigot, you're not really advocating tolerance. That is the point at which YOU become the intolerant one.

This doesn't give me the right to take my Star Trek club and move it out into the middle of public space and then yell about Star Trek while shouting down Star Wars, either. It's about who's intruding and who's retreating to have something of their own.

The point I was trying to make but better worded. Thanks for that.

2D8HP
2018-06-29, 02:12 PM
...to demand that I open my club up to your Wookie-cosplaying contest, lest I be a bigot, you're not really advocating tolerance. That is the point at which YOU become the intolerant one.

This doesn't give me the right to take my Star Trek club and move it out into the middle of public space and then yell about Star Trek while shouting down Star Wars, either. It's about who's intruding and who's retreating to have something of their own.


I don't know man, Trek is awesome!, and Wookies are cool, but Ewoks?

Just say no to teddy bear Viet Cong!

Nifft
2018-06-29, 02:25 PM
Just say no to teddy bear Viet Cong!

They're basically a sci-fi answer to Tucker's Kobold, and as such they're great -- on the DM's side of the screen.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-29, 02:27 PM
Tolerance is great. But it isn't a bludgeon. If people want to have private clubs catering to their interests and excluding things not to their interest, that's fine. It doesn't even mean they're hateful. My Star Trek club that has a "NO STAR WARS!" sign on it does indicate that I don't want to discuss Star Wars in my Star Trek Club Time, and may even indicate that Star Wars annoys me if it's brought up too much, but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate it. I just happen to have carved out a space for my interest, and I'd like to keep it from being tainted by that other thing that disinterests/annoys me.

Sexuality is not a club or an "interest". This is a bad analogy that's being used to try to make unacceptable behaviour seem more reasonable. "No homosexuality" is exactly as reasonable as "no black people" would be.

Segev
2018-06-29, 02:51 PM
Sexuality is not a club or an "interest". This is a bad analogy that's being used to try to make unacceptable behaviour seem more reasonable. "No homosexuality" is exactly as reasonable as "no black people" would be.

So, then, your open and tolerant table is fine with the super-religious girl playing the prude who is constantly preaching about the evils of extramarital sex, right?

Or is religious belief a "choice?" They can just "choose" to believe differently, and be acceptable to you?

I will argue that it isn't a choice, unless it isn't actually a belief. Beliefs are what you - tautologically - believe to be true. You don't choose to believe that it takes 30 minutes to get to work; you believe it because you've seen evidence of it. You don't choose to believe that socialism is the fairest form of economics; you believe it because it makes sense to you and you can't see how anything else could be fairer. You don't believe in wicca because you chose to join a faddish club; you believe in it because something in its teachings makes sense to you, and you've seen evidence that convinces you its magic works.

If a "belief" is something you can just discard because it makes you unpopular, because others tell you you're evil for believing it, without any actual evidence you find stronger than that which convinced you of your faith in the first place, you don't really believe it.

Beliefs are not choices. They're the result of your experiences.

They can, of course, be wrong, but they're not a choice. The only choice is in whether you're willing to examine them. To challenge them, yourself, by looking at supposedly contrary evidence and hearing arguments against and seeing how well your beliefs hold up to them.

Would you be okay with a game table that said, "All characters must be gay?"

I wouldn't want to play at such a table, but I wouldn't call them "bigots" for wanting to play that way.

Note: there's a difference between, "No gay people may play at this table," and, "No gay relationships may be played between PCs and/or NPCs at this table."


And, yes, "I am going to play my gay character" can very much be a bludgeon. "I am going to play this, and you will like it. I will make sure you can't ignore it; your tolerance will be tested constantly and I will expect you to acknowledge that it's fine, dandy, and that you are willing to voice that you have no problem with it," can be done with any personality trait that others might find displeasing.

It's just as obnoxious, at that point, as the teenaged boy playing the high-cha bard who insists that his bard is STRAIGHT and LUSTY and that if there are any girls at the bar, he wants to DO them. Did we mention he's hypersexualized and totally hot and that all the babes love him? Because you'd better not forget that, and if you dare ask him to tone it back, you're a PRUDE and a BIGOT and just trying to REPRESS him.

Especially if said teen boy is doing that to the religious girl at the table who would just as soon fade to black before the kiss gets too hot and heavy and just wanted to play her paladin on a quest for a unicorn mount and to stop Lord Evilton of the Evil Empire, not watch the horny teen boy fantasize about how much sex his bard is having.

The religious guy who doesn't particularly want to think about two guys kissing, but isn't going to tell them they can't (he'll just ignore it) has a right to be annoyed if the guys kissing plant themselves in front of him and keep trying to get his attention, until he is forced to acknowledge it and either pretend not to be bothered or ask them to cut it out (at which point they pounce and call him a bigot). And lest you say, "That never happens! that's just you homophobes accusing normal relationship behavior with which you'd have no problem between a man and a woman of being 'in your face' because you're bigots!" let me remind you of a certain bakery which recently was vindicated in the Supreme Court. It is hopefully a vocal minority, but there ARE militant activists who don't just want tolerance; they want to beat up as "intolerant" those who just want to live and let live, but don't actively approve.

So, yes. It can be used as a bludgeon. I've seen it done in person in games. Heck, hetero promiscuity's been used like that on me at one point, when my (male) PC was decidedly trying to be chaste and another (female) PC literally rolled grapple checks to climb into his lap and grope him. I was called a "prude" for being annoyed by this behavior. And I won't deny it, I am a bit of a prude. But I don't think it unreasonable to not like having the contrary position shoved at me and then be the "bad guy" when I don't drop my position and enthusiastically support the contrary one.


But tolerance goes both ways, or it isn't tolerance, but rather bullying. And if people don't want to game with you, why should you want to game with them? Why is it necessary for you to label them as "evil" in order to justify your choice not to play with them? Can't they just have different likes and dislikes from your own, which makes their group incompatible? Unless they're advocating actually attacking you, what business is it of yours?

Or are Christians justified in demanding atheist groups stop mocking their belief in God by calling Him an "invisible sky wizard," and in calling such groups hateful and bigoted and otherwise smearing them as bad people, rather than just acknowledging that they find the Christian faith silly?

I'm all for "live and let live." I'm for genuine tolerance. But genuine tolerance requires that you allow people to dislike things, too.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean "approval."

You can tolerate a lot of things you don't like.

Scripten
2018-06-29, 02:54 PM
It's particularly insulting that you are presuming that all homosexual conduct is promiscuous.

Segev, you are making a comparison between a (heterosexual) character played by a more prudish player and a (homosexual) character played by a less prudish player. There is nothing inherently sexual about LGBT+ people. While yes, it is a definition of their sexuality, that does not mean that they are any more inappropriate at the gaming table than those of heteronormative identities.


But tolerance goes both ways, or it isn't tolerance, but rather bullying. And if people don't want to game with you, why should you want to game with them? Why is it necessary for you to label them as "evil" in order to justify your choice not to play with them? Can't they just have different likes and dislikes from your own, which makes their group incompatible? Unless they're advocating actually attacking you, what business is it of yours?


"I disagree with your sexuality/identity" is a rhetorical attack.

You're falling victim due to not recognizing the paradox of tolerance. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

WindStruck
2018-06-29, 03:01 PM
Yes, it's funny how people's response to direct hostility towards groups they're in isn't "I'd love to have you in my game".

Direct hostility? Please. If that accusation was even remotely close, this thread would have been flagged and locked down before you could say crumdiddlyumptious.


@Segev: very well said. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

Calthropstu
2018-06-29, 03:13 PM
Yes, it's funny how people's response to direct hostility towards groups they're in isn't "I'd love to have you in my game".

There is a difference between hostility and not wanting something brought up.

There is a HUGE gap between "gays shouldn't exist" and "everyone should accept gays and gay activities in their daily lives."

Most fall in between. There are people who genuinely support gay rights but don't want it in their lives, others who publicly support it but hate it, others who vehemently oppose it, others who actively support it... The spectrum is very broad.

I am pretty laid back and accepting of a huge array of viewpoints. Being agnostic means I am pretty much open to people believing anything they want. If someone wants to proclaim from rooftops that anyone who supports eating bread is damned to hell, I don't care. In D&D, I feel the game comes first. If someone feels uncomfortable with gay activities in thr game, I see no reason not to accomodate.

In the case of a conflict of that sort at my table where neither will back down, it becomes a matter of who will fit the group more.

I don't believe in letting yourself be limited by allowing politics, religion or other such factors to dictate friendships or gaming partners.

WindStruck
2018-06-29, 03:14 PM
It's particularly insulting that you are presuming that all homosexual conduct is promiscuous.

He never said any such thing. This is very simple. He is talking about a few hypothetical examples, not making broad, sweeping statements about every single person in a group, every person on Earth, or every conceivable thing in existence for that matter.

Scripten
2018-06-29, 03:23 PM
He never said any such thing. This is very simple. He is talking about a few hypothetical examples, not making broad, sweeping statements about every single person in a group, every person on Earth, or every conceivable thing in existence for that matter.

That's precisely what the following quote is. Which is quite simple.


And, honestly, there is nothing wrong with people who have incompatible game desires not playing together. The ultra-religious girl who doesn't want sex at the table (especially not gay sex) asking that romance not be played out in any graphic detail is not being evil or intolerant. She's expressing her comfort zones. That may be a red flag if your table likes playing things a bit more hot and steamy (including - gasp - KISSING between CHARACTERS happening on screen!).

Likewise, the girl who wants to play a gay boy in a table full of people who generally leave sex as something mentioned briefly along the lines of, "And then Barbarian Ben spent his evening ale-ing and whore-ing," might be a red flag when she wants her gay boy to flirt with everything in pants and describes lovingly his seduction techniques. Even if they never get explicit, the table may not be comfortable with it getting into that kind of amorous territory.


As the simplicity of my point may be missed, let me spell it out: The discussion is about whether it is acceptable to ban homosexual characters from being made at a table. Segev's argument relies on linking homosexuality to promiscuity, because if that were not the case, his argument would fall apart. I'll modify it to remove the red herring:

"The ultra-religious girl who doesn't want sex at the table (especially not gay sex) LGBT+ characters asking that LGBT+ romance not be played out in any graphic detail is not being evil or intolerant. She's expressing her comfort zones. That may be a red flag if your table likes playing things a bit more hot and steamy (including - gasp - KISSING between CHARACTERS happening on screen!). has any LGBT+ characters present.

Likewise, the girl who wants to play a gay boy in a table full of people who generally leave sex as something mentioned briefly along the lines of, "And then Barbarian Ben spent his evening ale-ing and whore-ing," LGBT+ characters out might be a red flag when she wants her gay boy to flirt with everything in pants and describes lovingly his seduction techniques. exist in the game. Even if they never get explicit, the table may not be comfortable with it getting into that kind of amorous non-heteronormative territory."

"The ultra-religious girl who doesn't want LGBT+ characters asking that LGBT+ romance not be played out is not being evil or intolerant. She's expressing her comfort zones. That may be a red flag if your table has any LGBT+ characters present.

Likewise, the girl who wants to play a gay boy in a table full of people who generally leave LGBT+ characters out might be a red flag when she wants her gay boy to exist in the game. Even if they never get explicit, the table may not be comfortable with it getting into that kind of non-heteronormative territory."

I'm not twisting words here: I'm contextualizing them. If your argument for why it is acceptable to deny certain identities at your table is based on equating people who are not straight with promiscuity, then perhaps you need to examine why that is.

Segev
2018-06-29, 03:28 PM
It's particularly insulting that you are presuming that all homosexual conduct is promiscuous.

Segev, you are making a comparison between a (heterosexual) character played by a more prudish player and a (homosexual) character played by a less prudish player. There is nothing inherently sexual about LGBT+ people. While yes, it is a definition of their sexuality, that does not mean that they are any more inappropriate at the gaming table than those of heteronormative identities.Sorry, I was apparently unclear.

I was illustrating how it can be used as a bludgeon with those examples. In general, "I'm playing a gay character, but he is not going to be flaunting it everywhere," is probably not a problem. In fact, if it's no more obvious than the sexuality of the (presumed by default) straight characters who just aren't playing romances, it certainly shouldn't be one.

If the gay character IS in a romance, that could be uncomfortable, but as long as it's not being shoved in anybody's face, the players made uncomfortable by it can demonstrate tolerance by tolerating it. Likewise, the player(s) of the gay character(s) can demonstrate tolerance by tolerating the fact that the players made uncomfortable by it are not in there cheering it along and are choosing to not participate actively in those scenes so as not to get in anybody's way.

Note that I also used a hyper-sexualized straight character to demonstrate how the same thing can be a bludgeon.


"I disagree with your sexuality/identity" is a rhetorical attack.No more so than, "I disagree with your religious beliefs."

As long as you recognize their right to practice their sexuality or their religious beliefs, you're tolerating them. You don't have to agree that they're right. I assure you, if somebody told me, "Segev, you're not really a straight male. You're actually a demisexual genderfluid with 30% unicorn mix, based on my analysis of your personality and taking into account your enjoyment of Voltron, Transformers, Rainbow Bright, and Star vs. the Forces of Evil," I'd laugh at them. Because I believe myself to be straight and male. (I do not know the actual terminology well enough to do more than a lame parody of it; my apologies.)

If they were genuinely concerned that I was hurting myself, I'd assure them that I'm fine and happy, and ask them to please leave off before they became annoying about it.

But I would not accuse them of "hate" or of denying my right to exist. At worst, I'd find them annoying.

Tolerance does mean not harping on such points of disagreement. By either side. As I said: live and let live.


You're falling victim due to not recognizing the paradox of tolerance. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
No, I'm flat-out disagreeing with it. The so-called "paradox" is actually an apologia for intolerance disguised as a quest for tolerance.

Tolerance doesn't mean allowing aggressive behavior. It means tolerating passive behavior. It is not "intolerant" to disapprove of something, and refuse to participate in something celebrating that which you disapprove of. It is, in fact, intolerant to demand that people agree with you and celebrate with you things you wish to celebrate.

There is no paradox, if you properly understand that tolerance is not about approval, but about not getting in the way of things you disapprove of.

It is not intolerant to run a game where no elves are allowed. It's only intolerant to demand that every game you're in have no elves. It is intolerant to refuse to allow there to be a game where no elves are allowed. It is tolerant to recognize a game that disallows elves is not for you and to go find one you'd rather play in.

The paradox of tolerance confuses tolerance with approval. And from there stems the paradox. When tolerance requires approval, views that disagree with yours are now "intolerant" because they do not approve of your view. Thus, you can either be tolerant of intolerance (i.e. tolerate their lack of approval), or you can stand against them and disapprove of them violently (figuratively or literally).

Appreciate what tolerance really calls for, though, and there's no paradox. You can oppose their views while tolerating them indulging them, so long as they oppose your views and tolerate you indulging yours. It's not "intolerant" to oppose others coming after you to stop you from practicing your views. Nor is it intolerant to stop people from insisting you participate in and celebrate their views.

True tolerance has no paradox; the moment people start infringing on others by invading their personal lives and demanding they conform and/or celebrate the invaders' positions, the invaders have ceased to be "tolerant." But as long as they hold their views over there, and only insist you conform to them if you're entering their socio-metaphorical space, they're being tolerant of you doing your thing, and you can be tolerant of them doing theirs.

You don't have an inherent right to participate in others' activities, only to find those which want you and which you want to be part of. You also don't have an inherent right to demand others participate in your activities, only to demand that nobody stop you from engaging in your chosen ones with others who voluntarily participate.


That's precisely what the following quote is. Which is quite simple.

Actually, if you read what you quoted me saying, "She might be a red flag when." My apologies if the implication that, should she not do what came after the word "when," she wouldn't be a red flag, was too subtle. I do try to be clear, but I'm already so darned wordy that my posts fill screens, so I often fail. :(

Nifft
2018-06-29, 03:29 PM
That's precisely what the following quote is. Which is quite simple.

What you quoted does not say that all gay behavior is promiscuous.

Knaight
2018-06-29, 03:30 PM
Direct hostility? Please. If that accusation was even remotely close, this thread would have been flagged and locked down before you could say crumdiddlyumptious.

Phrasing direct hostility politely doesn't make it less hostile - but it's more than enough to avoid getting caught by modding. The people here are generally rhetorically clever enough to embed direct hostility in subtext, to bury it in a different argument as a necessary implication, or to otherwise focus their writing such that the hostility is there but out of focus. For instance, here we see a deflection where an ideological position of hostility towards other people is reframed as identity, so that an expectation not to be trod on is now an attack on that identity.

If I called you subhuman scum, that would be hostile. It would be flaming. It would be entirely reasonable for you to push back on that, and that conflict wouldn't be one we both caused. If I instead said that I was a scum-avoidant, and that in my identity as a scum-avoidant I couldn't help but think of you as subhuman scum, and that you requesting me not thinking of you as subhuman scum was an unjust attack on scum-avoidants, that would still be hostile. The only change there is a rhetorical sleight of hand, with no substantive difference. A few more stylistic changes (starting with finding a term a little more subtle than subhuman scum), and it's a polite, civil, scholarly and gentlemanly argument. It's still no less hostile.


There is a HUGE gap between "gays shouldn't exist" and "everyone should accept gays and gay activities in their daily lives."
"I'm not saying that blacks should exist, I just don't feel that I should accept blacks in my daily lives. Yet people still call this moderate anti-extermination perspective racist, and claim that it's hostile to black people. Woe is me, for I am persecuted."

But thanks for highlighting exactly why people were seeing red flags in your post. Why would I voluntarily spend my free time dealing with this sort of thing? This isn't work, where I'm paid to be there.

Segev
2018-06-29, 03:34 PM
Phrasing direct hostility politely doesn't make it less hostile - but it's more than enough to avoid getting caught by modding. The people here are generally rhetorically clever enough to embed direct hostility in subtext, to bury it in a different argument as a necessary implication, or to otherwise focus their writing such that the hostility is there but out of focus. For instance, here we see a deflection where an ideological position of hostility towards other people is reframed as identity, so that an expectation not to be trod on is now an attack on that identity.

If I called you subhuman scum, that would be hostile. It would be flaming. It would be entirely reasonable for you to push back on that, and that conflict wouldn't be one we both caused. If I instead said that I was a scum-avoidant, and that in my identity as a scum-avoidant I couldn't help but think of you as subhuman scum, and that you requesting me not thinking of you as subhuman scum was an unjust attack on scum-avoidants, that would still be hostile. The only change there is a rhetorical sleight of hand, with no substantive difference. A few more stylistic changes (starting with finding a term a little more subtle than subhuman scum), and it's a polite, civil, scholarly and gentlemanly argument. It's still no less hostile.

Except that nobody's said XYZ group is sub-human, nor that they are to be avoided because they're sub-human.

In fact, I've suggested that everybody has a right to have their own comfort zones, and to seek out private spaces where they may be in said comfort zones. One might even term these "safe spaces," though that phrase has become so loaded that I am loathe to use it.

Let me try to be pithy, and hope this doesn't cause lack of clarity:

If you told me that you thought my beliefs were wrong, would that be a hostile attack on me, personally? Would I be justified in accusing you of denying my personhood and/or right to exist?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-29, 03:36 PM
So, then, your open and tolerant table is fine with the super-religious girl playing the prude who is constantly preaching about the evils of extramarital sex, right?

Yes? I'm not sure why this is supposed to be some sort of "gotcha" moment. If she's hoping to win the hearts and minds of the players she's probably going to be disappointed, but it's not an inherently troublesome concept.


Would you be okay with a game table that said, "All characters must be gay?"

No. Well, not unless the entire premise of the campaign was based around it and it was discussed in advance with everyone. "Every character must be gay" is as unacceptable as "No character may be gay", outside of that weird theoretical exception.


So, yes. It can be used as a bludgeon. I've seen it done in person in games. Heck, hetero promiscuity's been used like that on me at one point, when my (male) PC was decidedly trying to be chaste and another (female) PC literally rolled grapple checks to climb into his lap and grope him. I was called a "prude" for being annoyed by this behavior. And I won't deny it, I am a bit of a prude. But I don't think it unreasonable to not like having the contrary position shoved at me and then be the "bad guy" when I don't drop my position and enthusiastically support the contrary one.

Uh, this is also unacceptable behaviour, FYI. And it would be unacceptable behaviour regardless of what table you're playing at. I question why you're even bringing it up, though. Unless you think literal sexual harassment is equivalent to someone playing a gay character.

Segev
2018-06-29, 03:41 PM
Yes? I'm not sure why this is supposed to be some sort of "gotcha" moment. If she's hoping to win the hearts and minds of the players she's probably going to be disappointed, but it's not an inherently troublesome concept. In general, the position "against intolerance" I've seen would be that she's intolerant for playing that character, so I'm pleased to see you being consistent here.

Though I will point out that her "aggressive" and "hostile" character might make the other players uncomfortable to have her constantly shoving the evils of their lifestyle and preferences in their faces.


No. Well, not unless the entire premise of the campaign was based around it and it was discussed in advance with everyone. "Every character must be gay" is as unacceptable as "No character may be gay", outside of that weird theoretical exception.We disagree here, then. I think everybody has a right to make such restrictive games if they like. I just don't want to play in some, and wouldn't care in others (because the restriction wouldn't bother me). Of course, other factors may intrude, but all else being copacetic, if the restriction didn't bother me, I'd probably not have a problem with it. IF it did bother me, I'd be disappointed (if I had other reason to want to play that particular game), but know it wasn't for me.


Uh, this is also unacceptable behaviour, FYI. And it would be unacceptable behaviour regardless of what table you're playing at. I question why you're even bringing it up, though. Unless you think literal sexual harassment is equivalent to someone playing a gay character.It's an example of "bludgeon" behavior. Whether it's gay or straight.

Not all gay characters are bludgeons. But some are used that way. That the bludgeon character being gay doesn't excuse it being used as a bludgeon, nor make the bludgeoning victim the "hateful bigot" for being bothered by it, is my sole point here.

Knaight
2018-06-29, 03:48 PM
Let me try to be pithy, and hope this doesn't cause lack of clarity:

If you told me that you thought my beliefs were wrong, would that be a hostile attack on me, personally? Would I be justified in accusing you of denying my personhood and/or right to exist?

Beliefs aren't the same thing as group identities, and calling them wrong isn't the same as demanding that they not appear. "I think you're wrong", and "I'm uncomfortable with you acknowledging your existence as a [whatever], don't do that around me" are two entirely different statements. Reading the latter as a hostile attack is entirely reasonable.

As for denial of personhood and right to exist, that brings in the magical concept of context. For instance, is there an established history of people in my group murdering people in your group because they're people in your group? Does the line of argument I'm using bear a striking resemblance to lines of argument used to criminalize your existence if it becomes known, or lines of justification used for those aforementioned murders?

Koo Rehtorb
2018-06-29, 03:51 PM
Not all gay characters are bludgeons. But some are used that way. That the bludgeon character being gay doesn't excuse it being used as a bludgeon, nor make the bludgeoning victim the "hateful bigot" for being bothered by it, is my sole point here.

Disguising a soapbox as a character is irritating regardless of what particular cause the soapbox user is espousing. This has nothing to do with whether it's acceptable to ban gay characters or not.

2D8HP
2018-06-29, 03:58 PM
red flags

Oh! even though I'm not British I know this one, and it's related to Dungeons & Dragons!

♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
With head uncovered swear we all
To bear it onward till we fall;
Come dungeons dark or gallows grim,
This song shall be our parting hymn.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫

No?

Okay.

How 'bout:


♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
I like soft Flumphs I cannot lie......
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫

Segev
2018-06-29, 04:01 PM
Beliefs aren't the same thing as group identities, and calling them wrong isn't the same as demanding that they not appear. "I think you're wrong", and "I'm uncomfortable with you acknowledging your existence as a [whatever], don't do that around me" are two entirely different statements. Reading the latter as a hostile attack is entirely reasonable.I'm not denying that you believe X about yourself. I'm simply stating that I think you're wrong in that belief. You, of course, believing it and having first-person experience with it, laugh at what you perceive as my ignorance.

As long as we leave it there, we can both tolerate each other. I am not attacking you for believing X; I just disagree with you.

Now, as to demanding they not express themselves...

So you're against people telling Christians and Conservatives to shut up about their beliefs, and have no problem with their beliefs being espoused and shared openly in any forum, right? Personally, I think private fora have a right to quash any speech they disapprove of (but am glad for those which do not), and while I might mock "safe spaces" as they're popularly executed on college campuses, I am not going to deny people the right to carve them out so long as they do so without getting in anybody else's way or face about it. I expect the same right and privilege for myself.

In public spaces, we all have to tolerate each other. It is rude to take advantage of that to the point of annoying others, and intolerant to use it as a bludgeon, but as long as we're all polite and respectful and tolerate reasonable behavior (as easy and as hard to define as questioning whether it would be acceptable if you changed variables about the person engaged in it, such as one or more of their sexes), things can be civil and livable. Retreat to your private spaces if you can't tolerate reasonable behavior just because X type of person is doing it.


As for denial of personhood and right to exist, that brings in the magical concept of context. For instance, is there an established history of people in my group murdering people in your group because they're people in your group? Does the line of argument I'm using bear a striking resemblance to lines of argument used to criminalize your existence if it becomes known, or lines of justification used for those aforementioned murders?Actually, yes. There is quite the history of Mormons being targeted for murder based on accusations of insular nature and intolerance.

If I were to use that history to demand that nobody say anything negative - or even disagreeing - about my religion, I would be the intolerant one.

The line is easily drawn: it becomes unacceptable and potentially hateful when you demand that people change, that their beliefs and preferences be quashed or altered until they conform to what you want them to be. It is not, however, hateful to believe them wrong in their beliefs, nor to think their preferences harmful to themselves.

Scripten
2018-06-29, 04:03 PM
Sorry, I was apparently unclear.

I was illustrating how it can be used as a bludgeon with those examples. In general, "I'm playing a gay character, but he is not going to be flaunting it everywhere," is probably not a problem. In fact, if it's no more obvious than the sexuality of the (presumed by default) straight characters who just aren't playing romances, it certainly shouldn't be one.


Perhaps that was your intent. However, you are explaining how a character can be played in a way that makes other people at the table uncomfortable while saying that this is reason to exclude players from creating homosexual characters. You do seem to understand that it is possible to play either a straight or queer character within the bounds of acceptable promiscuity. Why is it, then, that you are arguing that one is a problem while the other is not?

Would it not be easier to just say that promiscuity is the problem and leave it at that? Why is this your argument for the acceptability of banning certain identities?



As long as you recognize their right to practice their sexuality or their religious beliefs, you're tolerating them. You don't have to agree that they're right. I assure you, if somebody told me, "Segev, you're not really a straight male. You're actually a demisexual genderfluid with 30% unicorn mix, based on my analysis of your personality and taking into account your enjoyment of Voltron, Transformers, Rainbow Bright, and Star vs. the Forces of Evil," I'd laugh at them. Because I believe myself to be straight and male. (I do not know the actual terminology well enough to do more than a lame parody of it; my apologies.)


Perhaps, but your identity as a straight male is constantly validated in society. That confers a sense of normalcy where you can laugh such suggestions off as ludicrous. Regardless, this isn't really where I was going with my post.



Tolerance doesn't mean allowing aggressive behavior. It means tolerating passive behavior. It is not "intolerant" to disapprove of something, and refuse to participate in something celebrating that which you disapprove of. It is, in fact, intolerant to demand that people agree with you and celebrate with you things you wish to celebrate.

That "passive behavior" is what normalizes and implicitly supports aggressive behavior. I'll let Knaight continue with where they are going, because they are making much more cogent arguments than I.



It is not intolerant to run a game where no elves are allowed. It's only intolerant to demand that every game you're in have no elves. It is intolerant to refuse to allow there to be a game where no elves are allowed. It is tolerant to recognize a game that disallows elves is not for you and to go find one you'd rather play in.


I did want to cover this, though. Elves are not real. People of marginalized identities are. There is a boatload of subtext implied by creating a setting where one is nonexistent compared to the other. Saying "this setting does not have Elves" implies that there is not species of humanoid called an "Elf", which is reasonable. Alternatively, saying "You cannot choose 'Canadian' as your ancestry, because Canada doesn't exist in this world" is equally reasonable. However, "There are no gay people in Fantasylandia" is an issue: there is real life context that goes into making choices that are reflected at the game table. Ignoring those is an example of passive intolerance and is rhetorically hostile.



Actually, if you read what you quoted me saying, "She might be a red flag when." My apologies if the implication that, should she not do what came after the word "when," she wouldn't be a red flag, was too subtle. I do try to be clear, but I'm already so darned wordy that my posts fill screens, so I often fail. :(

I don't think that's quite what was meant by "red flag" by way of this topic. That would be an active action that is unrelated to the character's sexuality, still. Yes, people can play obnoxious characters who are queer. In fact, that may well even be their intent, which personally I would find insulting as part of that community myself, as it would be an offensive caricature. However, that our hypothetical girl is playing a character who is gay and obnoxiously promiscuous doesn't imply that her character being gay is a red flag.

But I do understand the gist of your point and I recognize that you are participating honestly in the conversation.

Delta
2018-06-29, 04:59 PM
There is a HUGE gap between "gays shouldn't exist" and "everyone should accept gays and gay activities in their daily lives."

There really isn't that huge a gap, one just sounds nicer than the other if you don't think about it too hard, that's all. Turn your second statement around and think about what not "accepting gays in your daily life" looks like, and that's not exactly a nice thing.

Segev
2018-06-29, 05:12 PM
Perhaps that was your intent. However, you are explaining how a character can be played in a way that makes other people at the table uncomfortable while saying that this is reason to exclude players from creating homosexual characters. You do seem to understand that it is possible to play either a straight or queer character within the bounds of acceptable promiscuity. Why is it, then, that you are arguing that one is a problem while the other is not?

Would it not be easier to just say that promiscuity is the problem and leave it at that? Why is this your argument for the acceptability of banning certain identities?In this case, I'm differentiating between two ways to play gay (or really, any, but specifically gay because of a contextual caveat that I hope I can make clear, here) characters.

1) Like any other character. It isn't a declaration of identity for the player (or, if it is, it's no more so than playing a left-handed character is for me). It isn't meant to get a rise out of nor test the "tolerance" of other players. It isn't meant to in any way be a "take that" or otherwise force acknowledgement and validation from others. It's just a facet of the character, and it may or may not come up.

2) As a statement. As a bludgeon, to test the "tolerance" of others and demand those who are found wanting change their sinful ways and accept and celebrate the character's gayness. Or trans-ness. Or Otherkin-ness. Or political or religious orientation. Or whatever it is that they're waving around like a flag and demanding all bend knee and applaud.

The first way is fine. A tolerant person need not approve of all traits of the character to tolerate it. They might honestly be uncomfortable with it being displayed, but can again tolerate it by not getting in the way as long as it's not taking over the game. (If it's taking over the game, it is either an accident, or it's really the second way in disguise.) They need not celebrate it, nor voice approval, but they can avoid voicing disapproval or making unpleasant comments or slurs. The tolerant player of the gay-or-whatever-other-trait character can exhibit similar tolerance by not demanding the players who are uncomfortable feign approval.

The second way is what I take issue with, as I have seen it done more than once. Not just in gaming (though it's not "a character" in gaming so much as people who feel the need to be That Guy about sharing their controversial position/identity/whatever), but I have seen it in gaming framed in that form. The goal may well be to have fun, but also to attempt to purge any who might dissent with the player's personal viewpoint by making it very uncomfortable for those dissenters, and then calling them out as "bigots" and as "attacking" the aggressively in-your-face character's player when they do anything but express pure approval. Bonus points if some call these players "brave" for doing it at a table full of mostly like-minded individuals. (That said, at that point, the dissenter should be glad for the purge, because leaving is a better use of her time than staying.)


Perhaps, but your identity as a straight male is constantly validated in society. That confers a sense of normalcy where you can laugh such suggestions off as ludicrous. Regardless, this isn't really where I was going with my post.That's one of the few things, then, that is constantly "validated by society." My identity as a conservative Christian who abstains from sex prior to marriage is, if not invalidated by society, under constant assault as invalid and even evil by pop culture. My identity as a studious youth and voracious reader and fan of fantasy, sci-fi, and anime and RPGs was likewise constantly assaulted until I got into college. I was painted by pop culture and school culture as a weird kid who might be the type to blow up the school (though teachers mercifully knew me as too good a kid to do that, even if administrators were likely to try to hint at it if I ever brought up the mistreatment I suffered at the hands of other, more "mainstream normal" kids).

As a Mormon, my religion is doubly mocked and derided even above other Christian faiths. Up until seven years before I was born, it was technically legal - by explicit gubernatorial order - to murder members of my faith in the State I grew up in. I'm a prude, a square, a weirdo, a wet blanket for not seeking out sexual encounters, for not drinking, not smoking. My faith is painted frequently in the media as being that of the so-called "fundamentalist Mormons" who are really cultish communes where old men abuse young men to death to winnow the male population so there are more women for them individually to keep for themselves, despite my faith decrying that and seeing it as abominable.

As a Christian in general, if I see people "like me" portrayed in the media, I would make a profit consistently betting that they'll turn out to be the bad guy. And that their Christianity will be a major reason for it. I see my beliefs mocked and distorted into hateful things which bear no resemblance to what I actually believe, but am then called a liar or some variant on "a credit to my people" if I say that that isn't what I believe.

Even here, in this conversation, acknowledging that I disagree with the self-assessment of some people is painted as hateful, with implications that I am using rhetorical stunts to disguise my hate in coded language that really means I want such people violently attacked or murdered, when all I'm actually saying is that I think they're factually wrong, and that I worry that they are making themselves less happy than they could be. (Incidentally, as a tremendous believer in personal freedom, no matter how much I think they're hurting themselves, I don't feel I have a right to stop them. I don't know I'm right. I just think I am. And I'd rather let them, as adults, make their own decisions about what's best for them. It isn't my place to decide for anybody other than me what is in any way best for a given person. And, if I ever have them, my kids.)

So, yes, I do believe I know what it's like to have significant swaths of my identity - portions I consider far, far more important than my sexuality or sex - not just invalidated, but attacked, mocked, and derided. And have such attacks and mockery and derision played off as perfectly socially acceptable (which is NOT the case for attacks on the groups we've been discussing; it is only in small subsets we all deride where attacking them is socially acceptable).

I have quite a thick skin because of it. It also has taught me to stand up to those deriding things I believe in, because if I fail to, they'll just keep trampling. It won't stop them, but at least I can be sure that people hear my side of things.




I did want to cover this, though. Elves are not real. People of marginalized identities are. There is a boatload of subtext implied by creating a setting where one is nonexistent compared to the other. Saying "this setting does not have Elves" implies that there is not species of humanoid called an "Elf", which is reasonable. Alternatively, saying "You cannot choose 'Canadian' as your ancestry, because Canada doesn't exist in this world" is equally reasonable. However, "There are no gay people in Fantasylandia" is an issue: there is real life context that goes into making choices that are reflected at the game table. Ignoring those is an example of passive intolerance and is rhetorically hostile.In terms of percentage of the population, the minority groups in question are so small a minority that they would, statistically, not show up in most popular media if the characters were generated by random sample for those aspects. Not to say they'd show up in none, but they'd be far rarer than they tend to be.

Which is only something I bring up in response to the "creating a world where they don't exist" business, because in a typical 5-man party in a game, they won't. It would take a party 20+ for one of the types to show up, let alone for several. Statistically expectation-value-wise, anyway.

That's not to say it justifies "no gays" games. All it says is that "creating a game without them is a horrible thing!" is a pretty broad-reaching claim. ("No gays" and "all gays" and anything in between are justified on their own rights by virtue of people having a right to associate how and with whom they like, provided all involved are in agreement.)


I don't think that's quite what was meant by "red flag" by way of this topic. That would be an active action that is unrelated to the character's sexuality, still. Yes, people can play obnoxious characters who are queer. In fact, that may well even be their intent, which personally I would find insulting as part of that community myself, as it would be an offensive caricature. However, that our hypothetical girl is playing a character who is gay and obnoxiously promiscuous doesn't imply that her character being gay is a red flag.No. In fact, I went out of my way to state this in the second response I gave on this topic. The red flag is her behavior.

The reason I call it out particularly when she plays a gay character is that I have seen people get up in arms over anybody calling that red flag out. "You're just anti-gay, you bigot!" they say. No amount of protesting that it's the obnoxious behavior, and not the fact that it's gay, that is objectionable is allowed to be heard. Hence why I bring it up: such behavior does not get to use "but my character is gay, so you can't disapprove!" as a defense.

It is an attempt to preempt dressing the nose of the camel up in a rainbow noseguard from allowing that particular nose into the tent.


But I do understand the gist of your point and I recognize that you are participating honestly in the conversation.Thank you; I appreciate that. I ALWAYS participate honestly, because if I'm participating, it's because I have honest and earnest beliefs and strong reasons behind them. I want to share them, and to find common ground.

I know "civility" is a bad word this month, but I have always striven for it in day-to-day life. It is my firm belief that people living and letting live will generally lead to happier relationships, from aquaintanceships to workplace coworkers to friendships and beyond.

We don't have to agree on everything, or even most things, to be friends. We just have to tolerate those disagreements, and be aware what topics to broach with whom if we aren't up for...energetic discussion.


There really isn't that huge a gap, one just sounds nicer than the other if you don't think about it too hard, that's all. Turn your second statement around and think about what not "accepting gays in your daily life" looks like, and that's not exactly a nice thing.

I'm willing to bet that you don't have Mormon activities in your daily life, and would not stick around a social group that insisted on them. Does that mean you want to eliminate all Mormons?

I don't have sports activities in my daily life, and I don't want to have to put up with sports intruding on everything I do. So I avoid such things, and learn to ignore them happening when they're in the background. Does that mean I want to eliminate all sports?

Floret
2018-06-29, 05:35 PM
I can be friends with people I think are factually wrong on a number of issues.

Sure. Me too. I'm friends with people who think onions are food. With people who think that one guy is an optimizer. With atheists. Heck, I'm dating a Space Marine player. I can't be friends with people who genuinely believe I should go back to being miserable, because appearantly they know me better than I do myself. Especially since no matter how well they try to espouse their "live and let live", they will let you feel it. Not consciously, necessarily. But their beliefs will colour their actions and behavious towards me. Noone is as good at letting people "live and let live" that they disagree with on such a level than they think they are.

One other thing, on the difference between belief and identity (I missed clicking quote on the post where you talked about it): A belief is not something you choose, no. But a belief is something that you can change.

An identity in the sense we are discussing here is not.


I'm actually saying is that I think they're factually wrong, and that I worry that they are making themselves less happy than they could be.

If you truly believe that, you are acting in willfull ignorance of lived experiences of several dozens of people I know, and decades of scientific research. If you deny this, and any motive beyond their happyness, I would like to hear your reasoning - probably best via PM, since forum rules, if you don't mind discussing it.


I don't believe in letting yourself be limited by allowing politics, religion or other such factors to dictate friendships or gaming partners.

Be happy you can be in that position.


There is a HUGE gap between "gays shouldn't exist" and "everyone should accept gays and gay activities in their daily lives."

Is there? Because how would gay people existing without "gay activities" (Like handholding, or goodbye kisses when getting on the train) being, potentially, in everyone's daily lives?

I suppose there is the difference of "Gay people shouldn't exist" and "Gay people shouldn't exist openly". I wouldn't call that huge, per se...

And I suppose it does point out an imprecision in the thesis: It is not "LGBT people should have a right to exist", not really. It is "LGBT people should have a right to exist and express themselves equal to everyone else".


There really isn't that huge a gap, one just sounds nicer than the other if you don't think about it too hard, that's all. Turn your second statement around and think about what not "accepting gays in your daily life" looks like, and that's not exactly a nice thing.

Or, this, basically. You sound like a cool guy, we should game some time :smallwink:

WindStruck
2018-06-29, 05:55 PM
Phrasing direct hostility politely doesn't make it less hostile - but it's more than enough to avoid getting caught by modding. The people here are generally rhetorically clever enough to embed direct hostility in subtext, to bury it in a different argument as a necessary implication, or to otherwise focus their writing such that the hostility is there but out of focus. For instance, here we see a deflection where an ideological position of hostility towards other people is reframed as identity, so that an expectation not to be trod on is now an attack on that identity.

If I called you subhuman scum, that would be hostile. It would be flaming. It would be entirely reasonable for you to push back on that, and that conflict wouldn't be one we both caused. If I instead said that I was a scum-avoidant, and that in my identity as a scum-avoidant I couldn't help but think of you as subhuman scum, and that you requesting me not thinking of you as subhuman scum was an unjust attack on scum-avoidants, that would still be hostile. The only change there is a rhetorical sleight of hand, with no substantive difference. A few more stylistic changes (starting with finding a term a little more subtle than subhuman scum), and it's a polite, civil, scholarly and gentlemanly argument. It's still no less hostile.


"I'm not saying that blacks should exist, I just don't feel that I should accept blacks in my daily lives. Yet people still call this moderate anti-extermination perspective racist, and claim that it's hostile to black people. Woe is me, for I am persecuted."

But thanks for highlighting exactly why people were seeing red flags in your post. Why would I voluntarily spend my free time dealing with this sort of thing? This isn't work, where I'm paid to be there.

Yeah..... No.

Maybe you should just stop assuming what you think the other person is saying and just... you know... read what they are actually saying?

It is understandable you feel so confused when you are constantly switching words around, crossing things out, editing what you see. I can only imagine what it must be like when people talk to you!

Scripten
2018-06-29, 06:04 PM
Yeah..... No.

Maybe you should just stop assuming what you think the other person is saying and just... you know... read what they are actually saying?

It is understandable you feel so confused when you are constantly switching words around, crossing things out, editing what you see. I can only imagine what it must be like when people talk to you!

Interesting that you respond this way, seeing as it was me who did the bit with the crossed out words.

You must be confused.

Calthropstu
2018-06-29, 06:07 PM
"I'm not saying that blacks should exist, I just don't feel that I should accept blacks in my daily lives. Yet people still call this moderate anti-extermination perspective racist, and claim that it's hostile to black people. Woe is me, for I am persecuted."

But thanks for highlighting exactly why people were seeing red flags in your post. Why would I voluntarily spend my free time dealing with this sort of thing? This isn't work, where I'm paid to be there.

Not the same at all in any way shape or form, and I do not appreciate the implication, especially since I have not, in any way, indicated my own beliefs on the subject.

2D8HP
2018-06-29, 06:41 PM
Well this discussion has certainly brought an issue to my mind, namely why is my memory so bad?

I remember having having friends in my social group that were "out" when I was in high school, and in my late teens and early 20's (I stopped having friends in my mid 20's, and just had co-workers and customers).

I remember playing RPG's with some of my friends, and I remember one friend who sat at D&D games of D&D, Champions, and maybe Traveller, and I remember that friend became "out", but I have no memory if we still gamed together, or if that was when my main social activity was volunteering at the radio station, and watching bands preform, so I just don't know the timeline for sure.

But I also don't remember any romance or sexuality related plots of any kind back then whatsoever (which is probably a reflection of how "murderous hobo"-ish the games were).

Even the few games I've played recently I only remember very brief romantic content, that only amounts to PC's trying to "woo with words" some NPC's (for Pendragon, so Knights trying to be chivalrous).

Among the adults I've played D&D with this decade (and Shadowrun in the '90's), I remember a couple of co-players have been "out" (because of the pronouns used for their boyfriend/girlfriend) but I just don't pry into anyone's romantic life, or pay that much attention to know the percentage.

Sorry.

But in thinking about it, any in-character flirting is a dialog between two people and I imagine that much of it would get stale for the audience (everyone else at the table) fast, and I wouldn't want to carry on the dialog on long and would want to get back to rolling dice (I fully admit to being terrible at role-playing), but I also have little interest in my co-workers RL "date" tales either.

I really don't know what my attitude would be towards LGBT etc. folks if I didn't grow up in a large urban area with a higher percentage that are "out" compared to elsewhere, but I definitely remember what made me more strongly decide who's side to be on when it comes to tolerance:
I was waiting in line, hoping to see a rock band perform, around 1989 or '90, when two guy's asked me what the line was for, and when I answered I was punched in the head, blacked out for a bit, and when I regained consciousness I could see my assailants running and laughing.

Some years later a co-worker told a tale of when they went "queer bashing' in the 1970's (another co-worker, who is almost my age recently told a similar tale of the '80's), and I figured out that the thugs must have decided (for whatever reason) that I was a "queer" fit for punching (maybe because of the fisherman's hat that they knocked off my head that was unlike the backwards baseball caps they wore), and I don't think I have much to add to that.

What has been an issue for me at game tables is when I've told someone to "please cut it out", to someone who started to describe their "enhanced interrogation techniques" of an NPC, and that's an "I won't game" issue for me.

Delta
2018-06-29, 06:43 PM
I'm willing to bet that you don't have Mormon activities in your daily life, and would not stick around a social group that insisted on them. Does that mean you want to eliminate all Mormons?

I don't have sports activities in my daily life, and I don't want to have to put up with sports intruding on everything I do. So I avoid such things, and learn to ignore them happening when they're in the background. Does that mean I want to eliminate all sports?

I live in Germany, the only Mormons I ever see are couples of missionaries once every blue moon, but I fail to see what this does have to do with anything? Of course I accept religious people in my daily lives, what would the alternative be?

As to the rest, again I fail to see what your comparison here has to do with anything we're talking about, the "sports activities" comparison sounds outright absurd. That might be a fitting comparison if anyone here was asking you to take part in "gay activities" or something like that, and I'm pretty sure no one ever has.

Wardog12356
2018-06-29, 06:45 PM
Alright. That looks to be good for me.

Delta
2018-06-29, 06:50 PM
Or, this, basically. You sound like a cool guy, we should game some time :smallwink:

Well I am looking for people for a new group, actually, I just fear Germany might be a bit of a far commute for you ;)

Pex
2018-06-29, 08:14 PM
Players who get upset because someone is wrong on the internet.

WindStruck
2018-06-29, 08:59 PM
Interesting that you respond this way, seeing as it was me who did the bit with the crossed out words.

You must be confused.

Yup. I blame my stupid tiny phone!

But seriously, what you did doesn't make any sense.


Interesting that you respond this way, seeing as it was me Knaight who did the bit with the crossed out words.

You must be confused awesome.

Scripten
2018-06-29, 10:07 PM
I'm not sure why you're confused about the intent of my post. I spelled it out pretty clearly, I thought...


As the simplicity of my point may be missed, let me spell it out: The discussion is about whether it is acceptable to ban homosexual characters from being made at a table. Segev's argument relies on linking homosexuality to promiscuity, because if that were not the case, his argument would fall apart. I'll modify it to remove the red herring:

-snip-

I'm not twisting words here: I'm contextualizing them. If your argument for why it is acceptable to deny certain identities at your table is based on equating people who are not straight with promiscuity, then perhaps you need to examine why that is.

I was making the point that Segev's argument was out of context for the discussion and illustrated why by putting it back into the context of the discussion.

Someone who is uncomfortable with sex rp at the table is very different in terms of tolerance from someone who is uncomfortable with the existence of LGBT+ characters at the table. Banning gay characters because their players might engage in sexual rp is a non-sequitur.

I'm not sure how I can better explain this, but if you tell me what is missing, I can try.

Elanasaurus
2018-06-30, 12:20 AM
I don't have sports activities in my daily life, and I don't want to have to put up with sports intruding on everything I do. So I avoid such things, and learn to ignore them happening when they're in the background. Does that mean "Also, I hate sports"?FTFY.
:elan:

Floret
2018-06-30, 02:57 AM
Well I am looking for people for a new group, actually, I just fear Germany might be a bit of a far commute for you ;)

Germany? Nope, I'm a fellow German^^ The South might probably be for a face-to-face game though, I live rather squarely in the Megaplex.

Knaight
2018-06-30, 03:32 AM
I'm willing to bet that you don't have Mormon activities in your daily life, and would not stick around a social group that insisted on them. Does that mean you want to eliminate all Mormons?

I don't have sports activities in my daily life, and I don't want to have to put up with sports intruding on everything I do. So I avoid such things, and learn to ignore them happening when they're in the background. Does that mean I want to eliminate all sports?

Again, activities and people are not the same thing. Does my daily life involve going to Mormon religious events? No. Does it involve people who are Mormon? Absolutely. Similarly while I don't generally go to athletic events I still know a bunch of athletes.

Similarly the standard for hostility absolutely isn't intentional elimination of people. Demanding that you get to live in a segregated society that doesn't include them or forces them to pretend they aren't part of a group they're in is hostile.

War_lord
2018-06-30, 04:51 AM
The reality of humanity "not accepting gays in their daily lives" is gay people trapped living psychologically damaging double lives to avoid social sanctions and even physical violence. This is something that's already known and why the leaps and bounds made in tolerance, genuine tolerance are so important. A culture might not openly say "hey, kill gays" but an intolerant "not accepting" attitude in a society is still a catalyst for "under the counter" violence. The bigotry of the moderate is a vital support pillar to more violent acts of intimidation, carried out to silence the minority. And it is in fact a tactic that has been used on popular to hate minorities all through history, be they ethnic, religious or cultural. And that not coincidentally involved a passive acceptance of violence against that group as being not a problem worth considering, because by living openly and without fear according to the nature of their birth identity they were a "threat" to the repressive (usually religiously motivated) social order and thus "deserved" it. The purpose of pride is not to make intolerant people uncomfortable, the purpose of pride is to break the cycle of taboo, secrecy and violence, and in most places it has been very successful at doing that.

Being LGBT isn't something you can opt out of, it's not a bloody sports club, it's not a shadowy organization and it's certainly not something that's trying to convert people. Claiming it is really isn't dispelling my view of what's actually behind conservative beliefs on the subject, considering all the myths about gay people being repeated although they were self evident facts.

Segev, I'm sorry you were bullied, but that actually makes me less sympathetic to your position. I was bullied for all of school, it was terrible. From that experience I decided that I would personally live my life trying to take an active stand against bullying. And that means standing up for minorities, even when I get no personal stake in it. You were bullied, and your take away from it was to be a part of that cycle by, just like your bullies, attacking people for being different in a way you consider a threat to your unexamined ideal world. The problem with the idea that you only object to "obnoxious" gay characters in fiction, is that in my experience of such objections is that the conservative considers every gay character an obnoxious political token, and the intent of the creator is assumed to be "shoving it down my throat" because of the ideological challenge inherit in homosexuals being portrayed as anything but debauched and miserable.

Being bigoted in a quiet and respectful tone is still bigotry. There's a famous quote from MLK that deals with exactly that.

EDIT: As for Mormonism, would I accept someone's Mormon identity? Absolutely. Would I accept homophobia justified by Mormonism? No, because I don't care about how someone justifies homophobia to themselves, just that they're being homophobic.

Quertus
2018-06-30, 10:20 AM
This thread hasn't been closed yet? Cool. I love how cool our moderators are, and how well we can (usually) manage to talk about sensitive issues.

Out of respect for this, I'm going to try really hard not to be my usual self here.

But I am none the less very... confused.

So, can anyone please explain to me exactly what the difference is between not wanting sex to feature in their games, or rape, or religion, or homosexuality, or, heck, my personal favorite, "characters who are not from around here"? How is attempting to exclude one subset of characters or characteristics or concepts from a game substantially different from another? How is someone being uncomfortable with the topic of nymphomania or automobile accidents or spiders different from someone being uncomfortable with romantic affection between boys, or someone being cross-gender? Why is not accommodating someone's fear of spiders considered being a ****, but even bringing up that a subset of LGBT in a game makes you uncomfortable makes you a ****? How is this not a double standard?

For those who talk about it being "hurtful" - if the GM said, "I have never seen X done well, so please don't", would that still be hurtful? If the GM said that they have never seen religion done well, and ask that everyone at their table play atheists / ask that religion didn't come up / have a game world with no religion, is that hurtful to those for whom religion is a major part of their identity? Heck, what if their world doesn't have gender at all? Is that hurtful?

And what's with this "right to exist" stuff? Darwinian teaches that no-one has a "right" to exist - you exist if you can, you become extinct if you can't. When did people start overturning Darwin and claiming that things had a "right" to exist? Outside of religion, I see no way to justify the notion that the human race has any right to exist whatsoever. Does anyone have anything that disagrees with this?


Most importantly, treat people as people and friends first, potential partners a distant second (and genuinely be interested in their friendship, not just as a stepping stone to romance).

Also you may find that personal connection can make people be attractive that while glancing at them you would never have given the time of day.

I... I cannot agree strongly enough with this. I treat people as people. In no small part because of this, I have gotten far too much attention for my taste, and have had to turn down far too many girls (and no small number of guys!) who became enamored of me. Including ones where it was rather obvious to me that I did not otherwise match their tastes.


If my player wants to play a gelatinous cube... Is the character's gender 'fluid'?

Thank you for that bit of humor in this rather tense thread!

Rerem115
2018-06-30, 10:47 AM
How is someone being uncomfortable with the topic of nymphomania or automobile accidents or spiders different from someone being uncomfortable with romantic affection between boys, or someone being cross-gender? Why is not accommodating someone's fear of spiders considered being a ****, but even bringing up that a subset of LGBT in a game makes you uncomfortable makes you a ****? How is this not a double standard?

I'm no philosopher or social psychology professor, but near as I can tell, it's a backlash against years of intolerance. At least in the developed world, we live in a society where homosexuality is accepted. That's a good thing. People get really hurt when it is not accepted; I live 20 miles away from the school that the Nabozny case was levelled against.

I get that people have personal preferences. However, disliking homosexual behavior on a personal level looks a heck of a lot like the old bigotry when it's expressed, which is why the more progressive elements of society work so hard to push the idea that everyone has to accept homosexual behavior in others.

Delta
2018-06-30, 10:47 AM
And what's with this "right to exist" stuff? Darwinian teaches that no-one has a "right" to exist - you exist if you can, you become extinct if you can't. When did people start overturning Darwin and claiming that things had a "right" to exist? Outside of religion, I see no way to justify the notion that the human race has any right to exist whatsoever. Does anyone have anything that disagrees with this?


Um, I have something that disagrees with this, I like to call it "The whole of modern civilization", or at the very least the last couple centuries.

This shouldn't even be a dividing issue between religious and agnostic people, whether you look at Jesus Christ, the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Declaration or whatever floats your boat, the whole concept of "Yeah, maybe nature designed us to be ***** to each other, but let's try to be at least somewhat better than that so everything is better for everyone" is kind of a core concept for what we call society today.

Lord Raziere
2018-06-30, 12:51 PM
Um, I have something that disagrees with this, I like to call it "The whole of modern civilization", or at the very least the last couple centuries.

This shouldn't even be a dividing issue between religious and agnostic people, whether you look at Jesus Christ, the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Declaration or whatever floats your boat, the whole concept of "Yeah, maybe nature designed us to be ***** to each other, but let's try to be at least somewhat better than that so everything is better for everyone" is kind of a core concept for what we call society today.

Agreed. Darwin is the law of beasts not humans. Mother Nature is a jerk that can go screw herself. I mean have you seen some of the horrifying things some insects and fungus do? If thats nature, I don't want to be natural. I know not what gender Artifice is and do not presume to know, but I realize more and more that its my friend.

Knaight
2018-06-30, 01:55 PM
And what's with this "right to exist" stuff? Darwinian teaches that no-one has a "right" to exist - you exist if you can, you become extinct if you can't. When did people start overturning Darwin and claiming that things had a "right" to exist? Outside of religion, I see no way to justify the notion that the human race has any right to exist whatsoever. Does anyone have anything that disagrees with this?

It's almost like biology and ethics are different fields, and that a descriptive process in population biology doesn't have a lot of bearing on ethical principles.

That said, if you do want to form a connection it's worth noting that the particular population being looked at (humans) are an intensely smart, intensely social species that has been successful mostly by building cohesive societies that allow for heavy specialization, a trait dependent on both high intelligence and neuroplasticity (unless you dramatically change a lot of other traits). Establishing concepts like individual human rights, starting with right to existence, is an example of human adaptations at work.

Calthropstu
2018-06-30, 03:50 PM
Agreed. Darwin is the law of beasts not humans. Mother Nature is a jerk that can go screw herself. I mean have you seen some of the horrifying things some insects and fungus do? If thats nature, I don't want to be natural. I know not what gender Artifice is and do not presume to know, but I realize more and more that its my friend.

I kind of like nature myself. Both the beauty and the danger is wonderous. We like to think we can conquer it, but stand near a tornado or in a hurricane and that thought disappears quickly.

When a single tsunami can eliminate as many people as the whole Syrian war, it is kind of telling. And yet, laying under colored leaves of a giant majestic oak deep in the woods with a girl cuddled at my side is one of my happiest memories.

Humanity will never come close to creating anything that rivals the awesomeness of nature.

Mr Beer
2018-06-30, 04:08 PM
And what's with this "right to exist" stuff? Darwinian teaches that no-one has a "right" to exist - you exist if you can, you become extinct if you can't. When did people start overturning Darwin and claiming that things had a "right" to exist? Outside of religion, I see no way to justify the notion that the human race has any right to exist whatsoever. Does anyone have anything that disagrees with this?

Well cool, on that basis I should just murder you and impregnate your women because then I win at being the most Darwinian.

More seriously, we can view situations through the lens of evolutionary biology in order to understand them in one way. Then we can look at them societally or philosophically or whatever to understand them in a different manner. In some ways, yeah of course no-one has any 'right to exist' because the universe doesn't care about insignificant blobs of self-organising matter on a rock speck in the vast uncaring depths of space. But in another sense, we look at things from the human perspective and as hopefully good people and decent citizens we acknowledge each other's right to exist as people.

Darwin isn't a particularly useful yardstick for how people should behave or who adds value to society IMO.

Quertus
2018-06-30, 05:34 PM
Sigh. I figured if I didn't include some of my usual tone, people might assume my account had been hacked. So, let me try again: what do people mean when they use the phrase "right to exist"? The closest references I have are abortion-centric "right to life", and my aforementioned Darwinian "no species has a right to anything". Since people don't seem to be saying anything relevant to either of these, what do they mean by the phrase "right to exist"?

(and I'm quite glad that this was the most contentious part of my post)

Nifft
2018-06-30, 05:57 PM
Sigh. I figured if I didn't include some of my usual tone, people might assume my account had been hacked. So, let me try again: what do people mean when they use the phrase "right to exist"? The closest references I have are abortion-centric "right to life", and my aforementioned Darwinian "no species has a right to anything". Since people don't seem to be saying anything relevant to either of these, what do they mean by the phrase "right to exist"?

(and I'm quite glad that this was the most contentious part of my post)

I think it's a rhetorical way of demonizing / de-humanizing a target.

Echos of that Nazi phrase which meant "life unworthy of life".

Calthropstu
2018-07-01, 10:45 PM
I think it's a rhetorical way of demonizing / de-humanizing a target.

Echos of that Nazi phrase which meant "life unworthy of life".

See, they equate "sexual preference" to gender, race and other inherent traits that "cannot be controlled" and as such should be overlooked by everyone equally.

Their opponents are of the belief that it is, in fact, a choice. That it is a behavior rather than inherent and, as such, needs to be discouraged.

"Right to exist," in this instance means "we have a right to be gay and should be allowed to express that openly and without censorship."

The problem is that certain religious texts openly forbid it. There are also people who have actual physical reactions to seeing it in public such that they actually become physically ill. Whether such reactions are learned or natural I have seen no research on the subject.

There is also a fear that openly allowing or supporting it will lead to an artificial social increase in the population where people who aren't gay become gay because it's cool. There are also many more besides.

Some of those fears and beliefs may be unfounded, but they are held nontheless. Whether it is fully inherent in a person's genetic code or whether being gay is a learned or chosen behavior is hotly contested by both sides, so "right to exist" in this instance is "right for me to be gay and express it openly in any and all forums." In this case it is at the D&D table.