PDA

View Full Version : A rpg evil session managed to disturb me



Conradine
2019-09-17, 06:43 AM
I had a session yesterday with a group I knew recently ( we started a month ago, more or less ). I supercially knew the players and they're not bad people ( for what I know ). I was with an old friend of me, that introduced me to this group.

Well, we played an evil sandbox scenario and things got... weird.

I'm used to play evil characters and not easily impressed. I don't squick if the PC's take down a few civilians or use "enhanced interrogation techniques". But I never found myself in a similar situation before, I always tried to stay inside the limits of good taste.

I'll not go into details, I'll only say things got too graphical and gory, and the players seemed to like it a bit too much. Expecially when it involved children NPC.

My friend felt sick and left the table, I found an excuse and left too. He was really embarassed and sorry, I felt sorry for him and told him it was nothing to be worried about, it's just a game. I don't think we'll show up again at that table.
Did I overreact? Usually I'm able to detach myself and always remember it's just a game but this time I got some disturbing mental images.

Eldan
2019-09-17, 06:54 AM
That's in no way an overreaction. Getting out when you feel uncomfortable is always justified.

False God
2019-09-17, 08:45 AM
If you feel uncomfortable when something happens, and you excuse yourself from the table, that is 100% something you get to determine.

NRSASD
2019-09-17, 09:21 AM
You did right by leaving. I recommend talking to your fellow players and DM and asking them to tone it down a little since it makes you uncomfortable. If they're reasonable people, they'll be more than happy to oblige. If not, feel free to find a new group.

D&D should be fun for everyone! We all have different tastes, and the best way to ensure maximum fun is to talk out what areas are off limits.

JNAProductions
2019-09-17, 09:55 AM
If you otherwise liked the game, talk to the other players and DM about possibly toning it down.

If too much happened and you don't want to return at all... Then don't return at all.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with not having fun and deciding a game isn't for you.

Best of luck in your future gaming endeavors!

kyoryu
2019-09-17, 10:02 AM
I don't think you overreacted.

If the game doesn't work for you, don't play. As you said, you recently joined the group - if nobody else had any qualms about doing this, or were laughing about it or similar, I will guarantee this isn't the first time similar has happened.

I think that child torture is definitely one of those things that would be off the table in most games, and should be explicitly warned about in some way. At least to the extent "when we say evil, we mean it. Nothing is off the table."

If something like that were to happen in one of my games (and I probably wouldn't let it), it would be A Thing. Like, a huge, charged event with loud words and stuff. You make it sound like it wasn't, which tells you how the table plays.

denthor
2019-09-17, 10:11 AM
Close to ten years ago now we ran an evil monster game. We did not do good things to a 1 year old baby made mom watch as goblins played football(american) as they killed it the mom then we and the tribe ate.

The table did not feel good about this 10 of us. It got toned down in describing the scenes after that. There was no real accomplish feeling. Why I play is to roll dice have fun get loud. Very few adult beverages one six pack 9 people.

Many D&D players play evil as greedy or lustful. We tend to forget what evil really is. Your group may have set a tone, shown what they are talking about never to be that graphic again, or may really like it. You will never know if you do not go back.

For the record I am not encouraging you to go back.

As a side note I've found in talking to DMs that players tend to be evil in their play. An example of this is best shown by the types of equipment they choose to use against the so-called bad guys.

If you look at most groups and you asked about their magic items. You will find they took it off the bad guys knew it was evil and still decided that it was cool and usable.

We as players do not flinch in this we should. Most groups are evil they just don't want to admit it because they go after greater evil than themselves.

I posed this question to anybody reading this tell me about the magic items in your game and what the alignment was when you started versus what it is now. Look for a new threat on the topic

kyoryu
2019-09-17, 10:50 AM
Some players like a style of game I call “take the demon for a walk.”

Either you like this, or you don’t. If that’s what they’re doing (and a lot of “evil” campaigns do), and you don’t like it, you’re not gonna dig the game.

It’s worth finding out what page the table is on, but the signs are there.

Note that I’m not saying that type of game is wrong. But it’s wrong for some people for sure.

Conradine
2019-09-17, 10:58 AM
Actually I'm not easy to squick. Really not, actually most of my PC are evil. But evil like "not accepting surrender, use poisons and evil magic, don't care about civilian casualities" and the like. I don't like ( much ) torture for the sake of torture but I never left a session for that. But there was something definetly morbid in the detailed description of child abuse and torture, so after an hour - more or less - it reached the point I started feel uneasy.
When they started "playing" with the remains it was a bit too much even for me and I quitted.

zinycor
2019-09-17, 11:06 AM
Actually I'm not easy to squick. Really not, actually most of my PC are evil. But evil like "not accepting surrender, use poisons and evil magic, don't care about civilian casualities" and the like. I don't like ( much ) torture for the sake of torture but I never left a session for that. But there was something definetly morbid in the detailed description of child abuse and torture, so after an hour - more or less - it reached the point I started feel uneasy.
When they started "playing" with the remains it was a bit too much even for me and I quitted.

Am on the same page. Personally I don't play evil campaigns with people I don't trust, even though I mostly enjoy the chance of being able to play as a band of evil guys.

It comes down to a matter of trust, knowing where people draw the line and be willing to play without crossing those lines.

kyoryu
2019-09-17, 11:20 AM
A) Everyone has their lines.

B) There's a difference between doing those things because they're effective, blah blah blah, and doing them because you're getting some kind of visceral enjoyment out of them. Those are not the same. Note that the second one is the "taking the demon for a walk" style I mentioned.

sktarq
2019-09-17, 01:01 PM
This is one of those times where a "session 0" comes in really helpful.

an evil campaign is one of those times that needs this in order to establish expectations, norms, and boundaries.

if after finding your personal boundaries crossed you can decide to not to play with these people again, not play in THIS evil campaign with them that is using norms you don't like, or talk to them about establishing normas that allow you (and apparently your friend) to enjoy yourselves at the table as well (they are also well within their rights to say they want such a "take the demon for a walk" so be ready for that...you being squicked/offended shouldn't invalidate their fun either)

it is probably best to talk to the DM outside of game if you can. Email if you have to but face to face or calling is better. It is important to get a sense of tone and emotion in this kind of conversation.

Having lost friends to this kind of situation I will say it is important to get things out and clear before things go too far sideways.

False God
2019-09-17, 03:40 PM
Actually I'm not easy to squick. Really not, actually most of my PC are evil. But evil like "not accepting surrender, use poisons and evil magic, don't care about civilian casualities" and the like. I don't like ( much ) torture for the sake of torture but I never left a session for that. But there was something definetly morbid in the detailed description of child abuse and torture, so after an hour - more or less - it reached the point I started feel uneasy.
When they started "playing" with the remains it was a bit too much even for me and I quitted.

I played with a couple kids like that (and I do mean kids 15-17) they were just very...descriptive when it came to physical violence, and there was something about their tone when they talked about that just gave me the willies. It wasn't like good storytelling that upsets you, it was like, they wanted to actually go do these things, or had put a lot of thought into how to go about doing these things and D&D just happened to be the place they were doing in.

Particle_Man
2019-09-17, 07:01 PM
This came out recently and might be useful to the OP (or indeed, to anyone trying out a new game, new group, etc.). It is free! And Internet Trolls hate it so it must be good! :smallbiggrin:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/288535/Consent-in-Gaming

SimonMoon6
2019-09-17, 08:02 PM
I've only had one similar experience. It was at a con and I don't remember what game it was, but it was something that was either set in a modern world or a future world. And I wasn't actually playing (I think), just watching. The PCs were interrogating some NPCs. Very casually, in a very blase style, as if this was what they *always* had to do with those pesky NPCs, they quickly rattled off their usual interrogation technique: "Okay, sigh, we start cutting off fingers and toes until he talks."

That was going just a bit too far for me.

Particle_Man
2019-09-17, 10:01 PM
I had my players feeding broken glass to an npc they didn’t like. In the supposedly heroic 50 Fathoms campaign. Sigh.

I have since put a “pcs must be good aligned heroes” clause when I run a game. It works so far.

Talakeal
2019-09-17, 11:12 PM
This came out recently and might be useful to the OP (or indeed, to anyone trying out a new game, new group, etc.). It is free! And Internet Trolls hate it so it must be good! :smallbiggrin:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/288535/Consent-in-Gaming

Call me a troll and get out the alchemist's fire then, because man does that book make my blood boil.

Karl Aegis
2019-09-17, 11:55 PM
Well, if you aren't playing the game, it's not much of a game. A certain amount of conciseness should be demanded so you aren't spending an hour describing something not relevant to the game.

zinycor
2019-09-18, 08:17 AM
This came out recently and might be useful to the OP (or indeed, to anyone trying out a new game, new group, etc.). It is free! And Internet Trolls hate it so it must be good! :smallbiggrin:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/288535/Consent-in-Gaming

I like it! Very easy read and very useful.

Satinavian
2019-09-18, 08:39 AM
People have different boundaries. And it is not wrong to explore those boundaries.

A couple of years ago a player asked if she could a rapist cleric to some god of dominance, strength, fertility and competition that existed in the setting. We talked about it and allowed it after setting some limits both IG (what the other characters would tolerate) and OG (that we didn't want detailed descriptions). Her character ended up not really doing much actual raping in the whole campaign anyway. But it was not a problem.

More recently another group decided to have a go at an evil party. Not over the top evil, just organized crime level stuff. It still ended after only 3 sessions because most of us simply didn't like their characters or the stuff they were doing and had no fun.

Mordante
2019-09-18, 08:44 AM
Personally I never had any trouble with this. In a Talislanta game I played the party actually had a lot of slaves doing all the work.

The party was trying to start their own religion, largely based on human sacrifice (think Aztec) with the purpose of becoming Gods ourselves. It was fun. Some sessions were brutal. My character had his eyes gouged out as punishment. But mostly it was a lot of fun.

zinycor
2019-09-18, 08:56 AM
Personally I never had any trouble with this. In a Talislanta game I played the party actually had a lot of slaves doing all the work.

The party was trying to start their own religion, largely based on human sacrifice (think Aztec) with the purpose of becoming Gods ourselves. It was fun. Some sessions were brutal. My character had his eyes gouged out as punishment. But mostly it was a lot of fun.

Did you know your fellow players beforehand?

Mordante
2019-09-18, 09:24 AM
Did you know your fellow players beforehand?

Nothing was planned beforehand. The campaign ran for years. In the beginning we were all kind of good guys but slowly things changed. We never go to finish it sadly. The group fell apart after some of them got children.

Talislanta is a nice world/setting/RPG

Arbane
2019-09-18, 12:11 PM
Call me a troll and get out the alchemist's fire then, because man does that book make my blood boil.

Why is that?

Themrys
2019-09-18, 01:03 PM
You didn't overreact.

Playing evil characters just isn't my cup of tea in general, but I usually tolerate the "we torture the captured villain for information" kind of PC at the table, although my characters will always oppose them.

Evil for the sake of evil, and not just the "I like to wear black hooded cloaks and do necromancy" kind, but torture of children? I would have left the table, too. People who do that tend to be either not really immersed in the game (and thus don't see NPCs as real people), which is very annoying and not fun if you are more of a roleplayer, or give the impression that they would like to do it in real life, which is very creepy. (I suppose I might get along with people who play evil characters for the sake of telling a good story, but that is usually the GMs' job, and in that case the cruelty wouldn't be described in detail. Pratchett managed to describe a horrible villain simply by saying that: "He liked children", and only implying why, exactly, people considered that a bad thing.)

@Particle_Man: I don't have an account there and don't want to make one just to have a look at the pdf, so ... could you give a short description of why it angers the internet trolls?

It surprises me that someone felt a need to write a whole pdf on what, imho, amounts to not being an a**hole, and while I am familiar with the fact that internet trolls don't like being told to not be a**holes, I wonder how this is so extremely controversial.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-09-18, 01:18 PM
I think my main issue with it would have been that it sounds really boring. "I torture the child", fine, move on. But wasting an hour on lavish descriptions is just an annoying waste of everyone's time on stuff that doesn't matter.

Talakeal
2019-09-18, 01:53 PM
Why is that?

Man, I could write a whole essay about everything srong with this book. In short, I am a big advocate of free speech and exploring human nature through games, and this runs contrary tomboth. The execution os horribly botched, it is literally unuseable as written, and everything there is writtenwith the goal of shutting down communication and avoiding discussion rather than actually giving advice for resolving conflicts or improving communication.

The idea that anyone should be able to shut down anyone else's character concept without discussion for any reason or no reason is just wrong to me.

Themrys
2019-09-18, 02:43 PM
Man, I could write a whole essay about everything srong with this book. In short, I am a big advocate of free speech and exploring human nature through games, and this runs contrary tomboth. The execution os horribly botched, it is literally unuseable as written, and everything there is writtenwith the goal of shutting down communication and avoiding discussion rather than actually giving advice for resolving conflicts or improving communication.

The idea that anyone should be able to shut down anyone else's character concept without discussion for any reason or no reason is just wrong to me.

I haven't read the thing, so you will have to explain a bit more. IF you want to be considered reasonable, that is.

"Torturing babies isn't for me" is self-explaining and needs no justification or discussion. Nor does "I don't want any sexual violence in my game".

Rpgs ought to be fun. I am not going to play with someone who demands that I produce a written apology letter from my psychotherapist that states that, since I am a woman who has to live in a patriarchal society, being confronted with sexual violence in a game would be very bad for my psychological wellbeing.
{Scrubbed}

So there is that.


I know there are people who cannot deal with people having differing opinions and claim to be "triggered" by people having different opinions, but let's be honest: that kind of person is very annoying and I would rather know they are that way before starting to play with them.

Say, I want to play a scholar who spreads the information that earth is round. Other player says: "Nooo, you can't play such a horrible bigot, the earth is flat and we all know that, why would you play such a terrible person?" Everyone else nods.

I then leave the group and spare myself a lot of trouble.

What's wrong with it?

Discussion doesn't solve that kind of problem. Either a person has good reason to not want something in the game, or they are a {Scrubbed}. In both cases, talking about it might lead to interesting interpersonal drama, if you like that sort of thing, but will have the same result: Someone will leave the group.


People who don't want something in the game and have a reason they are willing to discuss will usually indicate that they are willing to discuss it.

"No, you are not going to play a cleric of the demon of rape. Just no." versus "You want to play a necromancer? I don't know how I feel about that. How evil, exactly, would she be?"

Talakeal
2019-09-18, 03:00 PM
I haven't read the thing, so you will have to explain a bit more. IF you want to be considered reasonable, that is.

"Torturing babies isn't for me" is self-explaining and needs no justification or discussion. Nor does "I don't want any sexual violence in my game".

Rpgs ought to be fun. I am not going to play with someone who demands that I produce a written apology letter from my psychotherapist that states that, since I am a woman who has to live in a patriarchal society, being confronted with sexual violence in a game would be very bad for my psychological wellbeing.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

So there is that.


I know there are people who cannot deal with people having differing opinions and claim to be "triggered" by people having different opinions, but let's be honest: that kind of person is very annoying and I would rather know they are that way before starting to play with them.

Say, I want to play a scholar who spreads the information that earth is round. Other player says: "Nooo, you can't play such a horrible bigot, the earth is flat and we all know that, why would you play such a terrible person?" Everyone else nods.

I then leave the group and spare myself a lot of trouble.

What's wrong with it?

Discussion doesn't solve that kind of problem. Either a person has good reason to not want something in the game, or they are a {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}. In both cases, talking about it might lead to interesting interpersonal drama, if you like that sort of thing, but will have the same result: Someone will leave the group.


People who don't want something in the game and have a reason they are willing to discuss will usually indicate that they are willing to discuss it.

"No, you are not going to play a cleric of the demon of rape. Just no." versus "You want to play a necromancer? I don't know how I feel about that. How evil, exactly, would she be?"

I agree with more or less everything you said here. That is not the book that is being discussed.

For example, to use your flat earth example, here is how it would play out if you were following the rules presented in Consent in RPGs:

Someone in the group would mention the Earth being round.

One player would inform the group that they did not opt in to a game where the Earth is round, with no further explanation or discussion.

The person who brought up the round Earth would apologize to the person who didn't opt in.

The DM would scrub all references to a round Earth from the campaign, and all PCs would scrub all references to the rou d
Earth from their backstory.

Nobody is allowed to mention the Earth being round in that gaming group again, regardless of whether it is part of the game or merely table chatter.

Themrys
2019-09-18, 03:19 PM
I agree with more or less everything you said here. That is not the book that is being discussed.

For example, to use your flat earth example, here is how it would play out if you were following the rules presented in Consent in RPGs:

Someone in the group would mention the Earth being round.

One player would inform the group that they did not opt in to a game where the Earth is round, with no further explanation or discussion.

The person who brought up the round Earth would apologize to the person who didn't opt in.

The DM would scrub all references to a round Earth from the campaign, and all PCs would scrub all references to the rou d
Earth from their backstory.

Nobody is allowed to mention the Earth being round in that gaming group again, regardless of whether it is part of the game or merely table chatter.


But that works perfectly! Because you then could just opt out of playing with people who think that the fact of the earth being round is something it is reasonable to shelter a group member from.

If instead of "earth is round" you use "eating babies" , then all references to baby eating are scrubbed from the campaign, all references to eating babies are scrubbed from the backstories, and no one would be allowed to ever again mention the eating of babies ever again, even as table chatter ... which I frankly don't think is that bad a loss.

I agree that it is not a good text to use as a kind of rulebook or bible. You would have to apply common sense to it, and if there was a player who wanted to opt out of references to the earth being round, everyone else would, if they are reasonable, say: "Well, sorry, but that's a pretty vital fact about the world, we don't think we can have fun playing without referencing it. Perhaps this group just is not for you."

That way, it would work to make sure that everyone is onboard with the setting, and there's no drama at a later point.

(If the horror GM I had the misfortune of meeting had announced in session zero that he cannot have fun with a game where there is no misogyny, that would have been valuable information. Of course I would not have said "Ok, then, let's pretend this actually equal setting is horribly misogynist", but would have said "Ok, then I don't want to play with you", and possibly, all other players would have agreed and we would have found a better GM instead of him scaring away players one by one.)


Consent works both ways. You always get to opt out of a game that does NOT have something in it which you want in it.

With most things reasonable people don't want in their games, you will probably not choose to use your right to opt out. But you still have it, and if you think the thing in question is so mundane and everyday that a world where it is never mentioned is completely silly and unrealistic, you can opt out.

And if everyone else chooses to not opt out, you probably wouldn't have been happy playing with them, anyway.

False God
2019-09-18, 03:38 PM
I agree with more or less everything you said here. That is not the book that is being discussed.

For example, to use your flat earth example, here is how it would play out if you were following the rules presented in Consent in RPGs:

Someone in the group would mention the Earth being round.

One player would inform the group that they did not opt in to a game where the Earth is round, with no further explanation or discussion.

The person who brought up the round Earth would apologize to the person who didn't opt in.

The DM would scrub all references to a round Earth from the campaign, and all PCs would scrub all references to the rou d
Earth from their backstory.

Nobody is allowed to mention the Earth being round in that gaming group again, regardless of whether it is part of the game or merely table chatter.

You realize your argument would have no bite if you used the things people actually want kept out right? Rape? Abuse? Violence against minorities?

Yes, someone could come along and be silly and make a silly argument and take advantage of "consent rules". The reality is: they probably won't. So talking about silliness is just silliness itsself.

So, if you'd like to repeat your argument but replacing all instances of "round earth" with "rape", maybe we can have a discussion.

Talakeal
2019-09-18, 03:41 PM
You realize your argument would have no bite if you used the things people actually want kept out right? Rape? Abuse? Violence against minorities?

Yes, someone could come along and be silly and make a silly argument and take advantage of "consent rules". The reality is: they probably won't. So talking about silliness is just silliness itsself.

So, if you'd like to repeat your argument but replacing all instances of "round earth" with "rape", maybe we can have a discussion.

I was just running with the flat Earth analogy because its relatively harmless and doesn't risk derailing the thread into forbidden areas.

If you would like, please replace flat Earth with playing a gay character, as that is something that I have absolutely gotten flack for in the past and something that I find being told I need to hide and apologize for to be absolutely reprehensible.

Arbane
2019-09-18, 03:52 PM
If you would like, please replace flat Earth with playing a gay character, as that is something that I have absolutely gotten flack for in the past and something that I find being told I need to hide and apologize for to be absolutely reprehensible.

Then you would've found out early that you were going to be in Yet Another Terrible Game, and could hit the eject button EARLY for once?

Such a horror is not to be contemplated.

zinycor
2019-09-18, 03:58 PM
I agree with more or less everything you said here. That is not the book that is being discussed.

For example, to use your flat earth example, here is how it would play out if you were following the rules presented in Consent in RPGs:

Someone in the group would mention the Earth being round.

One player would inform the group that they did not opt in to a game where the Earth is round, with no further explanation or discussion.

The person who brought up the round Earth would apologize to the person who didn't opt in.

The DM would scrub all references to a round Earth from the campaign, and all PCs would scrub all references to the rou d
Earth from their backstory.

Nobody is allowed to mention the Earth being round in that gaming group again, regardless of whether it is part of the game or merely table chatter.

Isn't that the perfect way to face such a situation? Am serious, What other way could possibly be better than what you have just described?

Talakeal
2019-09-18, 03:59 PM
Then you would've found out early that you were going to be in Yet Another Terrible Game, and could hit the eject button EARLY for once?

Such a horror is not to be contemplated.

If it was the entire group, that would be true. Although I would still be obliged to apologize if I was following the book.

The thing is these rules allow one unreasoneable player to hold the entire group hostage for any or no reason.

zinycor
2019-09-18, 04:02 PM
If it was the entire group, that would be true. Although I would still be obliged to apologize if I was following the book.

The thing is these rules allow one unreasoneable player to hold the entire group hostage for any or no reason.

Hold hostage? if the rest of the group want to play on a round earth they can just start a new game without the player who refuses to, can't they?

Lord Athos
2019-09-18, 04:13 PM
Hold hostage? if the rest of the group want to play on a round earth they can just start a new game without the player who refuses to, can't they?

If you follow the book word for word, no. They have to apologise and accept. Whether that's the Intention or not, though, that's a different question.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-09-18, 04:18 PM
My issue with the way that it's written is I don't think anyone has an inalienable right to instantly excise anything they don't like from a campaign. You have the right to politely request that something not be present, and you have the right to leave a game for any reason you want. But it's not a moral obligation on other people's part to always honour any request you make whatsoever. Your comfort doesn't always come first.

An example from a bunch of strangers I played with semi-recently. A woman requested that no one try to romance her character because it'd make her uncomfortable. That's a perfectly reasonable request. If she had requested that there be no romance present in the campaign at all from anyone then I don't think that would be a reasonable request and I'd probably stop playing with her. If someone actually used the x-card (I've never seen anyone actually do it and I've played with a lot of people) then I don't think I'd be comfortable playing with them any more because I suspect any future gaming would feel like walking on eggshells around them and that just seems oppressive.

zinycor
2019-09-18, 04:20 PM
If you follow the book word for word, no. They have to apologise and accept. Whether that's the Intention or not, though, that's a different question.

That's true, good point. Still even with that in mind, I feel like the book is mostly right, and no person should have to justify or explain why they don't consent to a certain topic.

For example, if you are bothered by the presence of sexual violence in your game, you should not explain why, since you aren't (most likely) playing this game with a therapist as a way of therapy. You are playing a game.

Themrys
2019-09-18, 04:32 PM
If you follow the book word for word, no. They have to apologise and accept. Whether that's the Intention or not, though, that's a different question.

There is a large and influential group of people who would use consent as a buzzword and way to shut down discussion of topics that have nothing at all to do with rape, abuse or cannibalism, and which are unlikely to actually trigger traumatic memories for anyone. (It's not flat earthers, though. I just used those as an example because it is a pretty non-controversial topic on the forums. For all I know, flat earthers are happy to discuss their beliefs.)

So I do give people who hate that text the benefit of the doubt - if it was written by the kind of people I think it might have been written by, it is well possible that the text feels preachy and oppressive and the criticism is perfectly reasonable.


Still, in any pen&paper rpg, it is an useful, even necessary skill to know when to go against what the rulebook says. Any group with common sense would apply the "no discussion, never mention it again" rule only to things where that either is reasonable (like baby torturing) or it isn't reasonable but it is well known that some perfectly nice people are irrational about it (like spiders), but would just opt out of playing with the guy who doesn't want a game with gay characters in it.


I don't think it worth the effort to make an account to read that pdf, simply because "discuss beforehand what people don't want in the game" is a pretty obvious advice and you can get it easily for free on any forum.
But for people who like to be told exactly how to do things, it might be a useful resource - as long as you don't cling to it as if it is the word of god, of course.

False God
2019-09-18, 07:36 PM
I was just running with the flat Earth analogy because its relatively harmless and doesn't risk derailing the thread into forbidden areas.

If you would like, please replace flat Earth with playing a gay character, as that is something that I have absolutely gotten flack for in the past and something that I find being told I need to hide and apologize for to be absolutely reprehensible.

Look I haven't read this particular document but your second comment here doesn't sound like you're opposed to Consent Rules. It sounds like you're opposed to the specific wording of this document.

But if I'm reading wrong and your gaming approach is "everything goes, if you don't like it suck it up or GTFO", then well that sounds an awful lot like what I think these Consent Rules are showing up to combat. That's not how life works. That's not how your job works. That's not how the public park works. That's not how the social contract works. Gaming is no exception. I'm really not sure why anyone would think that gaming is somehow a special exception where everything is on the table and noone is safe.

Talakeal
2019-09-18, 07:52 PM
Look I haven't read this particular document but your second comment here doesn't sound like you're opposed to Consent Rules. It sounds like you're opposed to the specific wording of this document.

That is correct.

I am, however, fundamentally opposed to censorship and in favor of dialogue and compromise, which are all things this particular implementation of consent rules stands firmly against.

Red Fel
2019-09-18, 08:04 PM
Did I overreact? Usually I'm able to detach myself and always remember it's just a game but this time I got some disturbing mental images.

Other people have said it, but it bears repeating: No, you did not overreact.

I have played Evil campaigns. I have played regular campaigns where I or someone else played an Evil character. I have played campaigns where nobody played an Evil character. In any given situation, on any number of occasions - not many, but enough to note - someone, at some point, crossed a line.

And if we were all mature about it - which is the key thing, maturity - we simply asked to draw down the curtain. Fade to black. No need to go into detail.

Sometimes, somebody got called out right in the moment. ("Dude, what the crap?") Other times, it was a quiet post-game conversation. ("Didn't want to call you out in front of everyone, but...") Other times, it was just a look, and the realization that somebody crossed a line. But the effect was the same. "Let's just fade to black and move to the next scene, shall we?"

Whether it's an Evil campaign or not, somebody, at some point, may very well cross that line. It's not a function of the alignment, it's just a function of - and I love that metaphor upthread, I'm going to use it from now on - "taking the demon for a walk." We play games to escape and to occasionally vent our frustrations. Sometimes, somebody lets a little too much out.

We try to be mature about it, but there are lines, and it's not unreasonable to be uncomfortable - or even to leave - when they get crossed. It's a fair request to draw the curtain over the scene, and avoid any description or graphic detail. If that request isn't honored, for whatever reason, you aren't obligated to subject yourself to that kind of imagery. You can go take a breather. You can go for a walk. If it's particularly bad, you can keep walking, if you want.

Nothing wrong with that.

False God
2019-09-18, 08:06 PM
That is correct.

I am, however, fundamentally opposed to censorship and in favor of dialogue and compromise, which are all things this particular implementation of consent rules stands firmly against.

That's because "dialog and compromise" tend to go along these lines:

Person A: I'm bothered by XYZ squick.
Person B: Why?
Person A: Because of trauma I've suffered.
Person B: Lets talk about your trauma.
Person A: I'd rather not, this isn't the place and I don't know you that well.
Person B: THEN YOUR DEMANDS ARE UNREASONABLE AND YOU SUCK!

Avoiding trauma and abuse isn't really a subject to "compromise" on. I mean, what is "a little rape"? Or "a little sexual assault"? And this isn't censorship. Because you don't have free speech at an RPG table.

Beyond that, many of the subjects these Consent Rules seek to avoid are ones that many DMs just don't include to begin with. Do we need rape in a game? Do we need homophobia? Is is realistic to include them? What "reality" are we simulating? Why do we need to replicate those elements of our reality? Many DMs have already come to the conclusion that many of these subjects aren't worth including anyway!

What benefit do we gain from triggering someone's phobia? Dredging up their abuse? Replicating their trauma in fantasy? What do these elements add that make them worthy of inclusion?

One of my players has a fear of spiders. So we don't fight spiders. *shrug* plenty of ants and wasps and other creepy-crawlies to fight. All she said was she has a phobia of spiders, and we went "oh ok, we'll avoid that then." She didn't need to explain herself. She didn't need to prove her phobia was legitimate or justified or reasonable. There was no need to have a "dialogue" or"compromise".

Lemmy
2019-09-18, 08:24 PM
No matter how evil or disturbing a topic, no one should be able to unilatery ban it without discussion or argument.

Admittedly, some topics are pretty easy to deduce why someone wouldn't want it in their game... But even then, even the most vile topics shouldn't just be a matter of "I don't like it, therefore it's instantly banned, it can never happen again, no mentions of it may ever be made and whoever brought it up must apologize". Even if it's a serious topic. Specially if it's a serious topic.

As previously mentioned, what this book's approach does is shut down communication and promote censorship.

If you don't like something and would rather it not be present in your game, talk to your fellow players. No one can read your mind, nor should anyone have to guess what bothers you.

Also, be prepared to explain your point and reach a compromise, because no matter how strongly you feel about it, no one has the obligation to give in to your preferences with no debate. And you're certainly not so intelligent or enlightened that people should just shut up and acquiesce.

If it's a subject you're not comfortable discussing, it's your right not to discuss it... But it's also the other players' right to then say "Well... I'm not convinced". If they choose to concede without you even discussing the matter, it should out of kindness, not obligation.

Players should talk beforehand (and throughout the campaign) about their expectations, wishes and limitations for their gaming experience, then come to an agreement that makes everyone satisfied (even if said agreement is "it's better for you/me/them to leave the game"). This can't be achieved if someone just outright bans something without discussing it with the other players.

- - -

In short... If something bothers someone, the best course of action is discussing it with the rest of the group. If the group and the person who's bothered can't reach a compromise... Then they split up. Nothing wrong with that.

zinycor
2019-09-18, 08:34 PM
That is correct.

I am, however, fundamentally opposed to censorship and in favor of dialogue and compromise, which are all things this particular implementation of consent rules stands firmly against.

Are you a therapist who runs roleplaying games as part of a therapy?

If not, then there is absolutely no reason for a player to explain their reasonings for wanting to ban certain experiences from happening at the table.

Lemmy
2019-09-18, 08:41 PM
That's because "dialog and compromise" tend to go along these lines:

Person A: I'm bothered by XYZ squick.
Person B: Why?
Person A: Because of trauma I've suffered.
Person B: Lets talk about your trauma.
Person A: I'd rather not, this isn't the place and I don't know you that well.
Person B: THEN YOUR DEMANDS ARE UNREASONABLE AND YOU SUCK!
You and I have very different experiences, then... In over 20 years of gaming, every time something bothered someone that much it basically went like one of the following possibilities:

Possibility 1
Player A: I don't like [X], can we leave it out of the game.
GM / Other Players: Uh... Sure...

Possibility 2
Player A: I don't like [X], can we leave it out of the game.
GM / Other Players: Well... [X] is part of the setting/game/campaign. If it bothers you, it's probably better you don't play in this game.

Or... Most often, a sort of compromise is reached. Where [X] isn't completely removed, but toned down, usually by not happening "on-screen", not being given explicit descriptions and not being big part of the main "plot".

e.g.: The PCs occasionally find hints that imply [X] happened somewhere, but it isn't explicitly mentioned and doesn't happen to the PCs or near them.


If not, then there is absolutely no reason for a player to explain their reasonings for wanting to ban certain experiences from happening at the table.
The reason is the same as any other conversation: To let people understand what you think and why you think it, so that they can decide whether or not they agree with you...

That's not to say the person have to explain why [X] bothers them... They only have to give a reason why [X] should be bannes from the game. It's a subtle, but important discussion...

I wouldn't be convinced by an argument such as "[X] should be banned from the game"... But I might be convinced by "[X] bothers me, therefore it shouldn't be part of the game", since that already gives me a reason.

I'm not asking for an explanation for why [X] bothers them. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is whether [X] should or shouldn't be in the game, to what (if any) point it should be toned down and whether or not it's better if the player just skipped this game.

e.g.: If we're running a campaign focused on fighting Lolth and her cult in narrow underdark tunnels, and I'm a claustrophobic aracnophobe, it's probably easier and better for me to find a different game, than for the whole group have to play a completely different game from what they expected/wanted.
I don't have to "prove" my phobias or trauma or anything... But the group doesn't have to unconditionally change their game for my benefit either.

P1: "I don't like spiders."
GM: "Well... This is a Lolth-centric campaign. What do you guys think?"
Group: "We really want to play this module."
P1: "Oh, well... Maybe next game."
GM / Group: "Sure."

That's perfectly within the groups right. Nothing wrong with having different tastes and boundaries.

Talakeal
2019-09-18, 08:53 PM
And this isn't censorship. Because you don't have free speech at an RPG table.

If you truly believe this then we are never going to see eye to eye on anything.

However, I am truly baffled by this position, and I have to ask:

A: If I don't have free speech in my own home amongst my friends, where the heck do I have free speech?
B: If I have some how lost my free speech, aren't I, by definition, being censored?

I can only assume this is some sort of semantic argument like "Only governments can censor!" or "Freedom of speech doesn't meant freedom of consequences", to which I will post the definition of censorship:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".Censorship can be conducted by a government, private institutions, and corporations."

Which this absolutely falls under.




That being said, I ask for a discussion beforehand so I can know not to introduce something into the campaign. Far too many times I have had a player come up to me AFTER a session and tell me that they were considering quitting my game because it touched on some subject matter that they were troubled by; when if they had told me upfront I wouldn't have included it.

And I am not talking about rape, torture, or the like. For example, one session involved a fairly typical fantasy world set after the defeat of the dark lord, where orcs and humans were living together, but some humans still feared and distrusted the orcs, and a group of human supremacists was hoping to convince the local lords to exile all the orcs from their lands by committing violent crimes and pinning it on the orcs. This was a scenario were racism was shown as a bad thing, and the racists were presented as the bad guys, and were defeated and punished for being bad guys, but I had a player come to me afterwards and tell me that they were not comfortable with racism and wanted to leave the game as a result.

As far as rape goes, about the most graphic I will ever get is off-hand mentions like listing rape as one of the crimes on a bounty's rap sheet, or having a half-elf NPC imply that their parentage wasn't consensual, or that the raiders killed all the men and carried away all the women or something like that, and if someone told me it bothered them I would remove it, no questions asked. On the other hand, if a player wanted to engage in rape, I wouldn't stop them, but I wouldn't certainly ask the other players if they wanted to leave the room first (and would allow them to flat out veto it if it involved them or an NPC they were close to).



Are you a therapist who runs roleplaying games as part of a therapy?

If not, then there is absolutely no reason for a player to explain their reasonings for wanting to ban certain experiences from happening at the table.

I would only ask for an explanation if I felt that they were asking in bad faith.

For example, I had a player who would brutally and graphically torture captured NPCs, but then when his character was captured (by the family member of one of his torture victims) and subjected to torture in turn, he suddenly told me that he was uncomfortable RPing a torture victimand wanting me to make his character immune to torture, but he had no problem RPing a torturer.

Themrys
2019-09-18, 08:58 PM
If it's a subject you're not comfortable discussing, it's your right not to discuss it... But it's also the other players' right to then say "Well... I'm not convinced". If they choose to concede without you even discussing the matter, it should out of kindness, not obligation.

What, exactly, is the difference?

No rulebook is an actual law. {scrubbed}
Thing is, if you told someone you aren't going to accept "no sexual violence" without going into detail on why they don't want it ... you could totally do that, and no one could do anything against it.

{scrubbed} (I am happy to tell people exactly why I don't want it, and wouldn't even be completely opposed to have it as a topic in an all-female group of mature players, but you try and force a timid twentysomething girl to talk about why she doesn't want rape in a game she plays for fun, and I would judge you so hard you'd feel like I punched you in the face.)

If you would like to be considered especially kind for not asking to discuss someone's trauma, sorry, but nope. That's just basic human decency.


Accepting someone's spider phobia even though you wanted to play a drow might get you a cookie for kindness, but that's because spiders are perfectly darling, harmless animals. Most of them. In Northern Europe. A spider phobia is irrational. (I am, of course, assuming that you are not a giant spider who likes to ask humans to explain why on earth they don't want Acromantulas to be a thing in their game.:smallcool:)

Lemmy
2019-09-18, 09:26 PM
What, exactly, is the difference?

No rulebook is an actual law. {scrubbed}
Thing is, if you told someone you aren't going to accept "no sexual violence" without going into detail on why they don't want it ... you could totally do that, and no one could do anything against it.

{scrubbed} (I am happy to tell people exactly why I don't want it, and wouldn't even be completely opposed to have it as a topic in an all-female group of mature players, but you try and force a timid twentysomething girl to talk about why she doesn't want rape in a game she plays for fun, and I would judge you so hard you'd feel like I punched you in the face.)

If you would like to be considered especially kind for not asking to discuss someone's trauma, sorry, but nope. That's just basic human decency.


Accepting someone's spider phobia even though you wanted to play a drow might get you a cookie for kindness, but that's because spiders are perfectly darling, harmless animals. Most of them. In Northern Europe. A spider phobia is irrational. (I am, of course, assuming that you are not a giant spider who likes to ask humans to explain why on earth they don't want Acromantulas to be a thing in their game.:smallcool:)
Like I said, I'm not asking why [X] bothers them... I'm asking why it shouldn't be in the game. And a simple "it bothers me" is a perfectly valid reason.

Using your drow example...

"You shouldn't play a drow" isn't enough to convince me... But "You shouldn't play a drow because it bothers me" might be, although I'd ask why, since in this particular example the reason is unclear. "Because I'm an aracnophobe" would probably be enough, although if I really want to play a drow for some reason, I might try to reach a compromise ("I want to play a drow for mechanical reasons... Would it bother you if I played one but toned down/ removed the spider-related aspects?").

If it's something more serious, like rape or any other serious crime, "it bothers me" would be enough of a reason. I surely wouldn't ask why it bothers them (maybe it's a trauma, maybe they just find it disturbing. Doesn't really matter). What I might ask is to what extent they think it should be censored... Must it be completely removed and never mentioned? Is it acceptable if it only happens to NPCs? May the GM sometimes imply it happened to someone?

There's a lot of ground between "it disturbs me so much I can't stand any mention of it" and "I'm completely fine with it happening to fictional characters".

I think this far better than just unilatery completely banning something without any reason given.

False God
2019-09-18, 09:34 PM
If you truly believe this then we are never going to see eye to eye on anything.
I am absolutely okay with that.


On the other hand, if a player wanted to engage in rape, I wouldn't stop them,
Yes, I suspect we'll never see eye-to-eye.

And this ends my participation in this conversation with you.

Roland St. Jude
2019-09-18, 09:38 PM
Sheriff: Locked for review.