This particular DM has been playing since 1st Edition and is very much of the old "the players are my enemy and must be killed" opinion. In the time I've been playing with him he's run two campaigns.
The first campaign started at first level and lasted for probably a year and a half (the game was played on every other Thursday with the typical amount of cancelations that occur), and in that time the group fluctuated wildly in size (he ran the game at his gameshop), but out of all the people that ever played in it, I'd say there was a core group of around 4 or 5 players (myself being one of them).
Every one of us in the core group had had at least one character killed (I had the lowest number of deaths at only 1, while some had had as many as 4 or 5) by the end of the campaign, the highest level character (myself, mearly as a result of not dying nearly as much as everyone else) was 6th.
At one point in the adventure we needed to travel an incredibly long distance, but because all of us were still very low in levels and none of us had very much money, the only option available was to join a traveling caravan as guards. That would have been fine and offered plenty of opportunities for exciting adventures, but instead of doing that, he had the entire party take turns rolling dice for random encounters. For each part of the day (morning, afternoon, and night). For every day. FOR A JOURNEY THAT TOOK MORE THAN 200 DAYS. I'm not sure how many sessions were wasted on random encounters during that year long caravan journey.
He also has a nasty tendency to have us roll initiative once at the start of the session, and make us keep that order, and play everything in rounds, FOR THE ENTIRE SESSION, regardless of whether or not we are actually fighting anything. This has the tendency to slow down the game to a crawl. What should take only a few seconds of realtime (like say rolling a dice to search a desk) turns into a minutes long wait of waiting 10 rounds to get to do anything else because that's how long your character is taking to find out that there is in fact nothing in the desk.
He is incredibly stingy when it comes to finding magic items during our adventures (in the first campaign my character ever only found one magical item, and it was a plot device), and if we ever tried to purchase anything he would gouge us terribly on the prices. So effectively, the only way to get any magical gear was to have acquired it during character generation. All of the magic items in our party came from looting the corpses of other party members that had acquired magical gear through this method.
I still remember clearly how the first campaign ended; after finally saving the day and thwarting the plans of big bad evil dude, the leaders of Silvery Moon offered us a large financial reward. Because only myself and on other member of the party were still using the same characters from when the quest had initially started (literally everyone else in the party had died and made a new character), the two of us (with the consent of the rest of the party) agreed to split the reward accordingly (myself and the other survivor each took a chest filled with platinum coins, while the rest of the party split the other six chests filled with gold between each of them).
After asking how much money was in each chest, he told us that each one held 40 pounds of coin. We then did the math and realized he had apparently underestimated how many coins were in a pound. We used our newfound wealth to finally buy the magical gear we wanted (I remember one particular item I had wanted - a sword I had spent literally the entire game trying to get) despite the rediculous price increases he charged us (my sword cost 200% of what it should have been). We played a single session after that and then he decided he wanted to do a new campaign. He never bothered to try to fix the problem of giving us too much loot or talk it over with us, he simple decided to start over (at level 3 this time).
This second campaign had significantly fewer players. I was disapointed from having to make a new character and decided to stop playing shortly after the start of the second campaign. Shortly after I stopped going, the game practically ended for a sixth month period (no more than 3 people ever showed up for a session, and he refused to run a game with fewer than 4 people).
After months of not having anything to play in, I decided I'd give his game another shot. With me, he finally had enough consistent people to run the campaign again. I wanted to play a bard, and my first character was wise a old man (read: venerable) looking to venture fourth one last time before his death in the vain hopes of reliving his glory days. The DM didn't like the idea of someone so old being only 4th level. He asked me how old my character was (I said 82), and then rolled what his maximum age was. Because the number he rolled was less than what I had said, he informed me that my Bard was dead, and that I needed to make a new character.
I was annoyed, but accepted his demand and made a new character. It was another Bard, because that's what I wanted to play (and because all the other basic party needs were already covered by the rest of the group). I thought it would be fun and different to play a Bard that tap danced to inspire courage (I thought it was a pretty funny idea that would offer plenty of roleplaying opportunities, in addition to leaving my hands free to wield a weapon).
The DM was adamantly against that and refused to let me play it, saying that tap-dancing shoes weren't invented yet (because, you know, medieval Europe had Elves and Dragons, but I can't have tap shoes). Another player suggested I use Clogs (wooden shoes) instead. The DM grudgingly accepted this (and put several house ruled restrictions on this). For the entire campaign he would make quips about how he disliked my character, once even telling one of the workers at the shop that I would find my character being inexplicably being targetted by all the monsters we came across. I mainly took these in good humor, figuring he was just joking around for the most part, although some of the players (myself included) would occasionally say similar things to him about things we didn't particularly like.
Because we started at 3rd level, I didn't really have enough money to buy any good magical gear, and since I knew I was unlikely to ever find or be able to buy any magical gear, I decided to invest my money in hirelings and wagons to allow me and my massive entourage to get around. Out of all of the ones I hired, only 3 of them ever actually came along with the party into dangerous situations (two warriors and a scribe to right down all of the amazing and heroic things my bard does). The rest were just there to add flavor to the game.
So, to the actual point of this long winded story: tonight's session.
At the end of the previous session, the party, consisiting of myself, 3 other players, and my large (around 16 or so hirelings, which again, only 3 ever do anything) entourage, had decided to stop for the night in a small, poor, and apparently seedy town.
I say apparently seedy because this session started with our characters waking up to find that half of my hirelings had apparently been murderd during the night, and that the culprits had also stolen all of the pack animals for the wagons, and all of my (and only my) possessions and money that hadn't been specifically on my character. I felt understandably upset about this, and in game my character became filled with rage, cursing this wretched town and vowing to burn it to the ground and get who was involved.
While I was doing this, another PC started interrogating the bar keep, who soon inadvertently revealed that he was involved. My character stormed into the building, furious over what had happened. The owner of the bar (serving as a mouth piece for the DM) threatened that if any trouble started, we would be in for a world of hurt which would inevitably result in the deaths of our characters, as well as "your charred bones being pissed on." They drew their weapons and told us to back down. I attempted to intimidate them into lowering their weapons, but before I could even finish what I was saying (or roll for that matter) the DM has them attack.
A fight ensued between us and a group of surprisingly well-armed and high level bar patrons and workers. A fight that would have undoubtedly been the end of our party had it not been for the over powered Druid in the group. It should be noted however, that instead of going after the people doing the most damage (the Druid and Fighter), the enemies instead chose to focus almost entirely on my puny Bard (who only had a whip and a dagger on him at the time).
After the fight, the owner of the bar tells us who he thinks who stole my stuff. We head across town to where we think we can find them. We enter another bar, where almost as soon as I enter it, I'm told to leave (but everyone else is free to stay). I then spend the rest of the session sitting around waiting for my chance to do something. When it finally gets to my turn and I tell the DM what I want to do, he has a group of 6 thugs materialize out of nowhere to dissaude me from doing anything. I then spend another 20 minutes patiently waiting for my chance to do anything before getting fed up and simply walking out of the game and going home. I'm thinking that I wont bother showing up again, since the DM apparently has it out for me. I'm so frustrated right now that I actually sat down and typed the whole damn thing out.
Now, I'm not trying to sound like a victim hear, I've done my share of dumb things over the years ( I once sarcastically joked to the DM that my character spoke and understood Gnoll, only for him to believe me and then inform the party that a group of Gnoll prisoners were planning to kill us), but would you honestly continue playing in a game if your DM was like this?
If things were really as bad as you describe them, you have made the right choice, but just a few years too late.
Respect for keeping up with his attitude or "style" for that long, but did you ever tell him that his game is actually awful? (Besides the fact that you stopped gaming for a few months?)
The most recent one I can remember was this:
He complained about the Druid in the party being too tough to to hurt a few sessions back. His solution was to throw the boss of the dungeon at us almost as soon as we entered it. We rolled well thanks to our teamwork and some good rolls we actually managed to kill the boss.
He then tried to fudge some numbers and tell us we hadn't really managed to kill him and that he was going to escape and come back later, but the entire party called him out on it and the next session started with us looting the dead boss.
He actually said that this particular guy can't die now, because we're supposed to fight him later in the adventure.
And while we have all complained about things to him, I'm pretty sure I've been the most vocal.
Good luck finding another game with a better DM.
You only get your shield AC on things in front of you.
He brought it up during the fight at the bar, and only when he tried to have a Rogue attack the Fighter in the party.
I called BS on it, to which he promptly ignored. Later in the fight, our Fighter tried to do the same thing when we were flanking something, to which he said he had given that benefit the Druid's summoned monster.
I don't know if this is an option, but would you be able to get the other members of the group and start your own game somewhere?
Thursday is the only day the other people in the group can consistently play and none of us have the space to run a game unless we do it at the gameshop, so it makes it difficult to run a game without resorting to new (and typically unreliable) players (which defeats the purpose of playing with my friends).
I tried to start a campaign myself there on several occassions, the last of which occurred during the 6 month span. The one time I brought all of my stuff in to run the game, he went out of his way to round up just enough people so he could run his game instead. He then told me that they had been having enough people to play for a while, and that I should try running one on a different day. The next time I talked to the people in his group, they said it was the first time in months they'd actually gotten to play.
I can just say I would have left a long, long time ago. You did the right thing in walking out, now have sense enough to stay out.
I don't intend to ever play in one of his games again. I'm so fed up with his antics from yesterday, that I don't even feel like ever going back to his store, not even to play in the Star Wars RPG one of my friends was running there (which itself had problems).
I don't know if this is an option, but would you be able to get the other members of the group and start your own game somewhere?
Thursday is the only day the other people in the group can consistently play and none of us have the space to run a game unless we do it at the gameshop, so it makes it difficult to run a game without resorting to new (and typically unrealiable) players (which defeats the purpose of playing with my friends).
I tried to start a campaign myself there on several occassions, the last of which occurred during the 6 month span. The one time I brought all of my stuff in to run the game, he went out of his way to round up just enough people so he could run his game instead. He then told me that they had been having enough people to play for a while, and that I should try running one on a different day.
The next time I talked to the people in his group, they said it was the first time in months they'd actually gotten to play.
How do you not have room at someone's house for 5 guys to sit ina circle and tell ghost stories?
I don't know if this is an option, but would you be able to get the other members of the group and start your own game somewhere?
Thursday is the only day the other people in the group can consistently play and none of us have the space to run a game unless we do it at the gameshop, so it makes it difficult to run a game without resorting to new (and typically unrealiable) players (which defeats the purpose of playing with my friends).
I tried to start a campaign myself there on several occassions, the last of which occurred during the 6 month span. The one time I brought all of my stuff in to run the game, he went out of his way to round up just enough people so he could run his game instead. He then told me that they had been having enough people to play for a while, and that I should try running one on a different day.
The next time I talked to the people in his group, they said it was the first time in months they'd actually gotten to play.
How do you not have room at someone's house for 5 guys to sit ina circle and tell ghost stories?
It's mostly a logistics problem. The gameshop is located within walking distance for everyone except me (I have to drive 20 minutes to get there). I have enough space that I could run a game in theory, but only one of them has a car, and his girlfriend needs it to get to her job on that day.
This is one of the biggest reasons why I'm favorable towards a "Player and GM co-op". I may be big, but there are 4-7 of them that will call me on my attitude.
If they're so important, you don't use them to punish the party and get mad when it fails, and you also don't put them within range. I don't know about past editions, but WotC flat-out tells you "If you don't want them to be allowed to hit something, you don't put it on the tiles."
Just sounds like terrible DMing. Worst mistake a DM's ever made with my sessions is either me accidentally revealing a character's alignment when asked(I was busy writing down notes and hadn't considered the possible ramifications), or when our other DM kept trying to sell us Alchemist's Fire but didn't give us enough money to buy it or any way to haggle it down low enough.
He was supposed to be in charge of this major corporation, or something. It's just...He couldn't think to transfer the idea over to a new person and just call this person a mook? I mean, is it that hard? Players wouldn't know the difference unless you tell them!
Exactly. Reminds me of when my first dungeon delve failed because as the DM, I probably shouldn't of admitted they killed the BBEG in one round.
I'll let them kill him later, but I like springing traps, showing him/her to the party, then leaving.
Nothing gives the party more of a reason to want to kill the BBEG then if he steals the quest item they needed for a nice reward.
Note: Always make sure there's a consilation prize for another item they turn in, just so they're not entirely upset.
There were several spots there that should have resulted in laughter and leaving with unkind remarks directed at his 'skill' as a DM being shared.
I don't know if this is an option, but would you be able to get the other members of the group and start your own game somewhere?
Thursday is the only day the other people in the group can consistently play and none of us have the space to run a game unless we do it at the gameshop, so it makes it difficult to run a game without resorting to new (and typically unrealiable) players (which defeats the purpose of playing with my friends).
I tried to start a campaign myself there on several occassions, the last of which occurred during the 6 month span. The one time I brought all of my stuff in to run the game, he went out of his way to round up just enough people so he could run his game instead. He then told me that they had been having enough people to play for a while, and that I should try running one on a different day.
The next time I talked to the people in his group, they said it was the first time in months they'd actually gotten to play.
How do you not have room at someone's house for 5 guys to sit ina circle and tell ghost stories?
It's mostly a logistics problem. The gameshop is located within walking distance for everyone except me (I have to drive 20 minutes to get there). I have enough space that I could run a game in theory, but only one of them has a car, and his girlfriend needs it to get to her job on that day.
So, charge them cash for gas money and go pick up drop them off? I know making 2 40 minute drives sucks. But....
I've played with guys like that. Real old schoolers from the Tomb of Horrors vein of DMing. Back when men were men and fighters for one it per level on guys less than one hit die. Heck, I've been one of those DMs. It's not any fun for anyone.
I learned a long time later that it was more about everyone having a good time, about doing heroics, about telling a good story. Every player wants their guy to be a hero, to have that one shining moment where they know they faced down the horde and were the wall that saved the party, or that their scorching fireball was the thing that finished the dragon.
On the DM end, it's about building something cool out of it. It's about making that story and going "you know, that's some badass imagery" or just pushing the players enough that they feel hungry and desperate, but not forlorn. Just enough for them to have the ray of hope and for it to have meaning.
How do you not have room at someone's house for 5 guys to sit ina circle and tell ghost stories?
That has got to be the most awesome description of D&D I've heard in a while.
On another note, I really dislike it when DMs think it's them vs the players. D&D apparently used to be like that (I don't know personaly. I jumped on the wagon midway through 3.5), but most of the time it's just not fun.
The main question for you is, are you "gaming" or are you "gaming with stupid people"?
Personally, I see you saying "3 years" and I boggle that you managed to let this particular "DM" run for longer than 3 sessions. If what you're describing is even remotely true, he's an idiot, and you don't want to play with him, so *stop playing*.
sheesh.
"He asked me how old my character was (I said 82), and then rolled what his maximum age was. Because the number he rolled was less than what I had said, he informed me that my Bard was dead, and that I needed to make a new character."
Because that is a level of awesome unseen by many. Truly ground breaking in its ridiculousness. Please tell him I applaud his making the rest of us look good. No mistake, gaff, wrong call, or screw up any of us make will ever top any of what you wrote. I rest easy knowing that, no matter what, even at my lowest, I will never be a truly bad DM.
Rule of note: Never play a game where the GM is boffing a player. It's never good.
I've had MANY bad GM's.
Rule of note: Never play a game where the GM is boffing a player. It's never good.
...the game or the boffing?
Do you still even visit that gaming shop, man? Or have you decided to take your money elsewhere because of his attitude?
I enjoy killing players in my game and I will be prejudiced against them if I dislike them, but this guy brings it to a whole new level.
I had a bad DM back in the day who would **** my characters regardless of race/gender/sexuality/age/whatever. He was actually my first DM ever. Sometimes your only choices are a bad DM and no DM.
I had a bad DM back in the day who would **** my characters regardless of race/gender/sexuality/age/whatever. He was actually my first DM ever.
... wow.
And you still *play*? At all?
(I have to ask: are you female? Because it gets significantly creepier that way, for a ton of reasons.)
Sometimes your only choices are a bad DM and no DM.
And in those situations, you can *and should* choose "no DM".
Playing with idiots is bad and a waste of your time.
I enjoy killing players in my game and I will be prejudiced against them if I dislike them, but this guy brings it to a whole new level.
I had a bad DM back in the day who would **** my characters regardless of race/gender/sexuality/age/whatever. He was actually my first DM ever. Sometimes your only choices are a bad DM and no DM.
IT WAS YOU!
Sorry for that response, but I remember reading that story here and I could never remember who used that example. I actually use that DM as an example whenever I outline unacceptable DM or player behavior.
At least, assuming more than one DM doesn't do this. God I hope more don't. If it was you who listed the story, didn't you punch him in the face after he refused to stop and was clearly making players uncomfortable and upset?
... wow.
And you still *play*? At all?
(I have to ask: are you female? Because it gets significantly creepier that way, for a ton of reasons.)
Nah, I'm a dude. It was creepy and disturbing. Much like where you're in a situation where your only available DM is a big fan of killing off characters left and right, its something you figured was going to happen and played around it/expecting it.
I was usually torn between playing a male or female character. If I was female then chances are I'd be pregnant with some DM protected unkillable freak of nature within the first session or two. If I was male then chances are I'd be horribly emasculated on top of whatever negative feelings arose from being cornholed by a gang of orcs. There is a lot of metagaming when it comes to playing with atrocious DMs.
Luckily my current/upcoming DM is my debt slave so if he tries to pull anything like that he will be in a world of financial hurt.
I enjoy killing players in my game and I will be prejudiced against them if I dislike them, but this guy brings it to a whole new level.
I had a bad DM back in the day who would **** my characters regardless of race/gender/sexuality/age/whatever. He was actually my first DM ever. Sometimes your only choices are a bad DM and no DM.
IT WAS YOU!
Sorry for that response, but I remember reading that story here and I could never remember who used that example. I actually use that DM as an example whenever I outline unacceptable DM or player behavior.
At least, assuming more than one DM doesn't do this. God I hope more don't. If it was you who listed the story, didn't you punch him in the face after he refused to stop and was clearly making players uncomfortable and upset?
It was probably someone else. We were like 13 at the time when he DMed and if I had punched him in the face then I probably would've gotten sent home and grounded. Not to mention we played in small groups and it was usually my characters who got singled out for "special treatment".
At least, assuming more than one DM doesn't do this.
Hahahahaahahahahano.
It's so common as to be pathological. "The DM or another player raped my character", with side orders of "and the other players didn't help/laughed/joined in" is one of the most common reasons given by female players who played once and never again, when asked.
Saving Throw For Half Cooties is down, but I've linked to the Wayback Machine's copy. You can skip to item #7 if you want to get directly to my point, here.
At least, assuming more than one DM doesn't do this.
Hahahahaahahahahano.
It's so common as to be pathological. "The DM or another player raped my character", with side orders of "and the other players didn't help/laughed/joined in" is one of the most common reasons given by female players who played once and never again, when asked.
Saving Throw For Half Cooties is down, but I've linked to the Wayback Machine's copy. You can skip to item #7 if you want to get directly to my point, here.
This is common? That makes me a sad panda.
This is why I love 4th's Half Orcs. They realized the atrocious implications of the past versions and left that antique on the cutting room floor, next to "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" or other embarrassments better left out of a game you're trying to introduce new people to.
It'd be like if they introduced Gnomes with "of course, their parents drink heavily and beat them, that's how they learn to turn invisible".
Saving Throw For Half Cooties is down, but I've linked to the Wayback Machine's copy. You can skip to item #7 if you want to get directly to my point, here.
That article was informative, but I found it condescending. It made me feel that somehow I was a misogynist turd and that women were better gamers than me on all levels. Its articles like those that keep me playing male characters mostly, despite me having none of the serious negative stereotypes about males playing female characters going (well I do have a problem about the "lack of realistic friendships" for my female characters).
Saving Throw For Half Cooties is down, but I've linked to the Wayback Machine's copy. You can skip to item #7 if you want to get directly to my point, here.
That article was informative, but I found it condescending. It made me feel that somehow I was a misogynist turd and that women were better gamers than me on all levels. Its articles like those that keep me playing male characters mostly, despite me having none of the serious negative stereotypes about males playing female characters going (well I do have a problem about the "lack of realistic friendships" for my female characters).
Yeah, it was a little too patronizing for my sake, but it was food for thought. Surprisingly, as I read it, I noticed I bore FAR more resemblance to her description of females than I did to her impression of males(though I will say that I know plenty of people that fit her descriptions). Might be in part due to the fact my two best friends are women, and it's been that way since I was a young teen.
The part with the all-female game is where it turned into pure ego stroking, though. She starts to confuse "male" with "munchkin", and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't insulted.
Yeah, it was a little too patronizing for my sake, but it was food for thought. Surprisingly, as I read it, I noticed I bore FAR more resemblance to her description of females than I did to her impression of males(though I will say that I know plenty of people that fit her descriptions). Might be in part due to the fact my two best friends are women, and it's been that way since I was a young teen.
I actually had to go to Dick Masterson's site(MABTW) to set the balance right and bring equilibrium to the universe after reading it.
Personally, I see you saying "3 years" and I boggle that you managed to let this particular "DM" run for longer than 3 sessions. If what you're describing is even remotely true, he's an idiot, and you don't want to play with him, so *stop playing*.
I was willing to put up with it for as long as I did, partly because of some of the other members in the group. Despite everything the DM did, we would still manage to have some fun. The other reason I kept playing was because this was, sadly the best and longest running game that was going on (depressing, I know). Several other people tried running games there, but they were all even worse DMs than this guy, and the couple of times I tried to start up a game, any game, I was unable to get enough players.
I have in fact stopped playing there. I'm so fed up, that I'm never going to go there again, and if I can manage it, I'm going to try to convince my friend to run his Star Wars game elsewhere. That's how fed up I am.
I have sigged:
"He asked me how old my character was (I said 82), and then rolled what his maximum age was. Because the number he rolled was less than what I had said, he informed me that my Bard was dead, and that I needed to make a new character."
Because that is a level of awesome unseen by many. Truly ground breaking in its ridiculousness. Please tell him I applaud his making the rest of us look good. No mistake, gaff, wrong call, or screw up any of us make will ever top any of what you wrote. I rest easy knowing that, no matter what, even at my lowest, I will never be a truly bad DM.
I'm glad you're getting a kick out of it. I'm happy to know I'm not the only person who finds this guys antics absurdly humerous.
We should get a "Bad GM" thread going.
That would be great. I've got plenty more stories of bad DMing to write up. It's pretty sad, but out of all the time I've been playing RPGs (close to five years now) I've only ever had 2, maybe 3 good DMs.
I enjoy killing players in my game and I will be prejudiced against them if I dislike them, but this guy brings it to a whole new level.
I had a bad DM back in the day who would **** my characters regardless of race/gender/sexuality/age/whatever. He was actually my first DM ever. Sometimes your only choices are a bad DM and no DM.
IT WAS YOU!
Sorry for that response, but I remember reading that story here and I could never remember who used that example. I actually use that DM as an example whenever I outline unacceptable DM or player behavior.
At least, assuming more than one DM doesn't do this. God I hope more don't. If it was you who listed the story, didn't you punch him in the face after he refused to stop and was clearly making players uncomfortable and upset?
THIS is what you use to outline unacceptable behavior? Is this what you start with, "I'd like to thank you all for coming. First, let me get some ground rules out there, so we're all on the same page.
First, no DM raping of the PCs.
Okay, that about covers it. You see a cave entrance..."
I enjoy killing players in my game and I will be prejudiced against them if I dislike them, but this guy brings it to a whole new level.
I had a bad DM back in the day who would **** my characters regardless of race/gender/sexuality/age/whatever. He was actually my first DM ever. Sometimes your only choices are a bad DM and no DM.
IT WAS YOU!
Sorry for that response, but I remember reading that story here and I could never remember who used that example. I actually use that DM as an example whenever I outline unacceptable DM or player behavior.
At least, assuming more than one DM doesn't do this. God I hope more don't. If it was you who listed the story, didn't you punch him in the face after he refused to stop and was clearly making players uncomfortable and upset?
THIS is what you use to outline unacceptable behavior? Is this what you start with, "I'd like to thank you all for coming. First, let me get some ground rules out there, so we're all on the same page.
First, no DM raping of the PCs.
Okay, that about covers it. You see a cave entrance..."
Heh, well, my players have played games before, it's just one of a handful of examples. Of course, the DM goes "Well, damn, there goes my next campaign. I just bought **** Delve and everything." We're pretty big smartasses, but none of us want to roleplay anything like that. It doesn't exactly sound like escapism to pretend to experience horrible things.
How do you not have room at someone's house for 5 guys to sit ina circle and tell ghost stories?
That has got to be the most awesome description of D&D I've heard in a while.
On another note, I really dislike it when DMs think it's them vs the players. D&D apparently used to be like that (I don't know personaly. I jumped on the wagon midway through 3.5), but most of the time it's just not fun.
I've been a DM since the start of the Reagan administration and it's never been like that in any game I've run or played in. There have always been asshat DMs and there have always been reasonable ones. From the start for me D&D has been about creating a shared story.
My very first D&D session I ran, right after 2e came out, I had prepared my first awesome set of encounters, carefully populating a ruined castle with a series of perfectly designed encounters I had sweated blood over for over a week, each encounter dovetailing into the next to create just the right atmosphere and reveal just the right details to take the party to the next major set of encounters. I didn't just have that campaign on rails, I had hog-tied and hypnotized my players. Then we actually started to play, and when the characters came to the slightly ajar and clearly inviting front door of the castle, the party thief (now rogue) said "I climb on the roof." And in that instant I understood how D&D works... So I threw away my carefully laid plans, quickly ad-libbed what the roof was made of, what was on it and let the players advance the plot how they wanted.
From that point on I let the players have complete control over their characters and simply created the framework and laid out the clues that were needed for them to take the bait I wanted them to. If they didn't take the bait, I just let the story go in a new direction. I've had a whole lot more fun that way than I ever would have if they had opened that door and plodded through my "brilliant" design. This way I learn as much as they do, and the story is much better for their input.
I mean, seriously. The ****?! I admit that if I ever find myself playing a changeling I'll probably end up (subtly) slipping in a bit of fetish fuel because I am a deviant and fun things can be done with shapechanging, but that's several orders of magnitude less squickful than using your DM power to **** a player by proxy of zir character. Gyugh. *shudders* That DM needs to be belted across the face and told, firmly, 'Stop it.' Repeat the treatment as needed until it takes.
Saving Throw For Half Cooties is down, but I've linked to the Wayback Machine's copy. You can skip to item #7 if you want to get directly to my point, here.
That article was informative, but I found it condescending. It made me feel that somehow I was a misogynist turd and that women were better gamers than me on all levels. Its articles like those that keep me playing male characters mostly, despite me having none of the serious negative stereotypes about males playing female characters going (well I do have a problem about the "lack of realistic friendships" for my female characters).
I play a female druid in a 3.5e campaign. She's just a regular druid, she's not especially attractive, she isn't any sort of amazon and for the most part I pay no attention to her gender. As a role play attribute I play her as having a maternal instinct and a nurturing personality. But not overtly. In one encounter the group had to save some children and she took that very seriously. The DM played the children as naturally turning to her when they were rescued and that seemed realistic so I went along with it and played up her maternal side. Other than occasionally providing some goodberries or helping a farmer with their crops, that's about the full extent of her "femaleness". In combat she is an efficient and effective member of the party, in fact she is rapidly becoming the most effective member of the party (she's a druid, natch). She is hyper-competitive though, and takes great pride in drawing first blood in battle, and in taking down the BBEG herself. But I've played many, many male characters who are hyper-competitive like that, but none of them have ever been called a "bitch."
I play with a very good group of thoroughly modern males, most of whom are married and have girl children. So it surprises me when one of them will make a sexist comment, which they seem unable to avoid doing. I can't help but think that many of those comments would offend a female player playing the same character the same way that I do. It strikes me as odd in a way, and I wonder if I would do the same if I were in an all-male group with another guy playing a female character. I guess I probably would find it unable to resist the temptation myself sometimes.
But nobody has ever made any overt sexual comments or taken any such actions in her campaigns. If the DM tried to **** her, I'd probably tell the DM that was way beyond acceptable behavior.
I do enjoy playing her, and I even enjoy her being a female. On occasion that provides some role playing opportunities that a male character probably could not share, such as confiding with a tavern waitress as they peruse the local merchants. It's different sometimes and it's fun. And I can handle the occasional "Cat Fight!" comment if we happen to be fighting a female NPC...
Our group played 2nd edition in the 90s. There were no real rules for monster conversions and every other player wanted to be a monsterous one. I stuck with human because I discussed with the dm ahead of time what would best fit. Big mistake.
The party was a myconid cleric (who could just cast any spell he felt like), an undead necromancer (with artifact glove that gave him godlike powers), a squirrel cleric/thief (with artifact weapon that made him an illusionist as well), and a minotaur fighter (more on this guy later). Then there was my fighter, the beautiful human girl who went total archery.
Now, I made the mistake of making a demand of the dm. The demand was to stay with the way he wrote the world. He warned the other pcs about playing these types of characters in a human dominated world. Only one pc would have any face time in town situations... but they didn't care, they wanted to play their broken things. At this point, he must have decided to turn his world upside down, because my character became the only one unable to deal with npc reactions (funny since my 16 cha and their average 5 cha(all took that as a dump stat) were worlds apart, especially in 2nd ed)
Okay, at least in battle I wouldn't be a slouch...oh yeah, minotaur fighter. Guess who got pegged with my arrows even if I hit the enemy? The large thing? So the group unanimously decided my character should go melee instead. A streak of 1s for hps later, we were level 5 and my hps were 14, the necromancers were 20ish and the minotaur rolled all 10s so had 75hps. Yeah, having to sink all my level rewards into getting better at a new weapon was feasible....not.
Anyway, the dm didn't have enough vengence on me. So he was going to give my character 18/00 str via a potion but instead opted to give it to the minotaur and make my character blue(dm liked labyrinth minotaur picture). Oh then he scaled the monsters up accordingly. My character was knocked out in 1 hit every battle right at the start, that's fun.
At level 6, my character recieved her "****". She was impregnated with some demon baby via a dart to the neck...ah magic. All this time, the dm was having a issue dealing with the monsterous power of the party...except I was the easy target. Always the weakest by a long shot. Soon after this we stopped playing the game.
Now for the happy ending. He's running a half newb group. We a playing 3.5 with some 3.0 allowed. The old players are me(changeling wildshape ranger/shifter prc), the minotaur guy's player(now a monk psion going for illithid things), and the squirrel guy's player(an elf binder). The new guys are...
All playing chaotic ****. All playing teir 1 characters except for 1 guy. All out to destroy the dm's world one npc at a time. cleric necro, wizard necro, assassin rogue, evil druid.
Guess who has the most fun playing this game? Guess who's character is the dm's favorite? Guess who's character the other pcs don't know very much about in and out of game?
My vengence is constantly saving the other "evil" pcs so they can continue the killing of helpless npcs. All while pretending to be an expert npc class normal human. I also like the army of the undead thing they have going...mmm fun for all but dm!
Best part is assuming the role of those npcs and advancing the plot to my end, then letting the npc come back to die at the hands of the evil pcs.(a d&d game within d&d)
Oh, I should mention I dm 3x as much as I play, mainly because of this dm. All good things.
What he said
That just sounds like a terrible game. Even I wouldn't play in that mess.
I've thought about going down that path before (with the session I started this thread with actually), thinking I would stick around in a terrible game, just to ruin it for the DM in an effort to get some kind of petty revenge, but then I realized that was just a stupid idea and got up and left instead. Honestly, you're better off coming up with a more constructive use of your time.
And what's with every new D&D player playing their first character as Chaotic Stupid? Honestly, ever new RPG player I've met does the exact same idiotic thing; the first thing that crosses their mind is to mug some random NPC for chump change.
New players that choose Rogue are always the worst, and they always do the same idiotic things:
- They always talk about how awesome a thief their 1st level Rogue is, despite having a crap DEX and low INT.
- They then think they can get away with stealing from other party members who are looking DIRECTLY AT THEM.
- While the rest of the party is doing something useful (killing monsters during a fight, interacting with an important NPC, etc) all they want to do is loot what's around, and then try to lie about it when they are immediately caught.
- They then try to justify themselves by pointing out that they're Chaotic.
I thought at first maybe this guy was just an idiot, but I've seen it happen at least three times now, all from different people. It's like the class was designed to attract moronic douchebags who's only purpose is to ruin the game for real players.
God, I need a good group.
He's not used to games above level 6 and the power levels of the tier 1 newbs are insane. I suggested E6.
It's fun to be their prisoner...by choice. That's my guy's whole schtick, just the common guy who is known for brewing potions but is never asked to. He's asumed the identity of an npc the pcs have dealt with many times in the past.
Good thing the pcs never looked at my guy while detecting magic to pick up on his changing clothes. Good thing the pcs never used their monicle of true seeing(not character level appropriate I told the dm). The fun would end there as they would assume I'm out to get them(i've only saved their lives 5x in 2 games). Time to fly away and become an npc at that point...lol.
I'm always entertaining the idea of mimicing the other pcs to get them to trust each other more than they should. That in itself is pure evil, but it would never work anyway due to metagame thinking on their part. It would be a death sentence if they falsely depended on each other...lol.
I should mention that the dm is very unfamiliar with the rules and I am for some reason unwilling to help....I wonder why. All the pcs love my parallel game...where I school them in the rules. They mistakenly think that the good guy game I run will collide with the other dms game. I told them all they will be doing is triage for the damage the evil pcs have done. There are so many adventures I don't have to even write involving clean-up of the other dm's game world. I even get to reuse maps. That is part of the reason I support the evil pcs, they are making my dm job easier...
Oh yeah, they love it when I take notes in game. That's the easiest way to get newb pcs against you. Who'd believe I was doing it to have references for my game in the same world? Of course my character takes notes in game too, for the group's employer who doesn't trust them for some reason. Hence a changeling in the group. Making me the only character with a goal that doesn't involve destroying the world.(well the other 2 old players are out to do the quest so that wasn't fair to say)
1. Old School does not mean "Killer DM". I walked away from one of those in 1980 (even had my character fall on his +5 sword in contempt).
2. I'm still waiting for more on the Clog Dancing Bard
2. I'm still waiting for more on the Clog Dancing Bard
What would you like to know about him?
You have the right to be upset, but you should be upset with yourself. Because you did this to your self by going back and staying.
No pity or compassion. You got what you wanted, only in the form you most deserved.
I never got the impression he came here for pity. It sounded to me like he was telling a funny anecdote that most of us enjoyed.
What was funny about it?
I never got the impression he came here for pity. It sounded to me like he was telling a funny anecdote that most of us enjoyed.
What was funny about it?
Just how difficult the DM was being and all. It was taken to absurd levels.
Honestly if the OP was having this bad of a time for this long, and he has not done anything about it, then he deserves it. There is no amount of "lack of other options" that would keep me in this game with these people. I would covert to american football and grow a beer-gut rather than play with this asshat. Gaming, in general, would be dead to me.
I am actually tempted to call pre-teen, or shenanigans on this story. It is almost too out of line.
Two things:
1. Old School does not mean "Killer DM". I walked away from one of those in 1980 (even had my character fall on his +5 sword in contempt).
2. I'm still waiting for more on the Clog Dancing Bard
not all are, but the longer you play the more DM's you will play with and inturn the more bad ones you will play with. I think this is why old-school means player killer
Things like that do happen in game. It's how you get half orcs and half elves. Or did you think all those human women loved those burely male orcs? Did all those lithe elven women really love a race so short lived?
So **** does exist in the game.
But, I agree a DM shouldn't **** a female players character. If you play the type of adult game where that could happen, it's best to just say something akin to "The ogre does things to horrible to mention, you wake up the next morning with 2 HP (or only 2 healing surges) and leave it to the player to decide if they were raped, or just tortured for info.
Of course, my experience with Orcs is vastly different, as in the only campaign I played in, they functioned as merchants and what not. I'm not sure why my DM did it that way, but the campaign was nice, so I can't complain.
Just a quick comment on the female gamers and in game ****.
Things like that do happen in game. It's how you get half orcs and half elves. Or did you think all those human women loved those burely male orcs? Did all those lithe elven women really love a race so short lived?
Female gamer coming in to quickly chime in that her half elf character was the result of a deeply felt love between an elf father and a human mother, so, no, no ****.
What about the orc women that might have been impressed by a human man, and decided she liked him? And he liked her? Or Beren and Lúthien (two of the most famous human and elf lovers in literature)?
Maybe we should be equal opportunity and say that half orcs and half elves were just as often the result of human women raping pretty elf men and human men getting raped by strong orc women as it was the way you proposed? Because if we're being practical and realistic here, that happens, too.
What that all has to do with PCs getting raped, I don't know. I do know it doesn't have to exist in the game. The DM can easily write it out, or never suggest that the only possible way that a human would breed with an orc or an elf is by violence.
If the OP really was just lamenting about a staggeringly bad DM, then lament away. If he/she was looking for advice then I think the universal response is get in a Deloean, run 1.21 jigawatz through it, accelerate to 88mph, and kill the DM's parents.
Honestly if the OP was having this bad of a time for this long, and he has not done anything about it, then he deserves it. There is no amount of "lack of other options" that would keep me in this game with these people. I would covert to american football and grow a beer-gut rather than play with this asshat. Gaming, in general, would be dead to me.
I am actually tempted to call pre-teen, or shenanigans on this story. It is almost too out of line.
I wasn't looking for pity, as I stated in the first post, I said "I'm not trying to sound like a victim hear." I just felt like posting some of the obsurdities that have happened in the game I played with this terrible DM, and I figured a few of you would get some laughs out of it.
I did try doing things. I tried playing in other games (which were worse than this one). I tried running games (but none of my friends could play on days that I could run them, so it wasn't worth it). We (the other consistent players and myself) would try to work with the DM to make the game better. Pretty much the only reason I stuck around as long as I did was because I wanted to hang out with my friends (the other players) and this was pretty much the only opportunity I had to do so.
And that doesn't mean that each session was equally terrible. Some were better than others, but yeah, looking back, a lot of it sucked.
I wasn't looking for pity, as I stated in the first post, I said "I'm not trying to sound like a victim hear." I just felt like posting some of the obsurdities that have happened in the game I played with this terrible DM, and I figured a few of you would get some laughs out of it.
I did try doing things. I tried playing in other games (which were worse than this one). I tried running games (but none of my friends could play on days that I could run them, so it wasn't worth it). We (the other consistent players and myself) would try to work with the DM to make the game better. Pretty much the only reason I stuck around as long as I did was because I wanted to hang out with my friends (the other players) and this was pretty much the only opportunity I had to do so.
And that doesn't mean that each session was equally terrible. Some were better than others, but yeah, looking back, a lot of it sucked.
I did not mean to imply you were looking for pity, more that you experienced the DM's asshat behavior and kept going back. I believe you are being honest when you say that you tried all other options, but unless you are in a very rural area I think you may be wrong. I live in a medium sized metropolitan area and I have had more gaming options than I knew what to do with since I was 10. Perhaps I am just lucky, though.
That, however, is not the point. Clearly you were abused by this DM, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that there was no other option for gaming, so I say again there was but one way out of the situation: Get in a Delorean, run 1.21 jigawatz through it's flux-capacitor, accelerate to 88mph, and kill the DM's parents.
Just a quick comment on the female gamers and in game ****.
Things like that do happen in game. It's how you get half orcs and half elves. Or did you think all those human women loved those burely male orcs? Did all those lithe elven women really love a race so short lived?
Female gamer coming in to quickly chime in that her half elf character was the result of a deeply felt love between an elf father and a human mother, so, no, no ****.
What about the orc women that might have been impressed by a human man, and decided she liked him? And he liked her? Or Beren and Lúthien (two of the most famous human and elf lovers in literature)?
Maybe we should be equal opportunity and say that half orcs and half elves were just as often the result of human women raping pretty elf men and human men getting raped by strong orc women as it was the way you proposed? Because if we're being practical and realistic here, that happens, too.
What that all has to do with PCs getting raped, I don't know. I do know it doesn't have to exist in the game. The DM can easily write it out, or never suggest that the only possible way that a human would breed with an orc or an elf is by violence.
Of course they're not all the by product of violent intimate encounters. I never meant they were. I'm sure at some point a women does indeed force themselves on a physcially weaker male.
I'm simply saying that a group of people can sit down and play a game not rated PG. Not every game snow white or little mermaid. Some are Beastmaster and involve things slightly a little more adult.
And, there is nothing wrong with this at all.
I did not mean to imply you were looking for pity, more that you experienced the DM's asshat behavior and kept going back. I believe you are being honest when you say that you tried all other options, but unless you are in a very rural area I think you may be wrong. I live in a medium sized metropolitan area and I have had more gaming options than I knew what to do with since I was 10. Perhaps I am just lucky, though.
That, however, is not the point. Clearly you were abused by this DM, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that there was no other option for gaming, so I say again there was but one way out of the situation: Get in a Delorean, run 1.21 jigawatz through it's flux-capacitor, accelerate to 88mph, and kill the DM's parents.
I actually do live in a very rural area.
If I can't get ahold of a Delorean, would a Ford Festiva work?
If I can't get ahold of a Delorean, would a Ford Festiva work?
I can't imagine a Ford Festiva is able to get up to 88 mph ;)
Of course they're not all the by product of violent intimate encounters. I never meant they were. I'm sure at some point a women does indeed force themselves on a physcially weaker male.
I'm simply saying that a group of people can sit down and play a game not rated PG. Not every game snow white or little mermaid. Some are Beastmaster and involve things slightly a little more adult.
And, there is nothing wrong with this at all.
They don't necessarily have to be weaker men. They could just be very drugged/inebriated men that have no capacity to resist or say no.
While **** is a "realistic" topic because it happens, thats still not really a good enough reason to handle it in D&D. Castration is also a realistic topic in that it happened quite a bit throughout history, but many male players would be frickin' livid if the DM told them "after capturing you the Orcs decided to cut off your good bits, gratz on emasculation." Most DMs should stay away from the aforementioned topics purely out of respect for their players. Not to mention most DMs are as unsubtle and ham-fisted in their games as Paul Verhoeven was when directing Showgirls and as a result nothing good can come of them touching on sensitive social issues.
First, before my friend and I could join, we had to be interviewed. He had a note book of about 25 questions we had to answer, and he took notes.
During our first session, he explained one of his house rules was to have out of combat inititive (that what reminded me of the OP). So the story starts with us in a tavern enjoying dinner, when another adventuring party comes in. They send over a half-orc fighter type to tell us we shouldn't try to take their gig. I was about to reply to this when I was informed it was not my turn. Instead we had to go around the table and take turns answering her questions. After each of our answers the half-orc would reply. So the "conversation" went half-orc, player 1, half-orc, player 2, ... half-orc, player 5.
(this was not a skill challenge).
Finally they left, and in came wave after wave of hobgoblins. Most were minions, so they died before they never even got an attack (poor bard, who was last in initive order never got to do anything because we would kill the wave before his turn). Finally the last wave was defeated. So we wanted to go outside to see what was going on. But no! We couldn't go out as a group, we had to go out 1 by 1 on our "turn". So the first guy walks out and stops a running guard to ask him whats going on. The conversation goes on for a couple of minutes (mean while the other 4 players are frozen in time). I thought it was funny that the character who was "active" couldn't say what he was trying to say very well. He said something along the lines "They tried to burn down the place but my wizard put his hand in the fire and put it in the fireplace" (trying to explain that I had used mage hand to pick up a torch they threw at behind the bar and moved it to the fireplace). I would have loved to say "I smack him upside the head and say 'What do you mean YOUR wizard'". But I was still inside the bar waiting for permision to move out.
Before this conversation ends, around the corner comes a ogre pulling a wagon with hobgoblins on it, and the ogre was throwing exploding barrels off it (and this after explaining there is no gunpowder in his campaign world). So now our second encounter started with only one of us having an oppertunity to do anything since the end of the previous encounter. I had to spend two move actions on my first turn just to get line of sight to the monsters.
Between sessions my friend and I made posts to the forum (we use meetup.com) to request the out of combat inititive be removed. He eventually just kicked us both out.
In the end it was a good thing to be kicked out.
Of course they're not all the by product of violent intimate encounters. I never meant they were. I'm sure at some point a women does indeed force themselves on a physcially weaker male.
I'm simply saying that a group of people can sit down and play a game not rated PG. Not every game snow white or little mermaid. Some are Beastmaster and involve things slightly a little more adult.
And, there is nothing wrong with this at all.
They don't necessarily have to be weaker men. They could just be very drugged/inebriated men that have no capacity to resist or say no.
While **** is a "realistic" topic because it happens, thats still not really a good enough reason to handle it in D&D. Castration is also a realistic topic in that it happened quite a bit throughout history, but many male players would be frickin' livid if the DM told them "after capturing you the Orcs decided to cut off your good bits, gratz on emasculation." Most DMs should stay away from the aforementioned topics purely out of respect for their players. Not to mention most DMs are as unsubtle and ham-fisted in their games as Paul Verhoeven was when directing Showgirls and as a result nothing good can come of them touching on sensitive social issues.
Honestly, most "male" players would be livid not from the in game scenario of losing the bits. But, from the thought their character was no longer who they built it to be. Honestly it wouldn't bother me. It can only happen once, maybe he uses that as a reason to slaughter all orcs regardless of moral standing.
I do not promote the whole "every female has to be raped by the ogre/ork/goblin/ettin/displacer beast/hydra/bear/drow/unicorn/dragon/beholder" theory. I'm simply saying that some gaming groups can handle those more taboo topics.
It just seams like alot of people are all black is black white is white all DnD games are rated G!
Honestly, most "male" players would be livid not from the in game scenario of losing the bits. But, from the thought their character was no longer who they built it to be. Honestly it wouldn't bother me. It can only happen once, maybe he uses that as a reason to slaughter all orcs regardless of moral standing.
I do not promote the whole "every female has to be raped by the ogre/ork/goblin/ettin/displacer beast/hydra/bear/drow/unicorn/dragon/beholder" theory. I'm simply saying that some gaming groups can handle those more taboo topics.
It just seams like alot of people are all black is black white is white all DnD games are rated G!
I like my games to be R-rated and dark. I like games where if the heroes don't win then there is a very real possibility of all life being extinguished. I like my party to have to sometimes choose between two evils. I just leave out some issues.
Of course they're not all the by product of violent intimate encounters. I never meant they were. I'm sure at some point a women does indeed force themselves on a physcially weaker male.
I'm simply saying that a group of people can sit down and play a game not rated PG. Not every game snow white or little mermaid. Some are Beastmaster and involve things slightly a little more adult.
And, there is nothing wrong with this at all.
They don't necessarily have to be weaker men. They could just be very drugged/inebriated men that have no capacity to resist or say no.
While **** is a "realistic" topic because it happens, thats still not really a good enough reason to handle it in D&D. Castration is also a realistic topic in that it happened quite a bit throughout history, but many male players would be frickin' livid if the DM told them "after capturing you the Orcs decided to cut off your good bits, gratz on emasculation." Most DMs should stay away from the aforementioned topics purely out of respect for their players. Not to mention most DMs are as unsubtle and ham-fisted in their games as Paul Verhoeven was when directing Showgirls and as a result nothing good can come of them touching on sensitive social issues.
Honestly, most "male" players would be livid not from the in game scenario of losing the bits. But, from the thought their character was no longer who they built it to be. Honestly it wouldn't bother me. It can only happen once, maybe he uses that as a reason to slaughter all orcs regardless of moral standing.
I do not promote the whole "every female has to be raped by the ogre/ork/goblin/ettin/displacer beast/hydra/bear/drow/unicorn/dragon/beholder" theory. I'm simply saying that some gaming groups can handle those more taboo topics.
It just seams like alot of people are all black is black white is white all DnD games are rated G!
There is absolutely no reason the concept of **** has to be tackled whatsoever. It's one of the most sickening and disgusting crimes in our society for a reason. Using it as an opportunity for roleplaying is woefully ignorant and uninformed. It's like trying to roleplay a starving Darfur orphan. You're totally out of your element and making light of a very serious and very real problem. While you play at it, there are people living through it and dealing with these issues and the consequences resulting from them. There's nothing "mature" about it.
And if you have experienced these problems but choose to roleplay it anyway, I think there are some other issues afoot...
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
It's called "a fate worse than death" for a reason.
Eh. Honestly, if it was ever introduced into a game, I'd guess that 99% of DMs and Players would be unable to handle the subject matter in a tasteful way while still keeping the story interesting.
It's such a touchy subject and so difficult to balance that I think it's best to simply leave it out of a game.
I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
Do you see what you just said there? "It can make for some interesting ramifications." What the heck can you even say to that? This is where the stereotype comes that DnD players are socially stunted and tactless. Is this something you would tell your mom? Your boss? Your pastor? No reasonable person would agree with you. There's nothing interesting about it!
And as the poster above me pointed out, in our culture, **** is much more intimate and devestating due to its sexual nature. Using it as part of a game is not pushing the envelope, it's just sick.
I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
People can have emotional scars from **** making it a very uncomfortable subject even if it isn't occuring...nobody has RL emotional scars because someone killed their beholder. I see the point you're trying to make, but one is something that can't happen IRL while the other is.
People can have emotional scars from **** making it a very uncomfortable subject even if it isn't occuring...nobody has RL emotional scars because someone killed their beholder. I see the point you're trying to make, but one is something that can't happen IRL while the other is.
What about when the good guys get maimed or killed, then? Sure, it might not happen at the hands of an orcish raiding party, but real people die horrible deaths every day, and their loved ones have to deal with it.
Death and mutilation are pretty common plot hooks in D&D. I would argue that **** is fair game as well. People write about ****. People make movies involving ****. The television show Law & Order probably wouldn't exist without ****. **** has been turning up in literature and art for as long as literature and art have existed. Yes, plenty of it is insensitive or offensive, and in many cultures it’s a much more touchy subject than other violent crimes, but I don't think it makes sense to sweep an entire topic under the rug, just because some people haven't handled it tastefully.
Time and time again, I've seen members of these forums allude to the notion that roleplaying, when you get right down to it, is storytelling. If we accept this as true, then why is it acceptable to talk about certain subjects in some media but not in others? Perhaps because D&D is a game? Fine, but what is a game if not another form of entertainment? Movies are entertainment. TV shows are entertainment. Literature is entertainment. Again, there are plenty of examples in each of these media which have handled such subject matter poorly, but is that not one of the reasons why people started telling stories in the first place, to entertain themselves?
Don’t get me wrong, a DM making a point of raping one particular player’s characters again and again is pretty messed up and highly inappropriate. If you’re condoning ****, using it to punish a player, or merely indulging your own sexual proclivities by incorporating it, then I have no interest whatsoever in gaming with you. Further, I fully understand that ****, like any other serious issue, might hit too close to home for some. But, if **** is one element in the plot of an engaging, dynamic story being created by the right group of people, with a clear understanding of what is ok and what is not, then I think it absolutely can work. If all parties involved are cool with it, then who is really getting hurt?
Time and time again, I've seen members of these forums allude to the notion that roleplaying, when you get right down to it, is storytelling. If we accept this as true, then why is it acceptable to talk about certain subjects in some media but not in others? Perhaps because D&D is a game? Fine, but what is a game if not another form of entertainment? Movies are entertainment. TV shows are entertainment. Literature is entertainment. Again, there are plenty of examples in each of these media which have handled such subject matter poorly, but is that not one of the reasons why people started telling stories in the first place, to entertain themselves?Don’t get me wrong, a DM making a point of raping one particular player’s characters again and again is pretty messed up and highly inappropriate. If you’re condoning ****, using it to punish a player, or merely indulging your own sexual proclivities by incorporating it, then I have no interest whatsoever in gaming with you. Further, I fully understand that ****, like any other serious issue, might hit too close to home for some. But, if **** is one element in the plot of an engaging, dynamic story being created by the right group of people, with a clear understanding of what is ok and what is not, then I think it absolutely can work. If all parties involved are cool with it, then who is really getting hurt?
There is a lot to be said for the fact that many subjects, **** being one of them, ought not to have a very high entertainment value, and that so many TV shows couldn't live without them is, well, maybe not a very good reflection on society? Though I do understand that media tackle very very touchy subjects and do it well. (The Shawshank Redemption is an incredibly good movie. I'll never watch it again.)
One reason that I'd suggest that these same extremely touchy subject be treated with the utmost caution in a D&D game is that, unlike in a movie or a book or even simpler cooperative storytelling, there is a power dynamic in D&D that is absence in those others. It is far, far easier to close a book, or throw it against a wall if it delves into uncomfortable territory (even if you knew going in that it would!) than it is to close the mouth of a DM, another player, or walk out of a game of D&D because of the power dynamics involved.
Given that, and the unlikelyhood that one will find a group of people who are mature enough and on the same page enough to delve into those incredibly touchy topics without turning them into entertainment (!!!) or badly mishandling them or simply unknowingly crossing a line that perhaps a player didn't realize they had, the subject should and ought to have every single warning and neon BEWARE sign imaginable put upon it. I think it is possible that some group out there can handle it...but I am even more confident that the vast majority cannot, so it's probably wisest left alone.
I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
Having **** added into a backstory of a character (NPC or PC) adds for story. Having it done in game or even aluded to in game is a horrible idea.
At best: It will cause tension, uneasiness, and strange looks around the table.
At worse: Upset players, people feeling entirely uncomfortable with the subject matter, and minor arguments.
At worst: Shouting, severe drama, players quitting, and someone having a bad flashback which may result in violent situations.
This is something best left to avoid.
Of course they're not all the by product of violent intimate encounters. I never meant they were. I'm sure at some point a women does indeed force themselves on a physcially weaker male.
I'm simply saying that a group of people can sit down and play a game not rated PG. Not every game snow white or little mermaid. Some are Beastmaster and involve things slightly a little more adult.
And, there is nothing wrong with this at all.
They don't necessarily have to be weaker men. They could just be very drugged/inebriated men that have no capacity to resist or say no.
While **** is a "realistic" topic because it happens, thats still not really a good enough reason to handle it in D&D. Castration is also a realistic topic in that it happened quite a bit throughout history, but many male players would be frickin' livid if the DM told them "after capturing you the Orcs decided to cut off your good bits, gratz on emasculation." Most DMs should stay away from the aforementioned topics purely out of respect for their players. Not to mention most DMs are as unsubtle and ham-fisted in their games as Paul Verhoeven was when directing Showgirls and as a result nothing good can come of them touching on sensitive social issues.
Honestly, most "male" players would be livid not from the in game scenario of losing the bits. But, from the thought their character was no longer who they built it to be. Honestly it wouldn't bother me. It can only happen once, maybe he uses that as a reason to slaughter all orcs regardless of moral standing.
I do not promote the whole "every female has to be raped by the ogre/ork/goblin/ettin/displacer beast/hydra/bear/drow/unicorn/dragon/beholder" theory. I'm simply saying that some gaming groups can handle those more taboo topics.
It just seams like alot of people are all black is black white is white all DnD games are rated G!
There is absolutely no reason the concept of **** has to be tackled whatsoever. It's one of the most sickening and disgusting crimes in our society for a reason. Using it as an opportunity for roleplaying is woefully ignorant and uninformed. It's like trying to roleplay a starving Darfur orphan. You're totally out of your element and making light of a very serious and very real problem. While you play at it, there are people living through it and dealing with these issues and the consequences resulting from them. There's nothing "mature" about it.
And if you have experienced these problems but choose to roleplay it anyway, I think there are some other issues afoot...
People want to roleplay ****. That is not woefully ignorant and uninformed. That is them drawing a different line of what they are comfortable with. If people can't roleplay things out of their element, then I guess people can't roleplay out of gender, hey? A lot of people certainly can't roleplay being racially discriminated against either, according to your ideas. Mutilation? Nope. Hell, you know what, people probably shouldn't be allowed to roleplay low intelligence characters either. They don't know what it's like to live with it! As for the maturity aspect, the point I believe was that the players would need to be mature in order to be able to handle roleplaying it.
As for people living through it, etc, yeah, okay? Just don't roleplay **** around these people. Make sure everyone is completely fine with it beforehand. There are people who have to live with the effects of racial discrimination throughout the world, and I think that the way a lot of people roleplay a "discriminated" race such as Drow or Tieflings is a disgusting mockery of that, but I wouldn't for a second say it was wrong to roleplay such things.
I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
It's called "a fate worse than death" for a reason.
Eh. Honestly, if it was ever introduced into a game, I'd guess that 99% of DMs and Players would be unable to handle the subject matter in a tasteful way while still keeping the story interesting.
It's such a touchy subject and so difficult to balance that I think it's best to simply leave it out of a game.
It's called "a fate worse than death", but it isn't really. I don't really want to go into this right now as it will result in me seeming somewhat cold, but I must note that I disagree with that statement.
Regardless, is the typical DnD fare of killing many, many, innocent (or not so innocent) sentient beings, be it by NPCs or by PC somehow acceptable while **** is not?
I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
Do you see what you just said there? "It can make for some interesting ramifications." What the heck can you even say to that? This is where the stereotype comes that DnD players are socially stunted and tactless. Is this something you would tell your mom? Your boss? Your pastor? No reasonable person would agree with you. There's nothing interesting about it!
And as the poster above me pointed out, in our culture, **** is much more intimate and devestating due to its sexual nature. Using it as part of a game is not pushing the envelope, it's just sick.
His statement, while you may find it distasteful, is not entirely innacurate. In a case where everyone is agreed on it being part of a game, it would likely have effects, and it would not be some morally or socially reprehensible thing to call those effects interesting.
This is not where the stereotype of DnD players as socially stunted and tactless comes from, that stereotype comes from... Other things. Intellectually dealing with things in a different manner from yourself is not being socially stunted or even tactless. And it's irrelevant whether you would tell your mom or boss or pastor about something. Because you AREN'T telling them about it, you're playing a Roleplaying Game, or in this case, speaking ABOUT THE SUBJECT on an internet forum.
Again, you're not really providing real reasons for people not to use ****. You're providing reasons YOU don't use ****. Just because you view and handle something one way doesn't mean others won't handle it differently, and they are certainly not WRONG or sick for doing it.
I have DMed and played in a rather large number of games. I have NEVER encountered **** in ANY of the games I played in. I never plan on including **** in any of the games I run in the future. However, if a group of players that all are willing to play a game involving **** want to play a game involving ****, I'm not going to call them a bunch of sick twisted freaks. After all, as a DM I probably will run a BBEG who wants to whipe out all humans at some point. Surely **** is not worse than genocide, right?
If in backstory one of my players charecters was raped then they would have to deal with that.
Genocide is a sad terrible tragedy and to some would be worse but it's about context. If your jewish or from some parts of africa or asia then genocide would be the worst thing to happen ever, but if you or some you know was **** or near raped then that would be worse.
While some of us don't know anyone who was raped
It is extremely unlikely that any adult human being *does not know* someone who has been raped.
It is much more likely that you just don't know about it. This is not the same thing.
Did anybody read the part where I talked about how imho introducing **** in the Background (not on the table) should only be done in a group where the character's player and the group are OK with it?
People were still going to take issue with it regardless, since it is such an incredibly touchy subject. People obviously wondered just exactly what kind of "interesting ramifications" you meant, or straight took issue with the idea that there could be any at all.
Having a player and a group OK with something that touchy--well, yes, that could happen and probably does in outliers. Even so, there's a good chance that the player and group didn't realize they actually weren't quite as OK with it as they thought. Thinking one would be OK with something and actually being OK with it are quite different, and could vary from group to group...a player might be more OK with something like that even confined to the background in one group and not another.
I personally have to wonder how a group of five or six people who might not all be close friends even brings up the subject to find out if the rest of the group would be OK with it...because I can imagine all sorts of ways for that to go wrong.
People can have emotional scars from **** making it a very uncomfortable subject even if it isn't occuring...nobody has RL emotional scars because someone killed their beholder. I see the point you're trying to make, but one is something that can't happen IRL while the other is.
What about when the good guys get maimed or killed, then? Sure, it might not happen at the hands of an orcish raiding party, but real people die horrible deaths every day, and their loved ones have to deal with it.Death and mutilation are pretty common plot hooks in D&D. I would argue that **** is fair game as well. People write about ****. People make movies involving ****. The television show Law & Order probably wouldn't exist without ****. **** has been turning up in literature and art for as long as literature and art have existed. Yes, plenty of it is insensitive or offensive, and in many cultures it’s a much more touchy subject than other violent crimes, but I don't think it makes sense to sweep an entire topic under the rug, just because some people haven't handled it tastefully.
Time and time again, I've seen members of these forums allude to the notion that roleplaying, when you get right down to it, is storytelling. If we accept this as true, then why is it acceptable to talk about certain subjects in some media but not in others? Perhaps because D&D is a game? Fine, but what is a game if not another form of entertainment? Movies are entertainment. TV shows are entertainment. Literature is entertainment. Again, there are plenty of examples in each of these media which have handled such subject matter poorly, but is that not one of the reasons why people started telling stories in the first place, to entertain themselves?Don’t get me wrong, a DM making a point of raping one particular player’s characters again and again is pretty messed up and highly inappropriate. If you’re condoning ****, using it to punish a player, or merely indulging your own sexual proclivities by incorporating it, then I have no interest whatsoever in gaming with you. Further, I fully understand that ****, like any other serious issue, might hit too close to home for some. But, if **** is one element in the plot of an engaging, dynamic story being created by the right group of people, with a clear understanding of what is ok and what is not, then I think it absolutely can work. If all parties involved are cool with it, then who is really getting hurt?
There's a big difference with a show/book/whatever other medium uses **** as if you're uncomfortable you flip the channel, put the book down etc. The other big difference is the fact that you're not one of the actors/writers/whatever who has to put up with the situation, while in a D&D game that's the opposite. It might be fair game to you, and I wouldn't say its swept under the rug...its not like we're saying "**** doesn't happen ever" its just simply not a subject that needs to be addressed when you're sitting around with your friends rolling some dice. As for death and mutiliation...yeah, they can be sensitive subjects too but greatly lose their impact in the D&D world since both are fairly easily fixed and more often then not if they aren't fixed its because the player chooses to keep them in such a state.
People can have emotional scars from **** making it a very uncomfortable subject even if it isn't occuring...nobody has RL emotional scars because someone killed their beholder. I see the point you're trying to make, but one is something that can't happen IRL while the other is.
What about when the good guys get maimed or killed, then? Sure, it might not happen at the hands of an orcish raiding party, but real people die horrible deaths every day, and their loved ones have to deal with it.Death and mutilation are pretty common plot hooks in D&D. I would argue that **** is fair game as well. People write about ****. People make movies involving ****. The television show Law & Order probably wouldn't exist without ****. **** has been turning up in literature and art for as long as literature and art have existed. Yes, plenty of it is insensitive or offensive, and in many cultures it’s a much more touchy subject than other violent crimes, but I don't think it makes sense to sweep an entire topic under the rug, just because some people haven't handled it tastefully.
Time and time again, I've seen members of these forums allude to the notion that roleplaying, when you get right down to it, is storytelling. If we accept this as true, then why is it acceptable to talk about certain subjects in some media but not in others? Perhaps because D&D is a game? Fine, but what is a game if not another form of entertainment? Movies are entertainment. TV shows are entertainment. Literature is entertainment. Again, there are plenty of examples in each of these media which have handled such subject matter poorly, but is that not one of the reasons why people started telling stories in the first place, to entertain themselves?Don’t get me wrong, a DM making a point of raping one particular player’s characters again and again is pretty messed up and highly inappropriate. If you’re condoning ****, using it to punish a player, or merely indulging your own sexual proclivities by incorporating it, then I have no interest whatsoever in gaming with you. Further, I fully understand that ****, like any other serious issue, might hit too close to home for some. But, if **** is one element in the plot of an engaging, dynamic story being created by the right group of people, with a clear understanding of what is ok and what is not, then I think it absolutely can work. If all parties involved are cool with it, then who is really getting hurt?
There's a big difference with a show/book/whatever other medium uses **** as if you're uncomfortable you flip the channel, put the book down etc. The other big difference is the fact that you're not one of the actors/writers/whatever who has to put up with the situation, while in a D&D game that's the opposite. It might be fair game to you, and I wouldn't say its swept under the rug...its not like we're saying "**** doesn't happen ever" its just simply not a subject that needs to be addressed when you're sitting around with your friends rolling some dice. As for death and mutiliation...yeah, they can be sensitive subjects too but greatly lose their impact in the D&D world since both are fairly easily fixed and more often then not if they aren't fixed its because the player chooses to keep them in such a state.
No one has suggested **** should be implemented in ANY game where ALL participants are not comfortable with it being implemented. I think it is terrible practise to introduce it (or most things for that matter) when all participants are not comfortable with it.
If death and mutilation can be "fixed" in the D&D world, why can't ****? I'm sure the physical effects could be healed, and certainly you could modify the raped persons memory as well. For those who disagree with that, I'm sure in a world with mind reading and such, at least some groups must have pretty damn effective therapists.
The fact remains however that the common people, that is, the non player characters, who are more likely to have terrible things happen to them, probably have no way to fix death or mutiliation, OR ****.
When asking why murdering is perfectly acceptable and raping is (seemingly) not, there is an easy and pretty obvious answer, for me at least.
Unlike murdering/killing people, **** is something far more intimate and thus touches one's own dignity and integrity in an intimate and invasive manner.
When someone is killed, that's (generally) the end of it. When someone is raped, a part of the soul is destroyed.
Not only is it a different degree of atrocity, it's also more personal and touchy (as many posters before have said it as well) altogether.
And personally, I would walk out of any game where the DM employs **** as a device against PCs. It's simply beyond the line.
Just to throw it in:
When asking why murdering is perfectly acceptable and raping is (seemingly) not, there is an easy and pretty obvious answer, for me at least.
Unlike murdering/killing people, **** is something far more intimate and thus touches one's own dignity and integrity in an intimate and invasive manner.
When someone is killed, that's (generally) the end of it. When someone is raped, a part of the soul is destroyed.
Not only is it a different degree of atrocity, it's also more personal and touchy (as many posters before have said it as well) altogether.
And personally, I would walk out of any game where the DM employs **** as a device against PCs. It's simply beyond the line.
Uh. Wait, what? Okay, so, I'm assuming we're talking DnD here as you're mentioning the soul, but where do you get the idea **** destroys part of the soul? I mean, none of the books talk about it, so...
Yes, you can modify the CHARACTERS memory, but its an out of game issue...you can't modify the PLAYERS memory, that's where the problem comes from.
That, and there is a decent chance one of your players will have been raped or molested. Unless you are Herbert West, I don't think you'll be playing with anyone who has been murdered before.
I think everyone keeps missing the part where I say that it should only be included in a game where EVERYONE in the group is comfortable with it being included. If even one player isn't, then you shouldn't include, just as you shouldn't include ANYTHING that makes a player uncomfortable, unless it's completely ridiculous, but even then...
Of course they're not all the by product of violent intimate encounters. I never meant they were. I'm sure at some point a women does indeed force themselves on a physcially weaker male.
I'm simply saying that a group of people can sit down and play a game not rated PG. Not every game snow white or little mermaid. Some are Beastmaster and involve things slightly a little more adult.
And, there is nothing wrong with this at all.
They don't necessarily have to be weaker men. They could just be very drugged/inebriated men that have no capacity to resist or say no.
While **** is a "realistic" topic because it happens, thats still not really a good enough reason to handle it in D&D. Castration is also a realistic topic in that it happened quite a bit throughout history, but many male players would be frickin' livid if the DM told them "after capturing you the Orcs decided to cut off your good bits, gratz on emasculation." Most DMs should stay away from the aforementioned topics purely out of respect for their players. Not to mention most DMs are as unsubtle and ham-fisted in their games as Paul Verhoeven was when directing Showgirls and as a result nothing good can come of them touching on sensitive social issues.
Honestly, most "male" players would be livid not from the in game scenario of losing the bits. But, from the thought their character was no longer who they built it to be. Honestly it wouldn't bother me. It can only happen once, maybe he uses that as a reason to slaughter all orcs regardless of moral standing.
I do not promote the whole "every female has to be raped by the ogre/ork/goblin/ettin/displacer beast/hydra/bear/drow/unicorn/dragon/beholder" theory. I'm simply saying that some gaming groups can handle those more taboo topics.
It just seams like alot of people are all black is black white is white all DnD games are rated G!
There is absolutely no reason the concept of **** has to be tackled whatsoever. It's one of the most sickening and disgusting crimes in our society for a reason. Using it as an opportunity for roleplaying is woefully ignorant and uninformed. It's like trying to roleplay a starving Darfur orphan. You're totally out of your element and making light of a very serious and very real problem. While you play at it, there are people living through it and dealing with these issues and the consequences resulting from them. There's nothing "mature" about it.
And if you have experienced these problems but choose to roleplay it anyway, I think there are some other issues afoot...
People want to roleplay ****. That is not woefully ignorant and uninformed. That is them drawing a different line of what they are comfortable with. If people can't roleplay things out of their element, then I guess people can't roleplay out of gender, hey? A lot of people certainly can't roleplay being racially discriminated against either, according to your ideas. Mutilation? Nope. Hell, you know what, people probably shouldn't be allowed to roleplay low intelligence characters either. They don't know what it's like to live with it! As for the maturity aspect, the point I believe was that the players would need to be mature in order to be able to handle roleplaying it.
As for people living through it, etc, yeah, okay? Just don't roleplay **** around these people. Make sure everyone is completely fine with it beforehand. There are people who have to live with the effects of racial discrimination throughout the world, and I think that the way a lot of people roleplay a "discriminated" race such as Drow or Tieflings is a disgusting mockery of that, but I wouldn't for a second say it was wrong to roleplay such things.I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
It's called "a fate worse than death" for a reason.
Eh. Honestly, if it was ever introduced into a game, I'd guess that 99% of DMs and Players would be unable to handle the subject matter in a tasteful way while still keeping the story interesting.
It's such a touchy subject and so difficult to balance that I think it's best to simply leave it out of a game.
It's called "a fate worse than death", but it isn't really. I don't really want to go into this right now as it will result in me seeming somewhat cold, but I must note that I disagree with that statement.
Regardless, is the typical DnD fare of killing many, many, innocent (or not so innocent) sentient beings, be it by NPCs or by PC somehow acceptable while **** is not?I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
Do you see what you just said there? "It can make for some interesting ramifications." What the heck can you even say to that? This is where the stereotype comes that DnD players are socially stunted and tactless. Is this something you would tell your mom? Your boss? Your pastor? No reasonable person would agree with you. There's nothing interesting about it!
And as the poster above me pointed out, in our culture, **** is much more intimate and devestating due to its sexual nature. Using it as part of a game is not pushing the envelope, it's just sick.
His statement, while you may find it distasteful, is not entirely innacurate. In a case where everyone is agreed on it being part of a game, it would likely have effects, and it would not be some morally or socially reprehensible thing to call those effects interesting.
This is not where the stereotype of DnD players as socially stunted and tactless comes from, that stereotype comes from... Other things. Intellectually dealing with things in a different manner from yourself is not being socially stunted or even tactless. And it's irrelevant whether you would tell your mom or boss or pastor about something. Because you AREN'T telling them about it, you're playing a Roleplaying Game, or in this case, speaking ABOUT THE SUBJECT on an internet forum.
Again, you're not really providing real reasons for people not to use ****. You're providing reasons YOU don't use ****. Just because you view and handle something one way doesn't mean others won't handle it differently, and they are certainly not WRONG or sick for doing it.
I have DMed and played in a rather large number of games. I have NEVER encountered **** in ANY of the games I played in. I never plan on including **** in any of the games I run in the future. However, if a group of players that all are willing to play a game involving **** want to play a game involving ****, I'm not going to call them a bunch of sick twisted freaks. After all, as a DM I probably will run a BBEG who wants to whipe out all humans at some point. Surely **** is not worse than genocide, right?
Let me just make this clear, you are actually defending the idea of having **** in a game. No ordinary reasonable person would agree with you. And the argument that someone can subjectively find it interesting is pointless. Objectively, as a society, we've decided it's wrong. There is nothing intellectual about using a horrible event in someone's life as part of a game you can play.
The next time you're about to say something, I want you to repeat to yourself "I am defending the use of **** in a game" until you realize how ridiculous you sound.
Well, if everyone is cool with it, it's more or less a non-issue, isn't it? I am just saying that broaching the subject is a gamble if you do not know the person's real-life background.
Exactly. I thought so to, but apparently some people do not:
Of course they're not all the by product of violent intimate encounters. I never meant they were. I'm sure at some point a women does indeed force themselves on a physcially weaker male.
I'm simply saying that a group of people can sit down and play a game not rated PG. Not every game snow white or little mermaid. Some are Beastmaster and involve things slightly a little more adult.
And, there is nothing wrong with this at all.
They don't necessarily have to be weaker men. They could just be very drugged/inebriated men that have no capacity to resist or say no.
While **** is a "realistic" topic because it happens, thats still not really a good enough reason to handle it in D&D. Castration is also a realistic topic in that it happened quite a bit throughout history, but many male players would be frickin' livid if the DM told them "after capturing you the Orcs decided to cut off your good bits, gratz on emasculation." Most DMs should stay away from the aforementioned topics purely out of respect for their players. Not to mention most DMs are as unsubtle and ham-fisted in their games as Paul Verhoeven was when directing Showgirls and as a result nothing good can come of them touching on sensitive social issues.
Honestly, most "male" players would be livid not from the in game scenario of losing the bits. But, from the thought their character was no longer who they built it to be. Honestly it wouldn't bother me. It can only happen once, maybe he uses that as a reason to slaughter all orcs regardless of moral standing.
I do not promote the whole "every female has to be raped by the ogre/ork/goblin/ettin/displacer beast/hydra/bear/drow/unicorn/dragon/beholder" theory. I'm simply saying that some gaming groups can handle those more taboo topics.
It just seams like alot of people are all black is black white is white all DnD games are rated G!
There is absolutely no reason the concept of **** has to be tackled whatsoever. It's one of the most sickening and disgusting crimes in our society for a reason. Using it as an opportunity for roleplaying is woefully ignorant and uninformed. It's like trying to roleplay a starving Darfur orphan. You're totally out of your element and making light of a very serious and very real problem. While you play at it, there are people living through it and dealing with these issues and the consequences resulting from them. There's nothing "mature" about it.
And if you have experienced these problems but choose to roleplay it anyway, I think there are some other issues afoot...
People want to roleplay ****. That is not woefully ignorant and uninformed. That is them drawing a different line of what they are comfortable with. If people can't roleplay things out of their element, then I guess people can't roleplay out of gender, hey? A lot of people certainly can't roleplay being racially discriminated against either, according to your ideas. Mutilation? Nope. Hell, you know what, people probably shouldn't be allowed to roleplay low intelligence characters either. They don't know what it's like to live with it! As for the maturity aspect, the point I believe was that the players would need to be mature in order to be able to handle roleplaying it.
As for people living through it, etc, yeah, okay? Just don't roleplay **** around these people. Make sure everyone is completely fine with it beforehand. There are people who have to live with the effects of racial discrimination throughout the world, and I think that the way a lot of people roleplay a "discriminated" race such as Drow or Tieflings is a disgusting mockery of that, but I wouldn't for a second say it was wrong to roleplay such things.I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
It's called "a fate worse than death" for a reason.
Eh. Honestly, if it was ever introduced into a game, I'd guess that 99% of DMs and Players would be unable to handle the subject matter in a tasteful way while still keeping the story interesting.
It's such a touchy subject and so difficult to balance that I think it's best to simply leave it out of a game.
It's called "a fate worse than death", but it isn't really. I don't really want to go into this right now as it will result in me seeming somewhat cold, but I must note that I disagree with that statement.
Regardless, is the typical DnD fare of killing many, many, innocent (or not so innocent) sentient beings, be it by NPCs or by PC somehow acceptable while **** is not?I don't see such a problem with introducing the concept of **** in a game where the murder of intelligent creatures is completely acceptable as long as they're either labelled 'monster' or 'evil' (or both, just to be sure).
(Disclaimer: I don't advocate playing it out in an actual game session, or imposing it on characters whose player's and group aren't fine with that, but it can make for some interesting ramifications.)
Do you see what you just said there? "It can make for some interesting ramifications." What the heck can you even say to that? This is where the stereotype comes that DnD players are socially stunted and tactless. Is this something you would tell your mom? Your boss? Your pastor? No reasonable person would agree with you. There's nothing interesting about it!
And as the poster above me pointed out, in our culture, **** is much more intimate and devestating due to its sexual nature. Using it as part of a game is not pushing the envelope, it's just sick.
His statement, while you may find it distasteful, is not entirely innacurate. In a case where everyone is agreed on it being part of a game, it would likely have effects, and it would not be some morally or socially reprehensible thing to call those effects interesting.
This is not where the stereotype of DnD players as socially stunted and tactless comes from, that stereotype comes from... Other things. Intellectually dealing with things in a different manner from yourself is not being socially stunted or even tactless. And it's irrelevant whether you would tell your mom or boss or pastor about something. Because you AREN'T telling them about it, you're playing a Roleplaying Game, or in this case, speaking ABOUT THE SUBJECT on an internet forum.
Again, you're not really providing real reasons for people not to use ****. You're providing reasons YOU don't use ****. Just because you view and handle something one way doesn't mean others won't handle it differently, and they are certainly not WRONG or sick for doing it.
I have DMed and played in a rather large number of games. I have NEVER encountered **** in ANY of the games I played in. I never plan on including **** in any of the games I run in the future. However, if a group of players that all are willing to play a game involving **** want to play a game involving ****, I'm not going to call them a bunch of sick twisted freaks. After all, as a DM I probably will run a BBEG who wants to whipe out all humans at some point. Surely **** is not worse than genocide, right?
Let me just make this clear, you are actually defending the idea of having **** in a game. No ordinary reasonable person would agree with you. And the argument that someone can subjectively find it interesting is pointless. Objectively, as a society, we've decided it's wrong. There is nothing intellectual about using a horrible event in someone's life as part of a game you can play.
The next time you're about to say something, I want you to repeat to yourself "I am defending the use of **** in a game" until you realize how ridiculous you sound.
Let's try a bit of WORD SUBSTITION here.
"Let me just make this clear, you are actually defending the idea of having murder in a game. No ordinary reasonable person would agree with you. And the argument that someone can subjectively find it interesting is pointless. Objectively, as a society, we've decided it's wrong. There is nothing intellectual about using a horrible event in someone's life as part of a game you can play.
The next time you're about to say something, I want you to repeat to yourself "I am defending the use of murder in a game" until you realize how ridiculous you sound."
Just because you, subjectively, have a distaste towards something, absolutely DOES not mean that it is ridiculous for other people to play a game about. Your statement that we should never do anything society believes is wrong in a game is ridiculous, because that's half the point of games.
It doesn't sound ridiculous. It never will sound ridiculous. Do you want to know why? Because I, as a person, can tell the difference between a game and reality. Because, I, as a person, have absolutely no issue with people doing things that don't harm any real people in any way.
So please, I understand and can respect that you disagree with me, but to say that my opinion is ridiculous because it is not yours is, well, disrespectful.
You both have diferent opinions, and neither has to force your beliefs on the other. So agree to disagree, and close that line of conversation. Things have been said that can be insulting, but they shouldn't go any farther.