Conan likes you once you prove your worth...it seems like it happens a lot in RPGs where people decide that their character should be a racist misogynistic d-bag, and then use the "but its in my backstory" card when i ask them about it
why does every Barbarian or other fringe type PC have to be like that?
i'm all for coming up with compelling backstories, it makes my job easier. racism and misogyny is not compelling, its just offensive and tends to put gamers in a bad mood when the Barbarian wont listen to the wizard PC because "she's a southern wench"my question is, is this a recurring problem with gamers as a whole or just in the midwest?
do gamers use their characters to act out their deep down racism and sexism, cause it kinda seems that way from my seat.and thats really, really disappointing because in my youth it seemed that gamers were a more liberal forward thinking bunch then the general populace.
do woman gamers run into this a lot, does it turn them off from gaming?
how as a GM do you deal with this?
Liberal and forward thinking? I've played with gamers from all over the political spectrum. From anarchists to white nationalists, from Maoists to the apolitical.
Hello from Australia, with some Singapore experience.
You bow and scrape,
if it is Drow you hate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your hate is for naught,
when a drow can be bought.
Or if they are the good guys, a drow pc works. That wasn't the info we got though.
Reverse it! The surface elves are evil raiders (always using plants and poison) and the drow are the goody to shoes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But isn't what at least one of the "kill the Drow PC" examples started with?
Actually no, the original example the players actually said 'No' from the get go, but the prevailing argument was that they as PLAYERS were not allowed to object, even IF their Characters would have an issue.
The point that was raised that the PLAYERS were at fault and all wrong for pointing out up front that not only would they personally not entertain a drow, that they weren't allowed to argue up front on behalf of their characters either.
The example that you have actually cited was my example of what happens if we follow the logic of demanding the players accept the drow (or risk being banned from the game) and then at the table logically follow their characters actions.
It seemed ridiculous to me that the GM's were insisting that every player can play whatever they want, and that the other players (and their characters) are not entitled to object, nor even a conversation on the matter either.
It seems that when the players objected BEFORE the game they were universally labelled as misogynistic racist jerks that were 'ruining things' for other players - namely the GM's SO - and were roundly condemned.
I feel that this is completely over the top and unfair, and that the heavy handed GM examples are way over the top. There is no interest whatsoever shown by them in collaborating with the players nor working out if the 'new character pitch' might work; its simply 'Here is my SO, they are playing a Drow, the campaign, you and your characters will just have to deal with it'.
If the players hate drow so much, the dm missed a really good opportunity to make it work. As in, the drow pc is a spy for the guild of drow slayers (perhaps for political reasons), and sets up their next jobs and joins them for the jobbing (under heavy disguise), when they can sneak away from spying.
The group that kills together, stays together.
If you as a dm, help to make a new pc cool and indispensable to the larger party, there will be zero problems unless the cool pc suicides or becomes a dic* (from my experience anyway).
The GM might certainly help make the new PC cool and indispensable by giving it GMSO super-powers, like a flying unicorn, that always works.
Well not that far, but backstory and making them something like Claudia (Margo Martindale) in the spy show The Americans could work a treat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there was any indication in the original example that the Characters needed to have an issue. As I said, I think it was a new campaign.
Then your thoughts might be mistaken, the SO joined an existing game:
The only outwardly aggressive racism I've seen in-game in my various groups, is from a few old-school 2e players who have an INTENSE hatred for drow, and a slight disdain for elves in general. Their hatred for drow comes from their original DM who glorified them as god-like, unkillable, ultimate DMPC monstrosities whom the players were constantly being thrown up against.Even many years(and editions) later, they still harbor intense resentment for anything drow-related at all. On the flipside, my wife LOVES the drow race. Even before she ever played actual D&D, she had read many FR novels about Drizz't, Eliastree, etc.
So, my wife joined in a few smaller D&D games, alongside these old-school players, and of course, she wanted to make a drow. They warned her how much they hated all drow, to which I(as DM at the time) stepped in and informed them how I'd boot them from the game if they tried bullying another player, for ANY reason.
So yeah the GMSO read 2nd Ed FR novels, and decided that this was going to just going to be peachy, regardless of Golarion lore or anything like that. The GM agreed. The players didn't.
Maybe they didn't want the GM's SO to play. Maybe they were worried about her getting special snowflake status.
Again.
Thankfully they were smart enough to leave their baggage at home for those games. Not a great idea to bully another player, especially the DM's wife.
Seems they were simply told how it was going to be, and special snowflake prevailed. They were right to be worried. The GM didn't consider their objections for a moment, it was just a case of tough luck.
Now the bit that set us off on parodying the heck out of these posts was his fine comment here:
They started getting their panties in a bunch when my wife mentioned playing a drow, so I pointed to the door. Their "characters" can hate drow all they want. It's when they start attacking and bullying other "PC's" I draw the line, especially since my wife was brand-new to the system, having only played other games prior.
Their "characters" can hate drow all they want.
That was the one that really set it all off, hence the bar scene.
When you tell a player that if they object to anything they will be kicked, but their characters can 'hate drow all they want'.
Do you see where this isn't stacking up and wasn't terribly helpful?
Then I have some really classy GM's talking about punishing/killing the PC's and making their next characters a lower level for 'hate drow all they want' and the circle was complete.
Just wow guys.
You don't have to make a character that kill Drow on sight and if you do so after learning someone is going to play one, you're trying to wreck the game.I think that you hit the nail on the head with this.
The characters already existed, the Drow was the one joining the party.
Guess it wasn't a nail being hit with that hammer.
The characters already existed, the Drow was the one joining the party.You don't have to make a character that kill Drow on sight and if you do so after learning someone is going to play one, you're trying to wreck the game.I think that you hit the nail on the head with this.
If I understand right, the players would make any character they made one that didn't like drow, the GM introduced a girl to the game and she wanted to play a drow, so he decided to lay the law that this new player would get what they want and have a good time, likely because he was more worried about her than anything and letting her play a drow probably wasn't the end of the world. While I don't totally agree with the laying down the law approach, when you introduce a new player, especially the kind you might be living with, you do go out of the way for them. I'm not one to say if its right or wrong personally. I'd also point to the players as having their own personal issues which probably should've been talked about for a bit and in a nice way. Of course I wasn't there so I don't know what happened...
Why does this matter anymore?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: in Golarion no good drow exist, based on the published material. They are not Drizzt fans evidently.
No specific Good-aligned drow have shown up yet.* It has never been printed that good drow can't exist. In fact, the sidebar in Second Darkness that discouraged playing good drow explicitly actually said to hold off on those characters until after that AP. Also, non-evil drow have appeared already, in that very AP in fact.
*Besides Shensen, the PC of Golarion's creator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This entire discussion is why I keep to core races. I have enough issues between elves and dwarves at times! Never had a game where a character playing a drow didn't turn into a bad situation even when it was accepted by the party. Want real fun? Put a paladin and a LN necromancer in the same party and watch the fur fly! I used to do that in the Scarred Lands from time to time. Drove the players crazy!
Can anyone recall where exactly the original Drow post in question is on? I want to but in again but I can't remember it that well.
Can anyone recall where exactly the original Drow post in question is on? I want to but in again but I can't remember it that well.
Here you go. I didn't think it was that big of a deal myself.
Anyways, I allow most races, so long its not something too crazy. I usually don't have a problem, but most of the players I've been with don't have a long standing hatred of a race. I don't like elves as a person, doesn't mean I have to hate elves in character.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the foundations had been laid out then by all means, context matters.
This story just seems like the Players were railroaded.
Pays to be the GM's SO.
Ok, a few things(sorry, I don't check the paizo boards during most weekends, busy being not on the internet).
If this is in reference to my wife wanting to play a Drow, and other player's attempting to bully her out of it, then I feel the need to speak up.
I didn't threaten to boot the offending players because they were just threatening my wife, I was going to boot them because they were trying to bully another player, period. What is so hard to understand about that? How am I such a jerk DM for NOT wanting players at my table bullied?
For all the hyperbolic nonsense you and Loyalist went off the rails with, I should mention the drow-hating players(as in, not characters, PLAYERS) typically play the meanest, nastiest, evil-aligned things they can find that a DM would allow. One of them plays an abyss-born(3PP race) thing that has his patron demon's symbol carved into his chest, and bleeds out blood and pus continually. This was NOT about "Oh no! It's a Drow! It must be evil, so we must kill it!" Hell, part of the reason my wife wanted to make a drow was because it was an evil party to begin with; she figured a drow would fit in just fine.
I like to keep game details as close to "canon" as possible, I like to really go for as much immersion as possible, but rule #1 in my house is "Don't be a dick. Don't disrespect other players." This comes before any canon or story BS. If you're a jerk at my table, you are going to leave. The fact that is was my wife being bullied, only made me even more of a hardass about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there was any indication in the original example that the Characters needed to have an issue. As I said, I think it was a new campaign.Then your thoughts might be mistaken, the SO joined an existing game:
The only outwardly aggressive racism I've seen in-game in my various groups, is from a few old-school 2e players who have an INTENSE hatred for drow, and a slight disdain for elves in general. Their hatred for drow comes from their original DM who glorified them as god-like, unkillable, ultimate DMPC monstrosities whom the players were constantly being thrown up against.Even many years(and editions) later, they still harbor intense resentment for anything drow-related at all. On the flipside, my wife LOVES the drow race. Even before she ever played actual D&D, she had read many FR novels about Drizz't, Eliastree, etc.
So, my wife joined in a few smaller D&D games, alongside these old-school players, and of course, she wanted to make a drow. They warned her how much they hated all drow, to which I(as DM at the time) stepped in and informed them how I'd boot them from the game if they tried bullying another player, for ANY reason.
So yeah the GMSO read 2nd Ed FR novels, and decided that this was going to just going to be peachy, regardless of Golarion lore or anything like that. The GM agreed. The players didn't.
Maybe they didn't want the GM's SO to play. Maybe they were worried about her getting special snowflake status.Again.
Thankfully they were smart enough to leave their baggage at home for those games. Not a great idea to bully another player, especially the DM's wife.Seems they were simply told how it was going to be, and special snowflake prevailed. They were right to be worried. The GM didn't consider their objections for a moment, it was just a case of tough luck.
Now the bit that set us off on parodying the heck out of these posts was his...
Heh, wow. Shifty, you bored? Nowhere, anywhere, did I say it was Golarion. Again, it was a one-off module, and I set in in Greyhawk, since most anything wotc splat-wise goes there.
Also, again, they sought out to bully another player out of playing something they want to play, something that the DM(me) said was ok to play. No special snowflake status here. I would have done the same(maybe been a little less pissed) had it been any other player. One player does not get to decide what another player gets to play or not play.
I did make the posting mistake of not explaining that it was an evil PC party. My wife wasn't going for the "Look I'm a Drizz't too!" angle at all. It was an evil group, and she wanted to be an evil race. They were just being ignorant jerks, trying to assert dominance over another player's choice.
And really, man? "Special snowflake prevailed?" For what, not getting bullied out of a game?
You don't have to make a character that kill Drow on sight and if you do so after learning someone is going to play one, you're trying to wreck the game.I think that you hit the nail on the head with this.The characters already existed, the Drow was the one joining the party.
Guess it wasn't a nail being hit with that hammer.
Where are you pulling this from? I said it was a one-ff module, there were no existing characters prior to it.
Oh man do i hate when someone pulls Tolkien on me. Like "i am an elf hating dwarf. Because prof. Tolkien said so". My response to that is "Well, elves and dwarves do not hate each other in my setting. Go play in Tolkien's game then"It's not like they really hated each other in Tolkien either. They had their old grudges and didn't really get along, but it wasn't kill on sight or constant warfare either.
In setting, both would be far more likely to kill half-orcs on sight.
I was playing a Medieval 2 mod once, it was in the LOTR setting. Now normally, as good factions, the Dwarves and Elves got along, there is Sauron and what not to deal with. Once though, good had some breathing room, the elves expanded too far coming into conflict with a human faction, and the dwarves snatched a bit to the centre and east. Then it exploded. The Dwarves declared war on the elves and marched on their settlements, they made sure the war was fought in elven lands. The plan looked to be to take the centre and drive the elves into the western corner. It was glorious to watch from the sidelines and hard fought. The Dwarves took some settlements, but lost a lot of soldiers, and then it dragged into a stalemate.
It got me thinking about old grudges and the two types not getting along.
...I don't think there was any indication in the original example that the Characters needed to have an issue. As I said, I think it was a new campaign.Then your thoughts might be mistaken, the SO joined an existing game:
The only outwardly aggressive racism I've seen in-game in my various groups, is from a few old-school 2e players who have an INTENSE hatred for drow, and a slight disdain for elves in general. Their hatred for drow comes from their original DM who glorified them as god-like, unkillable, ultimate DMPC monstrosities whom the players were constantly being thrown up against.Even many years(and editions) later, they still harbor intense resentment for anything drow-related at all. On the flipside, my wife LOVES the drow race. Even before she ever played actual D&D, she had read many FR novels about Drizz't, Eliastree, etc.
So, my wife joined in a few smaller D&D games, alongside these old-school players, and of course, she wanted to make a drow. They warned her how much they hated all drow, to which I(as DM at the time) stepped in and informed them how I'd boot them from the game if they tried bullying another player, for ANY reason.
So yeah the GMSO read 2nd Ed FR novels, and decided that this was going to just going to be peachy, regardless of Golarion lore or anything like that. The GM agreed. The players didn't.
Maybe they didn't want the GM's SO to play. Maybe they were worried about her getting special snowflake status.Again.
Thankfully they were smart enough to leave their baggage at home for those games. Not a great idea to bully another player, especially the DM's wife.Seems they were simply told how it was going to be, and special snowflake prevailed. They were right to be worried. The GM didn't consider their objections for a moment, it was just a case of tough luck.
Now the bit that set us off on parodying the heck
It sounds like you hate those players, a shame, the game will probably need a scrap and reset.
Good gaming to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where are you pulling this from? I said it was a one-ff module, there were no existing characters prior to it.You don't have to make a character that kill Drow on sight and if you do so after learning someone is going to play one, you're trying to wreck the game.I think that you hit the nail on the head with this.The characters already existed, the Drow was the one joining the party.
Guess it wasn't a nail being hit with that hammer.
Even so, the player's chose to make their character kill a drow on-sight, despite the fact that the drow walked into a public tavern where, I assume, there were plenty of other patrons/employees not attacking the drow. Racism or no, I can't imagine a sane character doing that in this context.
It seems to me they made their choice based on what they wanted more than what made sense for their characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly I'm amazed at how much has transpired here from my one little anecdotal example. Really, it didn't seem like that big of a deal at the time. The players in question had a reputation for attacking other players, and I was tired of it.
When the group was discussing characters before the game had even started, my wife simply said "I'd like to make a Drow. I really like Drow" and that's when they started going on and on about if she did, they'd kill her right from the get-go, no matter what campaign or who was DMing, nobody can ever play a drow if they play, and blah blah blah. That's when I simply spoke up and said(in a nutshell): "No. If you're going to pull that kind of crap, you can leave." They decided they'd rather stay and play, so the game went fine from there, evil antics aside.
As for "hating" the players, I'll confess to me hating that particular playstyle; treating the game like a competition, asserting dominance over other PC's, etc. I don't hate the players. Outside of the game, they are some of the coolest dudes around. But when it's game-time, it's like a switch flips in their heads, and they're out for blood. One player got so bad at one point, we had to stage an "intervention" , because he was purposely trainwrecking campaigns and killing other people's characters for fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I think I found the problem. I crammed two thoughts together and didn't properly explain it right the first time.
So, my wife joined in a few smaller D&D games, alongside these old-school players, and of course, she wanted to make a drow. They warned her how much they hated all drow, to which I(as DM at the time) stepped in and informed them how I'd boot them from the game if they tried bullying another player, for ANY reason.
My whole scenario came from a one-shot adventure, amongst the smaller games she joined up with. There was a LOT of gaming going on at the time; I was involved in 7 campaigns amongst 6 nights a week. My brain went off-track and I was trying to cover too much info in too few words. I didn't think this would lead to multi-page hyperbolic extrapolation-fest.
Writing fail on my part.
|
Slightly off topic:
To date I've only had one racist incident playing D&D (or other p&p games): My Boston/Irish DM drunk dialed me on July 4th and left a message that included calling me "the N word" 17 times. I was confused because I'm not black, and I had no idea what he was mad about. I mention Boston/Irish because that was his rationilization for using language like that. It's "just how they talk up there".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly I'm amazed at how much has transpired here from my one little anecdotal example. Really, it didn't seem like that big of a deal at the time. The players in question had a reputation for attacking other players, and I was tired of it.
When the group was discussing characters before the game had even started, my wife simply said "I'd like to make a Drow. I really like Drow" and that's when they started going on and on about if she did, they'd kill her right from the get-go, no matter what campaign or who was DMing, nobody can ever play a drow if they play, and blah blah blah. That's when I simply spoke up and said(in a nutshell): "No. If you're going to pull that kind of crap, you can leave." They decided they'd rather stay and play, so the game went fine from there, evil antics aside.
As for "hating" the players, I'll confess to me hating that particular playstyle; treating the game like a competition, asserting dominance over other PC's, etc. I don't hate the players. Outside of the game, they are some of the coolest dudes around. But when it's game-time, it's like a switch flips in their heads, and they're out for blood. One player got so bad at one point, we had to stage an "intervention" , because he was purposely trainwrecking campaigns and killing other people's characters for fun.
So you strongarmed them in accepting a character they most definitely did not want to play with ?
Did you at least try to mediate and ask them why they did not want it, so that the party could reach a compromise comfortable for all involved ?
So that using GM's authority would be the last resort for truly stubborn players.
If not, I feel that your group is likely grounded in confrontation. In which case it is no surprise to me why "a switch flips in their heads" when it's game-time.
Frankly I'm amazed at how much has transpired here from my one little anecdotal example. Really, it didn't seem like that big of a deal at the time. The players in question had a reputation for attacking other players, and I was tired of it.
When the group was discussing characters before the game had even started, my wife simply said "I'd like to make a Drow. I really like Drow" and that's when they started going on and on about if she did, they'd kill her right from the get-go, no matter what campaign or who was DMing, nobody can ever play a drow if they play, and blah blah blah. That's when I simply spoke up and said(in a nutshell): "No. If you're going to pull that kind of crap, you can leave." They decided they'd rather stay and play, so the game went fine from there, evil antics aside.
As for "hating" the players, I'll confess to me hating that particular playstyle; treating the game like a competition, asserting dominance over other PC's, etc. I don't hate the players. Outside of the game, they are some of the coolest dudes around. But when it's game-time, it's like a switch flips in their heads, and they're out for blood. One player got so bad at one point, we had to stage an "intervention" , because he was purposely trainwrecking campaigns and killing other people's characters for fun.
So you strongarmed them in accepting a character they most definitely did not want to play with ?
Did you at least try to mediate and ask them why they did not want it, so that the party could reach a compromise comfortable for all involved ?
So that using GM's authority would be the last resort for truly stubborn players.
If not, I feel that your group is likely grounded in confrontation. In which case it is no surprise to me why "a switch flips in their heads" when it's game-time.
It wasn't a "excuse me DM, we are not comfortable with this character in the party. We wish for them to play something else."
It was literally "Aw man, I hate drow and if you make one I'm just gonna kill you as soon as we start playing. My old DM 10 years ago played drow bad so I'm gonna kill every drow I see in every game I play ever."
Is there a median for this? What discussion would you suggest? The players really were that bull-headed. For one of them, it's part of his personality. There was no room for discussion. there was simply "I'm gonna kill your character unless you make something I won't kill." So, I said that wasn't happening.
Completely removing the fact that she was my SO, would you rather I stayed out of it and let them bully all over the other player? How would you feel, if you wanted to make a character, had it ok'ed by the DM, just to have another player get up in your face and say they'd just kill it when the game started?
We played anyway, *GASP* there was a drow in the party, nobody wound up PvP'ing over it. Shocking, I know. I'm just happy one of the offending players at least gave my SO a heads up, he's killed several of my PC's in other games with no warning(which eventually led to the intervention mentioned above).
Am I really strong-arming the group for not letting two players gang up on another and dominate their choice of character?
EDIT: Also, for the Nth time, this was a one-shot game. One-nighter. Pamphlet-sized $4 module. Had it been a lengthy campaign, the entire situation may have played out differently.
But, that leads more into a discussion of "should a player be allowed to roll up what they want, or does the party get to dictate what you play?" That could be a thread in and of itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm well aware (and completely fine with) people who don't identify as any particular sex, or only partially identify with a gender, or identify with both. I didn't mean to suggest that all trans people choose this - I know a lot of them simply find this out, the same way someone can't choose or not choose to be left or right handed, and I do apologize if that was how the statement came across.
I was trying to state that I don't believe something as simple as biology creates your gender identity - you can, for lack of a better word, choose to identify as something other than your psychical body or genetics might suggest, although I do understand it's not really a choice at all for many. I can also understand why other parents might be uncomfortable, although on consideration I definitely disagree - you really shouldn't be seeing anyone else's genitals in the bathroom anyway, and the child in question had been identifying as a girl for years.
Trans people are having a lot of problems, in a lot of places. A lot of pro-gay bills and laws do not include them, and it sucks royally.
I tend to think that "it's what my character would do" used to justify deadly force against another PC as a first resort is poor behavior very nearly universally. In fact outside a dedicated PVP game I am hard put to imagine a situation in which it is not.
I tend to think that "it's what my character would do" used to justify deadly force against another PC as a first resort is poor behavior very nearly universally. In fact outside a dedicated PVP game I am hard put to imagine a situation in which it is not.
Exactly Coriat.
Using PvP to bully a newbie is even worse.The OP did the right thing in stopping it dead in it's tracks. This is the sign of a good GM.
I bothers me deeply that there are a few who think such problem behavior is right.
I bothers me deeply that there are a few who think such problem behavior is right.
Ironic really.
I tend to think that "it's what my character would do" used to justify deadly force against another PC as a first resort is poor behavior very nearly universally. In fact outside a dedicated PVP game I am hard put to imagine a situation in which it is not.Exactly Coriat.
Using PvP to bully a newbie is even worse.
The OP did the right thing in stopping it dead in it's tracks. This is the sign of a good GM.I bothers me deeply that there are a few who think such problem behavior is right.
I think its a lot of misunderstandings. Personally, I take any story about a GM's girlfriend with a grain of salt. Too many bad experiences. I do however disapprove of PVP in most situations, and usually support trying to avoid problems.
I do however disapprove of PVP in most situations, and usually support trying to avoid problems.
I assume that this probably takes the form of knowing that a discussion with your players is in order, and rather than just force them to accept whims and fancies you hear out their concerns and avoid strong arming them. See that's all that is being asked for.
These other GM's who call it bullying when players argue against being forced to accept things they truly don't want whilst at the same time threatening the players with expulsion or a range of punitive actions just make for fodder in Bad GM threads.
|
I do however disapprove of PVP in most situations, and usually support trying to avoid problems.I assume that this probably takes the form of knowing that a discussion with your players is in order, and rather than just force them to accept whims and fancies you hear out their concerns and avoid strong arming them. See that's all that is being asked for.
These other GM's who call it bullying when players argue against being forced to accept things they truly don't want whilst at the same time threatening the players with expulsion or a range of punitive actions just make for fodder in Bad GM threads.
They are not forced. It has been a long standing rule at my table (nearly 10 years) that there will be no PvP*. A player can either accept that, or find another game. I am not forcing them to accept it, I am giving them a choice.
*Unless outstanding circumstances like awesomeness of a scene or a story element are involved (like if one of the PCs has a huge conflict of interest and another is trying to stop him from doing something very very bad and they both look at me with sparkly eyes and say "dude, this will be awesome, let us fight!". Something along the lines of "YOU WERE A BROTHER TO ME!!!"
Or if the PC is dominated. But that is a whole other beast.
Do you balance that with discussing and collaborating ways to deal with problematic issues that are causing them concern? Are they allowed to object to things BEFORE play starts?
Or do they just get what they are given and aren't welcome to raise issues?
Because that is what is being asked for.
I suppose this is why I like PFS, they have a clear and consistent platform with all the 'meta' given a vehicle to back it up - the setting is well documented, the available choices well established.