|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One quick reminder on why rape is such a trigger issue for so many: While murder, slavery, and all sorts of badness are very common in RPG Land and exist in real life, most people playing the game haven't had them touch their lives directly. Sexual violence of any sort is another story, and it is far less of a rare thing for people to be so uncomfortable over that it destroys any enjoyment they could derive from the game, rending playing the game pointless.
That's the thing about trigger issues. Some things are either impossible or, and this really needs to be stressed more often, impractical to just "get over".
Personally, rape is not an integral part of the game or setting for me. Having it pushed as if it were would not make for a better game IMO. Certainly not one I want to run or play.
I'm in the camp that believes the GM should keep an eye on issues like that, for the good of their group. If I know one of my players is pregnant or has had some difficult history because of pregnancy, I'm not going to be comfortable running any full-blown Lamashtu plotlines. On the flipside, I'd hold players accountable for crossing certain lines as well. It basically boils down to having some basic empathy for everyone else at the table.
You can deal with difficult and dark subject matter just fine, but it needs to be done with a modicum of tact.* And it absolutely needs to be done after ensuring that all of the players, including the GM, is comfortable with it.
*So no Lamashtan priestessses launching 1d4 baby monsters like projectiles every round.
I agree that sexuality in general in one that our society tends to treat with a bit more caution than others, and DMs need to be aware of that if they want to explore any of it's facets, but players need to understand that different cultures have had very different views on many of those subjects, and to completely ignore those differences risks white washing the cultures as a whole, which is just as problematic.
Again, you think it has to be directly used if it's present. Far more often when it comes to the darker elements, it the THREAT of them that is the story, not their actual use.Oh. Well. It's only the threat of rape. That's not objectionable at all!
No threat, no conflict, no story. It doesn't always have to be the same threat, and the level of threat can vary, but there does need to be something at stake, and sometimes, not always, but sometimes, one's personal body is what is being threatened. It's one that needs to be handled delicately, but saying it should never, ever be suggested is just as problematic.
Right on!
So when it happens feel free to express moral outrage and go on a lynching. IN game.
In the real world, rape existing is the responsibility of rapists (and the people who perpetuate a culture that encourages and enables rape but that's another story). So I hold those people responsible.
In a fantasy game, rape existing is the responsibility of the GM (or a particularly demented player, I guess). The GM's going to have to be responsible for that. You want I should lynch him? I was only suggesting speaking sternly with him.
See the GM's job is to be the storytelling representative of those bad guys and therefore SHE (why do you say HIM all the time, why must a GM be male, thats stereotyping) *might* be required to portray them IN GAME. SHE may have other nasty things that are contextually appropriate to also portray,including, but not limited to, rape, murder, cheating at a math exam or a person who doesn't like rainbows or unicorns. Because not every Pirate the players will come across is actually a nice guy with a heart of gold who fell astray only to be vanquished by a party dressed in a rainbow of colours wielding magic feather swords with Dorothy the Dinosaur the Animal Comapni.... sorry I went on a tangent there.
Well yes the players might get offended IN GAME, and lynch that GM's character IN GAME.
Context and abstract, protecting the sensitive since the dawn of communication.
You are completely incapable of imagining dark fantasy that doesn't include the threat of rape? Honestly?
But youd not bat an eyelid at eating babies?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
sunshadow21, I see where you'e coming from: the background of historical fiction. Let me recast the issue.
When I was in college, I was part of a D&D group in which a player tied to kill the DM. Not a PC and an NPC; one of the players, armed with a sharpened piece of broken fencing equipment, attacked the GM and was going to slit his throat. She did this because he'd put the female PCs in a position (drugged and kidnapped by a prostitution ring) which she personally couldn't handle. Another player, with a minimal amount of psychiatric training, talked her down, and she went away for a while.
Nobody had much fun that evening.
Now, let's rewrite that situation, giving her a little more self-control. Whacked upside the head with a situation that panicked her, she still wouldn't be having fun. And, I would suggest, the DM should have realized that he was introducing material that somebody might find to be really not-fun.
And that's because, while prostitution slave rings are common in history, and on Gor, and maybe in Greyhawk, reading about them doesn't have the same in-your-face presence as having your game-self attacked by "white slavers". Reading statistics about rape in the Roman Empire isn't the same thing as having an ogre rape your PC. You get the point.
But rape isn't an essential part of fantasy fiction, dark fantasy, fantasy RPGs, Pathfinder, or any combination of the same.
It is not an 'essential part', the game could go on for years without encountering it, however it is as equally valid a part as any other aspect.
A Pirate Ship isn't an essential part either, but they might appear (or might not) during the carriage of your campaign.
I just supect that by outing it as 'not essential' you appear to be actually outing it as 'essentially taboo', which I don't accept for a moment. If it is contextually appropriate then it may manifest (in the abstract) in story. If it wasn't contextually appropriate, or it was handled in a direct and graphic (gratuitous manner) I would then have to wonder what was going on.
That said, I have come across two GM's in my time where, mysteriously, every session seemed to somehow end up in Unkle Creepys Rape Dungeon with graphic and vivid descriptions clealry aimed at titilating (somebody?) and frankly those GM's were dropped quickly as a matter of taste. If those guys wanted to get together and compare smutty fantasy work then they can fill their boots.
The point I make is that I don't think simply editing out the bits we don't like does anyone any favours. Context is everything.
How long are you going pretend that there's some slippery slope leading to "Well, if sexual violence is taboo, all sorts of other things will be taken away from us, too"? There isn't, if only because of the legions of RPG nerds who think misogyny and rape culture aren't things that exist to make sure.
I don't think that at all.
I just don't accept that subjects should be withdrawn arbitrarily on the grounds that someone might find something offensive.
In the abstract, all subjects are valid.
Remember how repulsive you thought Uncle Creepy's Rape Dungeon was?
What was repulsive was the gratuitous and titilative graphic descriptions that went with it. There is an ENORMOUS difference between saying to the party that they have found the lair of the BBEG and letting the players form the realisation through implication, and making the conection for them by a long and graphic explanation full of salacious detail.
I am concerned that you see things as so black and white, either extremely graphic or totally absent, and I see your continual reference to 'Rape Culture' as an idicator of where your views lie. I would also suggest to you that when rape occurs in an RPG setting it is almost universally seen as a BAD THING that the BAD GUY is doing, and the players are (rightly) seeking to prevent and punish. That is a curious behaviour if the suggestion is that they are 'enabling' rape.
So in closure I think (abstractedly) all topics are valid, its extremism that I find distateful.
Unkle Creepy would still be creepy of he wasn't raping people but instead giving us a treatise three hours long involving captives being entertained with scalpels and broken glass until being turned into human spaghetti.
We can shoose what we include or not, what I don't accept is that we should be forced or cajoled into those choices, which is what you seem to be advocating (apologies if I am wrong)
One quick reminder on why rape is such a trigger issue for so many: While murder, slavery, and all sorts of badness are very common in RPG Land and exist in real life, most people playing the game haven't had them touch their lives directly. Sexual violence of any sort is another story, and it is far less of a rare thing for people to be so uncomfortable over that it destroys any enjoyment they could derive from the game, rending playing the game pointless.
That's the thing about trigger issues. Some things are either impossible or, and this really needs to be stressed more often, impractical to just "get over".
Personally, rape is not an integral part of the game or setting for me. Having it pushed as if it were would not make for a better game IMO. Certainly not one I want to run or play.
I'm in the camp that believes the GM should keep an eye on issues like that, for the good of their group. If I know one of my players is pregnant or has had some difficult history because of pregnancy, I'm not going to be comfortable running any full-blown Lamashtu plotlines. On the flipside, I'd hold players accountable for crossing certain lines as well. It basically boils down to having some basic empathy for everyone else at the table.
You can deal with difficult and dark subject matter just fine, but it needs to be done with a modicum of tact.* And it absolutely needs to be done after ensuring that all of the players, including the GM, is comfortable with it.
*So no Lamashtan priestessses launching 1d4 baby monsters like projectiles every round.
Quoting because...
People always seem to forget the trigger issues that come with rape.
You know, people you are familiar with might be victims?
They'd probably not tell you or anyone else they are ones for a multitude of reasons, and you bringing it up at the table as if it was nothing would probably brighten up said person's day "oh so much", that I am sure of. I hope you guys see what me and Mikaze are getting at instead of going for the "durr hurr people wanna ban one thing so now I'll whine about the possiblity of all things being banned so I look smarter" argument which is stupid as hell.
In other words, wanting some themes in your game is one thing, but risking damage to the friends you play with might not be worth it in the end.
( Had to bold the most important bits for you all )
I am across 'Rape Culture', I just disagree.
I have also agreed wth you that no one HAS to have rape in their game, and I don't think ANYONE ANYWHERE is advocating a quota "Sorry session isn't over yet guys, we forgot the mandatory rape scene, can't do XP and loot til thats resolved".
You seem to have this mindset about 'excluding people', well then many peopleat my table have been victims of violence, yet we play a violent game. The onus is on the individual to let the GM know if they have any mores or taboos, not on the GM to try filter everything to the point of beige.
On the other hand we have had two rape survivors (they dont identify as victims) game at our various tables, and neither identified that with what was happening in an abstracted story.
I agree with you that it is always a good idea to be clear with your players where the no go areas might dwell, and adjust from there, I just get the feeling that you guys are looking to edit out subjects arbitrarily IN CASE someone gets offended/upset.
On the same note, I was disappointed and saddened when this mindset saw the withdrawal of Demons/Devils etc from 2nd Ed. I hadn't ever actually included them in a game, yet it was what the withdrawal represented that I took umbrage to.
Edit out what you want, just don't censure others for not making the same storytelling choices you do. Don't confuse your efforts trying not to be 'exculsionary' as being 'inclusive'.
The idea for a main bad guy who is a literal mother of monsters.
Either a witch or an Alchemist who a can breed monsters the "Normal" way but gets the best results and loyalties by dosing herself with with potions and mutagens and using herself as cauldron. She then uses the "children" to get what she wants.
Considering what's been going on in the internet of late. My question how likely is it someone or some of you would find the idea offensive?
This reminds me of the movie The Brood.
(or am I recalling incorrectly?)
No my Black Friend doesn't speak for all members of a group, and similarly neither do you. Speaking out on behalf of people who can speak for themselves is kinda patronising.
Editing things 'on behalf of others' whether they are worried/interested or not is patronising them, not being considerate of them.
Sunshadow (to me) seemed to be suggesting that rape as a subject is not out of place in dark fantasy, not that it should be a mandatory part of it; that the subject is valid and 'on the table', not that it should thus always be used. I see a big difference there.
I guess you have a pretty entrenched view about the topic, and therefore we will never really be participating in a debate but rather an exchange of views that won't shift either person. I respect that for you the topic is emotive, and thus if we were ever at a table together I'd be mindful of editing out such references - I wouldn't contemplate this as default behaviour though. I respect your opinions and preferences, I just don't envision myself adopting them.
Well, I have never had a problem with needing to "arbitrarily" edit out rape from a game because I've never had an idea for a game that was predicated on rape, for the same reason I've never felt the need to "arbitrarily" edit out automobiles from my fantasy RPG sessions. They're both out-of-place and inappropriate.
I wouldn't say that it's out of place, as there are certainly bad people in all settings, but I agree that it's inappropriate to focus on it just because it's probably going to make everyone uncomfortable and if it doesn't you're probably in the type of group you regret being in. Still there's no reason I guess you couldn't handle it, but by making it subtle and not "lol roll graple to resist".
Are you somehow under the impression that I think rape is A-OK subject matter for a fantasy RPG that I am participating in?
I can't see any single line of text in either my posts or yours to draw this conclusion, nor do I see how you could even posit this as a question.
Following on the second part, you are indeed speaking on behalf of others - you have continually brought in examples of how it might offend others. Had you just said it offended 'you' then that would be a different matter entirely.
I guess you have a pretty entrenched view about the topic, and therefore we will never really be participating in a debate but rather an exchange of views that won't shift either person.
You're at least half right. Understand that my goal is not to convince you, but to show your arguments up to be hilarious nonsense---
I understand why you're arguing this, though. It's about freedom! After all, you gotta fight
*beat beat*
for your right
*beat*
to raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaape!
I have to say I find this particular ending pretty tacky and lacking class. I am a bit disgusted you just used rape as a form of joking entertainment, even in a failed attempt to be ironic.
Dunno, I always kinda liked that part of RPGs when you get to bulldoze rapists/murderers/slavers/rapist murderer slavers into ground instead of having to endure the inefficiency of authorities handling them IRL.
You know, it's that "acting act your fantasy part". You get to have a kick from swinging big sword at bad guys, remember? Bad guys ain't bad guys just because they run around at night shouting "ooga booga" and torching an empty barn once per month.
Sigh. And again I agree with Gorbacz.
Don't like rapists? Don't like torturers and kidnappers? Kill ALL the rapists, burn down all the thieves guilds, smash the kidnapping rings, torture the torturers (why else did you take those fire spells miss?). Purge the evil, right wrongs, hang em outside of town at a crossroads so that all their little evil friends know that death is coming.
Homicidal ogres causing problems? Clan is beyond any sense of common decency. Genocide them. Axes and bolts and fire. Then found a new village where people are safe, protected and happy.
D&D is so empowering, it has so much potential to make us happy and pleased with the outcomes. Yet what do I see? People worried about offending others and bringing up their past. The poor people who chose to sit down might feel some pain, their psyches might be seriously damaged. As if? Or, they could feel fantastic critting the lowest forms of life, wipe out what they truly hate and fear and feel damn good about themselves the next day. Empowerment.
If we worry too much about negative consequences of gaming, we miss out on the positive outcomes that easily come from gaming.
No threat, no conflict, no story. It doesn't always have to be the same threat, and the level of threat can vary, but there does need to be something at stake, and sometimes, not always, but sometimes, one's personal body is what is being threatened. It's one that needs to be handled delicately, but saying it should never, ever be suggested is just as problematic.You are completely incapable of imagining dark fantasy that doesn't include the threat of rape? Honestly?
Also, you know that whole "violence" bit? That everyone is cool with? There's your threat to one's personal body. You can get decades of roleplaying fun out of that without ever once needing to mention or even hint at rape.
Guess how I know!
I never said I would be likely to use it, because I don't understand enough about that subject to be willing to approach it as more than an indirect tangent of something else going on in the world. But I find it equally problematic to say that it could never happen. I completely remove that because one person doesn't like it, than the next player complains when I don't remove the element he doesn't like, and so on, and it's a dangerous path to go down that ends with no stories to tell.
I would not be personally inclined to ever make sexuality a prominent feature in any of my campaigns, but I have known DMs in the past who are perfectly capable of handling such matters without interrupting the campaign. Not that they necessarily would, unless of course the story suggested that to be a proper story for the circumstances, just that they could if it came up, and the understanding that everyone gained from having a proper dialogue would help make it so that if the subject ever came up again, it would be less of a minefield, making it easier to have an even better dialogue, and so on.
Completely avoiding controversy just because it's a "game" completely misses the value that tackling that controversy in a game setting that does not directly hurt real people can have on the greater discussion of it. It's not something that everyone can do, as it does require a fair bit of tolerance, patience, and maturity to be able to fully and effectively process, but it can help if done right and at the right time.
I wouldn't say that it's out of place, as there are certainly bad people in all settings, but I agree that it's inappropriate to focus on it just because it's probably going to make everyone uncomfortable and if it doesn't you're probably in the type of group you regret being in. Still there's no reason I guess you couldn't handle it, but by making it subtle and not "lol roll graple to resist".
Doing anything for the sake of make other people uncomfortable means that I'm not playing with that DM for very long, and most likely very few other people will either. But dark subjects do have a place, and if handled properly by all involved, need not offend anyone. If someone is going to get offended at the mere mention of the subject, that's a personal problem they need to sort out for themselves; pinning that on the DM or the group is unfair to all involved, including the one getting offended. Ideally, if there is a problem, than the discussion can help whoever has the difficulty have less difficulty in the future because it's not all bottled up anymore.
Well, we have sunshadow arguing that you can't have dark fantasy without rape somewhere.
You can't have dark fantasy without the dark, and if you're just a player, you don't have full control over which dark is used and which dark isn't. Some people view even talking about demons and devils unacceptable; others are perfectly willing to accept them if they are clearly the bad guys; still others are willing to let them not be entirely hated upon provided that there is a greater evil to face. Rape and sexuality in general, while a bit more clearly stratified these days, is similar. Some don't want to talk about it at all, others are perfectly willing to take it all the way under specific circumstances. Most are somewhere in the middle and people who prefer either extreme have to understand this. Avoiding the subject entirely over the course of twenty levels is nigh impossible unless the DM white washes a lot of scenes; this doesn't mean that it ever has to be the focus, just that it will come up at least tangentially once or twice in that time period.
If you want the final veto power over content, be a DM; otherwise, understand that different people draw the line at different places, and you may need to be ready to stretch your own. Now, if it's clear the DM is doing it just to be annoying, that's something else entirely, but if it fits the story, and you know it's coming, the decision is on you as to how you handle it. Getting offended when there is no offense meant helps no one.
EDIT: Note that this goes for all dark material, not just rape, not just sexuality, but all dark material. Same goes for all of my previous posts up to this point. Rape may be one of the bigger and more common ones, but same goes for all of it. If you really feel that strongly about a specific subject that crosses into the darker aspects, be prepared to take full control as DM or avoid such games entirely. I personally hate drow, and hell will likely freeze over before they show up in any of my campaigns; I still have to respect the right of other DMs to use them. Same principle applies to all of the potential themes that could show up in a game, no matter how small a chance there is of them doing so. They still have to do it well, but they have the right to at least try.
One quick reminder on why rape is such a trigger issue for so many: While murder, slavery, and all sorts of badness are very common in RPG Land and exist in real life, most people playing the game haven't had them touch their lives directly. Sexual violence of any sort is another story, and it is far less of a rare thing for people to be so uncomfortable over that it destroys any enjoyment they could derive from the game, rending playing the game pointless.
That's the thing about trigger issues. Some things are either impossible or, and this really needs to be stressed more often, impractical to just "get over".
Personally, rape is not an integral part of the game or setting for me. Having it pushed as if it were would not make for a better game IMO. Certainly not one I want to run or play.
I'm in the camp that believes the GM should keep an eye on issues like that, for the good of their group. If I know one of my players is pregnant or has had some difficult history because of pregnancy, I'm not going to be comfortable running any full-blown Lamashtu plotlines. On the flipside, I'd hold players accountable for crossing certain lines as well. It basically boils down to having some basic empathy for everyone else at the table.
You can deal with difficult and dark subject matter just fine, but it needs to be done with a modicum of tact.* And it absolutely needs to be done after ensuring that all of the players, including the GM, is comfortable with it.
Quoting because...
People always seem to forget the trigger issues that come with rape.
You know, people you are familiar with might be victims?
They'd probably not tell you or anyone else they are ones for a multitude of reasons, and you bringing it up at the table as if it was nothing would probably brighten up said person's day "oh so much", that I am sure of. I hope...
Everyone seems to be completely ignoring both of these posts, So I am quoting them again.
No one is arguing that people should never have sexual violence in their game. No one is arguing that a game can be dark. But sexual violence isn't necessary to run a game, and it's certainly a topic that is difficult to handle in a game with tact and especially since a fairly large and silent number of people have experienced it or no someone who has.
That's a huge difference from other forms of Pathfinder darkness. I hazard that soul-eating, demonic sacrifice, baby-eating, zombification, having your village razed by orcs, cannibalism, eaten by swarm of bugs, etc are probably not going to to get many complaints because the average person has never dealt with those problems. But I large number of people have been sexually abused and raped. I don't have the game experience other people have, but I can definitely say I never have had or felt it was necessary for a DM to threaten my character with rape.
Yet even more of the people at your table have been (at some stage) victims of violence, and some of it quite nasty.
Just because it is bad and some people might not like it doesn't make it taboo and never able to be spoken of again.
If it DOES bother a player then its on them to either speak up (quiet word with the GM), or alternately choose a different activity, or a whole range of other options.
I actually find rapist players more distirbing than an evil villian. Also I have had two at the table together. I espicially don't want to hear the drow like getting raped that was from the dm mom at the time.
You can't have dark fantasy without the dark, and if you're just a player, you don't have full control over which dark is used and which dark isn't.Yes you totally do! In fact, if a GM brings up rape, you can say, "Hey, stop doing that." Then, if the GM feels the need to insist, say "Well, enjoy playing with yourself!" and leave. That is full control! Forcing the player (who is, presumably, your friend) to the nuclear option doesn't give you any more control, it just makes you an a@$*$&& with one less friend.
The only reason that there's rape in the game at all is because someone in the game put it there, and they could have just decided to not put it there. Roleplaying is not a magical window to an alternate reality that nobody in the game can control; things only happen in a game because someone made the conscious decision to have them happen!
Avoiding the subject entirely over the course of twenty levels is nigh impossible unless the DM white washes a lot of scenes; this doesn't mean that it ever has to be the focus, just that it will come up at least tangentially once or twice in that time period.I have roleplayed on and off for nearly 20 years without ever needing to bring up rape in-character. Nobody has ever complained to me of whitewashing.
Also, what's wrong with whitewashing? Institutional discrimination against women and pedophilia and bestiality all exist; is it whitewashing to not include them? Cars and toothbrushes and integrated circuits all exist; is it whitewashing to not include them? Creating fiction of any sort requires deciding to include or exclude certain elements. Why would you choose to include rape when you know for a fact it's going to offend a player? Is your need to include rape so important that you'd risk a friendship or risk your game over it?
Rape is in my world, but it isn't as common as apples. I put it another way, if a char dies after much torture, I will simply say, you are captured, you die horribly. I'll let my eyes and voice emphasise it was a bad death. Won't go too much into the details.
Now what the bad guys do, yep the info is out there. They can also talk to the real sickos if they want. A player talked to a serial killer fey the other week. I am a neutral force, I can play saints and sinners, and I'm not taking the real darkness out because of some offence.
To wu, I had one char that went the rape option. Once. Truly a horrible chap, Brutus the master grappler. He once caught a female assassin that was trying to kill him, it didn't go well. She stabbed him with a poison dagger, he passed his save, laughed and grappled. The good news about this, is that the party ranger executed me in the street later with holy arrows (I was CE and playing it). I tried the reason it out option, got demolished. Very funny. If one is playing a rapist pc, and the others dont like it, just kill them. They are heroes that fight evil after all. It was a shame it wasn't a fair fight, it was an assassination, but I wasn't that bitter about it.
"Just because it is bad and some people might not like it doesn't make it taboo and never able to be spoken of again."
Yep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To wu, I had one char that went the rape option. Once. Truly a horrible chap, Brutus the master grappler.Holy s#+@, dude. You aren't embarrassed about this? You feel the need to announce, hey, I played a rapist, ain't no thing.
Wow, dude. Wow.
Aren't you overreacting? It's not like he was there with the character raping someone. He played (in a game, using words) a CE character. The end.
|
|
To wu, I had one char that went the rape option. Once. Truly a horrible chap, Brutus the master grappler. He once caught a female assassin that was trying to kill him, it didn't go well. She stabbed him with a poison dagger, he passed his save, laughed and grappled. The good news about this, is that the party ranger executed me in the street later with holy arrows (I was CE and playing it). I tried the reason it out option, got demolished. Very funny. If one is playing a rapist pc, and the others dont like it, just kill them. They are heroes that fight evil after all. It was a shame it wasn't a fair fight, it was an assassination, but I wasn't that bitter about it.
As a player, I would never create a character that would commit rape.
As a GM, I might occassionally touch on the subject, but I would damn sure never have any NPCs attempt to rape a PC, or even have them come upon a rape-in-progress.
Goofus and Gallant
|
I think I've just been called Gallant. It's rather unnerving. I feel like I should do something evil to erase the taint of goodness.
* Goes to animal shelter, adopts a wagon-full of puppies, and kicks them all. Then turns them back into animal shelter with the excuse "They're defective." *
Besides, when I feel the need to have a rape RPG, I play FATAL! FATAL, the most highly realistic and historically accurate rape simulator in tabletop RPG gaming!
disclaimer: Playing FATAL may cause an intense desire to pour industrial strength bleach directly onto your brain for a prolonged period.
I think I've just been called Gallant. It's rather unnerving. I feel like I should do something evil to erase the taint of goodness.
Ah, but gallant need not mean good.
In fact, villains with style are quite... appreciated.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading AMiB's posts kind of reminds me of all those Usenet convos about Vampre: the Masquerade in the early 90's, where D&D traditionalists vented their nerdrage over people being even remotely interested in playing "bloodsucking rapist vampire monsters" and wondered if folks who picked V:tM shouldn't be institutionalized right away or shot on sight or locked up in some cold basement.
1991 seems just like yesterday!
Reading AMiB's posts kind of reminds me of all those Usenet convos about Vampre: the Masquerade in the early 90's, where D&D traditionalists vented their nerdrage over people being even remotely interested in playing "bloodsucking rapist vampire monsters" and wondered if folks who picked V:tM shouldn't be institutionalized right away or shot on sight or locked up in some cold basement.
1991 seems just like yesterday!
I know a guy in his 40s thats like that. Apparently he's been playing DnD since the good old days (still plays 1e, but 2e mostly) and goes on and on about WoD if you let him. You'd think someone that had to hear over and over about how their hobby was the devil's work would be more open minded instead of just doing the exact same thing that was done to him to someone else.
Yet even more of the people at your table have been (at some stage) victims of violence, and some of it quite nasty.
Just because it is bad and some people might not like it doesn't make it taboo and never able to be spoken of again.
If it DOES bother a player then its on them to either speak up (quiet word with the GM), or alternately choose a different activity, or a whole range of other options.
You seem to assume common violence always leaves the same amount of mental scars as being raped does, and that is rather sad.
Reading AMiB's posts kind of reminds me of all those Usenet convos about Vampre: the Masquerade in the early 90's, where D&D traditionalists vented their nerdrage over people being even remotely interested in playing "bloodsucking rapist vampire monsters" and wondered if folks who picked V:tM shouldn't be institutionalized right away or shot on sight or locked up in some cold basement.
For optimum results, let those guys have a look at a 'Black Dog' supplement for WoD.
You seem to assume common violence always leaves the same amount of mental scars as being raped does, and that is rather sad.
The sheer amount of combat and the shocking amount of brutality that goes with hacking someone to death or blowing them up isn't really what you could consider "common violence", and it does leave mental scars with PTSD being an example.
You seem to assume common violence always leaves the same amount of mental scars as being raped does, and that is rather sad.The sheer amount of combat and the shocking amount of brutality that goes with hacking someone to death or blowing them up isn't really what you could consider "common violence", and it does leave mental scars with PTSD being an example.
Different scale.
"Yet even more of the people at your table have been (at some stage) victims of violence, and some of it quite nasty."
Base assumption is mugging and such, not battlefield level of brutality. Unless you live in Israel and happen to be near the Gaza area and whatnot...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's OK folks, some people get a kick from acting out a world where rape doesn't exist, women are treated fairly everywhere and Equestria is a thing, some prefer a world where they get to kick the seven shades out of a sex slave trafficking hobgoblin gang, and some prefer to play members of said gang. It's all different shades of our hobby.
Problems begin when one group tries to tell the others that They're Doing It Wrong.
Problems begin when one group tries to tell the others that They're Doing It Wrong.
*laughs* Which is why, in my first reply to the OP I stated 'Ask. Your. Players.'
It's OK folks, some people get a kick from acting out a world where rape doesn't exist, women are treated fairly everywhere and Equestria is a thing, some prefer a world where they get to kick the seven shades out of a sex slave trafficking hobgoblin gang, and some prefer to play members of said gang. It's all different shades of our hobby.
Problems begin when one group tries to tell the others that They're Doing It Wrong.
I like kicking the seven shades out of a sex slave trafficking hobgoblin gang myself, but I do NOT need to be told in graphic detail of their pastimes to cement said hatred and possibly damage my psyche, or that of anyone else at the table, because our intention was TO HAVE FUN. Also, advocating the whole "there are only two sides in this" thing only makes the arguing worse, since there are people who'd like to have at least some middle ground instead of leaning to one extreme or the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problems begin when one group tries to tell the others that They're Doing It Wrong.
But how will they know they suck if I don't tell them? I don't understand...