Would you feel violated?


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I hate to be "that guy", but either some detail was omitted or I'd say you are being too sensitive. It might be my poor knowledge of the English language, but I'd also say "violated" would be too strong as a word for such a situation.

Peace


To a lesser or greater extent, we care about our characters. Now they might die of a pit trap, a spell or be taken out by a monster, but being forced/seduced into in-game sex with no player control and a creepy dm presiding, that violates a character, damages the game and the player's interest in that character.

Death is just a res or raise away from being defeated, but this is a bit more serious, as the many posters have agreed. Unfortunately it is a recurring problem across games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have come to a conclusion.

He and I will still hang out. I am still friends with his girlfriend and I can't avoid him otherwise without giving up most my hobbies, I can't just not be around him.

He is nice when he's not given a position of power. So basically, we just can't GM for each other.


Nepherti wrote:

I have come to a conclusion.

He and I will still hang out. I am still friends with his girlfriend and I can't avoid him otherwise without giving up most my hobbies, I can't just not be around him.

He is nice when he's not given a position of power. So basically, we just can't GM for each other.

I'm glad that a non kneecap based solution was found. He may indeed be sociopathic if he exudes the superficial friendliness and over the top charm, but lacks empath . If so, he needs heavy counseling. Axis 2 stuff (if I'm right... Does sociopaty sshow up there? I think it does.) is no fun. He will need serious boundaries set, but that's going into anotherttopi .

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, WoD is another matter, and the seduction system was originally set up for vampires to feed off of NPCs. I know that system quite well--or at least previous iterations, as I've written a lot for MAGE--and I'll say that you really need to apply common sense. Some people aren't going to be seduced by anything short of a two year courtship and a marriage proposal. If you need to seduce someone in ten minutes or less, you need to look for an easier nut to crack.

The Exchange

It is WoD after all, he might have taken it for granted that bad things usually DO happen to characters in those games. it is personal horror because as the books describe it you should be a little uncomfortable and in every game there are systems in place to make your character suffer

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
It is WoD after all, he might have taken it for granted that bad things usually DO happen to characters in those games. it is personal horror because as the books describe it you should be a little uncomfortable and in every game there are systems in place to make your character suffer

The "personal horror" of WoD is, for example, to play out being a human facing the fact that he has now been transformed into a soulless bloodsucking monster, or is actually a part-beast killing machine.

It is not to have to deal with a GM who misinterprets rules and his power as GM to engage in power/control fantasies and be emotionally abusive to his or her players and their PCs. This is the situation here. NO game system permits that or makes that okay. Okay, maybe FATAL.

Look at what you did. You made me mention FATAL.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is, honestly, a thread where it is only slightly over the top to bring FATAL into the conversation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What a social neanderthal! That's a really strange way to treat an invited guest at your roleplaying table... Sheesh!!

Ultradan

Sovereign Court

No, a neanderthal would just kill you and loot your stuff...

they were not very subtle, after all.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the best advice is to remove yourself as much a possible from associating with him. Don't depend on him for anything, and don't let yourself get wrapped up in whatever's going on with him. Limited aquaintance might not be too harmful if you're aware and careful of protecting yourself from him. Anything more, and it sounds like you're opening yourself up for a world of hurt.

The Exchange

DeathQuaker wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It is WoD after all, he might have taken it for granted that bad things usually DO happen to characters in those games. it is personal horror because as the books describe it you should be a little uncomfortable and in every game there are systems in place to make your character suffer

The "personal horror" of WoD is, for example, to play out being a human facing the fact that he has now been transformed into a soulless bloodsucking monster, or is actually a part-beast killing machine.

It is not to have to deal with a GM who misinterprets rules and his power as GM to engage in power/control fantasies and be emotionally abusive to his or her players and their PCs. This is the situation here. NO game system permits that or makes that okay. Okay, maybe FATAL.

Look at what you did. You made me mention FATAL.

no doubt the GM here was probably being a jerk but loss of control is a major theme in those games. Primal fears and passions, powers out of control, manipulation by others. Most of the characters in those games have built in mechanics to cause loss of player control, typically with terrible consequence for the pc

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It is WoD after all, he might have taken it for granted that bad things usually DO happen to characters in those games. it is personal horror because as the books describe it you should be a little uncomfortable and in every game there are systems in place to make your character suffer

The "personal horror" of WoD is, for example, to play out being a human facing the fact that he has now been transformed into a soulless bloodsucking monster, or is actually a part-beast killing machine.

It is not to have to deal with a GM who misinterprets rules and his power as GM to engage in power/control fantasies and be emotionally abusive to his or her players and their PCs. This is the situation here. NO game system permits that or makes that okay. Okay, maybe FATAL.

Look at what you did. You made me mention FATAL.

no doubt the GM here was probably being a jerk but loss of control is a major theme in those games. Primal fears and passions, powers out of control, manipulation by others. Most of the characters in those games have built in mechanics to cause loss of player control, typically with terrible consequence for the pc

I have played the games you are talking about, and what you're saying is not the case. This is not about failing a Humanity check. This is about a GM manipulating rules that were not actually meant to be used in that way. I'm fairly certain if a White Wolf designer were to show up here they would agree with me.

The fact is, the system here is irrelevant. The GM overstepped a major social boundary no game system gives you the power to do. If I have to explain it to you further, then I don't think you'll get it--and frankly, I hope to god I will never end up at the same table as you.


Whaaaaat? You actually PLAYED F.A.T.A.L.??? Get away from me! :-)

I would say that failed humanity checks and such are a known and accepted exception in the WW games, from what is otherwise a pretty basic underpinning of our hobby. What makes those exceptions acceptable is that while they do remove agency... They also remove responsibility. So, no, don't do this unless you have a very good reason in game for it. This doesn't seem to be it.

The Exchange

DeathQuaker wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It is WoD after all, he might have taken it for granted that bad things usually DO happen to characters in those games. it is personal horror because as the books describe it you should be a little uncomfortable and in every game there are systems in place to make your character suffer

The "personal horror" of WoD is, for example, to play out being a human facing the fact that he has now been transformed into a soulless bloodsucking monster, or is actually a part-beast killing machine.

It is not to have to deal with a GM who misinterprets rules and his power as GM to engage in power/control fantasies and be emotionally abusive to his or her players and their PCs. This is the situation here. NO game system permits that or makes that okay. Okay, maybe FATAL.

Look at what you did. You made me mention FATAL.

Well, no kind of game should ever have "being emotionally abusive" to anyone as part of it's stated goals. The GM in this situation WAS being a big time jerk, of course. Even without getting questions of sex (or even rape) involved, insisting on doing something when a player is saying out loud and clear, "I am uncomfortable with this" is being a jerk. Let's forget the pretension of power a GM has over a player while a game is going on - you are a human being, another human being (presumably a friend) is telling you you are making him feel uneasy, and you don't care. That's bad.

I am GMing Curse of the Crimson Throne, and I have a female player playing a female character. As she walked into a less savoury part of Old Korvosa by herself, I had some dockworkers harass her, to play up that she is walking in a REALLY bad part of town, and part of the harassment was sexaul. Now, the player and I are friends since 5th grade, so she trusts me and knows I am not some kind of freak or anything, but she still immidatley told me to stop and I did, I just didn't realise how much it would bother her. So anytime in the future I'll consider doing anything like that again, I will discuss it with the relevant player beforehand.

I do have to make a point about your post, however (talking to DeathQuaker). World of Darkness is a setting where really bad things happen. In a group comfortable with it, themes of torture, rape, physical disfigurment of any sort, abuse, and whatever else can easily fit into the story and the theme of the game. You just have to make sure everyone is OK with what's going on and can treat it as nothing more than a story. So having rape happen in game is not an automatic transgression against menkind, if the circumstances are right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hmmm this wasn't rape though, this was, "Your character agrees to have sex because of a social dice mechanic". Having an NPC rape someone's character is more straightforward and obviously creepy in the wrong situation (which would be often i would think).

What the GM did was a more subtle, passive-aggressive power trip along sexual lines. The NPC didn't rape the character, the GM "mind-raped" the player/character.

Also, Vampire: the Masquerade was specifically the game of personal horror. WoD wasn't all like that. Mage and Werewolf had different tag lines and different (though somewhat interconnected) themes.

The Exchange

littlehewy wrote:

Hmmm this wasn't rape though, this was, "Your character agrees to have sex because of a social dice mechanic". Having an NPC rape someone's character is more straightforward and obviously creepy in the wrong situation (which would be often i would think).

What the GM did was a more subtle, passive-aggressive power trip along sexual lines. The NPC didn't rape the character, the GM "mind-raped" the player/character.

Also, Vampire: the Masquerade was specifically the game of personal horror. WoD wasn't all like that. Mage and Werewolf had different tag lines and different (though somewhat interconnected) themes.

Rape is not always as simple as "beating someone until he/she gives in and has sex with you". If you have to make what I assume is the equivalent of a will save to avoid sleeping with someone who tries to convince you to do so, I'd call that rape. Kind of like emotional extortion, maybe.

Otherwise, the best the GM could achieve with the roll should have been, "you feel very much attrected to <NPS NAME HERE>, and you cannot fail to notice how attractive he/she is". Because that's how actual seduction works - if it is succesful, you get the other person to WANT to sleep with you, you don't force him/her into it. So wether it was intended by the GM or not, his interpretation of the rules simulate rape. That's not coolif the player is uncomfortable with it.


littlehewy wrote:

Hmmm this wasn't rape though, this was, "Your character agrees to have sex because of a social dice mechanic". Having an NPC rape someone's character is more straightforward and obviously creepy in the wrong situation (which would be often i would think).

What the GM did was a more subtle, passive-aggressive power trip along sexual lines. The NPC didn't rape the character, the GM "mind-raped" the player/character.

Also, Vampire: the Masquerade was specifically the game of personal horror. WoD wasn't all like that. Mage and Werewolf had different tag lines and different (though somewhat interconnected) themes.

Mage was about Warping Reality from the Safety of your Sanctum, IIRC, and Werewolf was about putting the Massacre down on EvilCo (tm) in the Name of Mother Earth, right?


Basically, yes. I lurved laying the smacketh down on some EvilCo (tm). Formorii ... oof.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Basically, yes. I lurved laying the smacketh down on some EvilCo (tm). Formorii ... oof.

slay the wyrm, my friend.


Lord Snow wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

Hmmm this wasn't rape though, this was, "Your character agrees to have sex because of a social dice mechanic". Having an NPC rape someone's character is more straightforward and obviously creepy in the wrong situation (which would be often i would think).

What the GM did was a more subtle, passive-aggressive power trip along sexual lines. The NPC didn't rape the character, the GM "mind-raped" the player/character.

Also, Vampire: the Masquerade was specifically the game of personal horror. WoD wasn't all like that. Mage and Werewolf had different tag lines and different (though somewhat interconnected) themes.

Rape is not always as simple as "beating someone until he/she gives in and has sex with you". If you have to make what I assume is the equivalent of a will save to avoid sleeping with someone who tries to convince you to do so, I'd call that rape. Kind of like emotional extortion, maybe.

Otherwise, the best the GM could achieve with the roll should have been, "you feel very much attrected to <NPS NAME HERE>, and you cannot fail to notice how attractive he/she is". Because that's how actual seduction works - if it is succesful, you get the other person to WANT to sleep with you, you don't force him/her into it. So wether it was intended by the GM or not, his interpretation of the rules simulate rape. That's not coolif the player is uncomfortable with it.

Ok, perhaps you're right, but it seems a bit like semantics - although I guess I started it.

What I meant was, the way I read it, it seemed like in-game the character wasn't forced to have sex. That mechanic could be used by a PC on an NPC, and I don't think the PC would be guilty of rape. The NPCs that were involved in-game didn't force the PC to have sex.

The GM had forced the character to have sex, essentially treating the character like an NPC. In this way, the player and the character were "raped" in a yucky, meta-game way.

Does that make more sense than my original comment?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
I do have to make a point about your post, however (talking to DeathQuaker). World of Darkness is a setting where really bad things happen. In a group comfortable with it, themes of torture, rape, physical disfigurment of any sort, abuse, and whatever else can easily fit into the story and the theme of the game. You just have to make sure everyone is OK with what's going on and can treat it as nothing more than a story. So having rape happen in game is not an automatic transgression against menkind, if the circumstances are right.

I am going to repeat what I said in a previous post:

Quote:
The fact is, the system here is irrelevant. The GM overstepped a major social boundary no game system gives you the power to do. If I have to explain it to you further, then I don't think you'll get it--and frankly, I hope to god I will never end up at the same table as you.

You are conflating a game's themes with a real-life GM crossing a real-life boundary, making a real-life player feel, in the OP's words, "violated."

No one sits down to any game, World of Darkness or otherwise, and should be told they should expect that kind of thing to happen because of the game's themes. No. No. No. No. No. No. Again, I should not have to be explaining this. What part of "there is a difference between game mechanics and GMs being manipulative and creepy" that you do not understand?!?

Also, for the last time, I do NOT need the World of Darkness explained to me. I played in oWOD for YEARS, including in the "creepy" chatrooms Matt Morris mentioned, where we hit the knife's edge of "personal horror" and a frolicked in a game system meant to open wide and reveal and even revel in the dark side of human nature.

In fact, Google "Death Quaker." Tell me the first several links you find. Tell me what game system my username is most associated with in the Internet. I do not need to be told about how the World of Darkness's system, setting, or themes work (and while the game system Nepherti's friend was playing was nWoD, not oWoD, I know that nWoD is similarly built in themes even if I haven't played in it. Heck if anything, oWoD probably had fewer boundaries than nWoD--White Wolf learned to disclaim and clarify a thing or two after the Rikki Lake incident).

And I am telling you, based on my lengthy and intimate knowledge of this game system's themes, that what happened to the guy mentioned in the OP was NOT the game system's fault. It could have happened in ANY system by ANY GM who chooses to be manipulative in that way. I find it utterly crazy here that once the system was mentioned, a lot of people are clamoring to blame IT rather than someone who is clearly creepy and manipulative in more than just his GMing ways (did you even read the thread at all?).

In fact, the "blame the system" thing is a really roundabout way of victim-blaming, in fact: "Well, the man shouldn't have agreed to play this game if he didn't expect that sort of thing, he got what he deserved." That is SO not the point, that is SO unfair, it is SO disrespectful to the person in question (even if he isn't here to discuss this himself), and is SO frightening that the victim-blaming theme is becoming so prevalent in this conversation.


Sissyl wrote:
littlehewy wrote:

Hmmm this wasn't rape though, this was, "Your character agrees to have sex because of a social dice mechanic". Having an NPC rape someone's character is more straightforward and obviously creepy in the wrong situation (which would be often i would think).

What the GM did was a more subtle, passive-aggressive power trip along sexual lines. The NPC didn't rape the character, the GM "mind-raped" the player/character.

Also, Vampire: the Masquerade was specifically the game of personal horror. WoD wasn't all like that. Mage and Werewolf had different tag lines and different (though somewhat interconnected) themes.

Mage was about Warping Reality from the Safety of your Sanctum, IIRC, and Werewolf was about putting the Massacre down on EvilCo (tm) in the Name of Mother Earth, right?

This is essentially correct :)

From what I recall, each of the games had a tag line that was "A Storytelling game of X", where X=some cool pre-emo concept. Vampire's was horror - I can't remember the other two...

Vampire was my least favourite.

Edit: Vampire's was "A Storytelling game of Personal Horror"
Werewolf's was "A Storytelling game of Savage Horror"
Mage's was "A Storytelling game of Modern Magick"
Changeling's was "A Storytelling game of Modern Fantasy"

I stand corrected by Google - Werewolf was about horror also :)

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

My favorite was Wraith: a Storytelling game of Death and Damnation.

That was the first WoD game--in fact major, long term RPG campaign--I played in. Nice and lighthearted way to get into the setting right?

Also I do want to note that from my post above, I have no real credit to WoD and didn't want to give that impression. Just that the gaming community at large knows of me (if at all) mostly because of the fan reference materials I made, so obviously I must have heard of the system and maybe had some experience playing in it. That's all I was getting that. I realize the way I put it in the post above was way more hubristic than I intended.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are lines that in any system require certain care before crossing. These lines differ between groups. The lines are hit a lot sooner when running a game with children or teenagers.

Running a game with a new group or in a new role means the location of the lines is often unknown, and a direct question at a point where could be a line is usually advisable. You can easily inadvertantly cross a line in these cases. Any indication you have done so should be met with a little backpedalling and a conversation.

People have different fears, triggers and experiences that lead them to react in ways that you wouldn't react, or wouldn't think of reacting. Sometimes these things catch you by surprise and sometimes you just weren't paying attention and realize in hindsight you could have predicted that your action could cross a line.

If a person says that something is causing an issue, it behooves you to consider stepping back for a moment and giving the person a little space. This is basic common courtesy. Roleplaying requires some compromises and adjustments and courtesy if you're going to have a good group and a fun and enjoyable game for everyone, bottom line.

The Exchange

DeathQuaker,

wha, slow down a bit. No need to be agressive. I would like to qoute myself, if that's alright:

[qoute] Well, no kind of game should ever have "being emotionally abusive" to anyone as part of it's stated goals. The GM in this situation WAS being a big time jerk, of course. Even without getting questions of sex (or even rape) involved, insisting on doing something when a player is saying out loud and clear, "I am uncomfortable with this" is being a jerk. Let's forget the pretension of power a GM has over a player while a game is going on - you are a human being, another human being (presumably a friend) is telling you you are making him feel uneasy, and you don't care. That's bad. [/qoute]

In case that was not clear enough, let me state my thoughts about the subject at hand in one, simple sentence:

the event that the opening post described was a dementad, offensive power trip by the GM of that game

Now I also apologize for giving the impression I was trying to teach you something about WoD... I was not, and regardless I really couldn't have known just how attached you are to that gaming system (though judging by previous posts in this thread you are obviously more familiar with it than I am).

I was merely pointing out that the mere inclusion of themes such as rape is legitimate IF AND ONLY IF EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE GAMING PARTY IS OK WITH IT. Your post, which I qouted, seemed to me like it was implaying that violent sexual content has no place in gaming. Given the very violent feeling of many games (and from my limited experience, WoD incourages gritty, horrific themes in particular), sexual violence is just another aspect of it.

So agian, I will phrase my stance on the matter in one sentence to avoid any sort of miscommunication between us:

I think that sexual assault is a thing that could happen to a PC, just like torture or death, as long as everyone in the table knows about it and agrees to it, and I thought you were implaying that that wasn't the case.

The Exchange

Jess Door wrote:

There are lines that in any system require certain care before crossing. These lines differ between groups. The lines are hit a lot sooner when running a game with children or teenagers.

Running a game with a new group or in a new role means the location of the lines is often unknown, and a direct question at a point where could be a line is usually advisable. You can easily inadvertantly cross a line in these cases. Any indication you have done so should be met with a little backpedalling and a conversation.

People have different fears, triggers and experiences that lead them to react in ways that you wouldn't react, or wouldn't think of reacting. Sometimes these things catch you by surprise and sometimes you just weren't paying attention and realize in hindsight you could have predicted that your action could cross a line.

If a person says that something is causing an issue, it behooves you to consider stepping back for a moment and giving the person a little space. This is basic common courtesy. Roleplaying requires some compromises and adjustments and courtesy if you're going to have a good group and a fun and enjoyable game for everyone, bottom line.

And Jess Door just expressed my ideas perfectly (thanks :)). For certain groups and people, something like having their character compulsed into sex with, say, magic, is invasive and unpleasent, other would see it as chance for character development (For example, I had a case where the character of one of my players was burned by a cruel Hellknight who was questioning him, and he carried a burn scar on his face for the rest of the campaign. The player was thrilled about it and did some awesome roleplaying with the trauma his character went through), other might not even care. As long as everyone is awere that they are playing a game, and that the GM has no ACTUAL authority over the players, and that people are cool with the level of violance in the game, then violance of any kind is OK.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Lord Snow, I apologize for going over the top, but obviously some of this conversation has struck a major nerve with me. (I almost typed "major nerd" which is probably also true. ;) ) You were not the first person to bring up the WoD as part of the issue and I was getting sick of that being used (by other posters) as a decoy that sidestepped the issues being discussed.

Quote:
Your post, which I qouted, seemed to me like it was implaying that violent sexual content has no place in gaming.

I have no idea how you got that impression, given I never said any such thing.

This is the phrase you quoted from me:

me wrote:
It is not to have to deal with a GM who misinterprets rules and his power as GM to engage in power/control fantasies and be emotionally abusive to his or her players and their PCs.

All of my other posts equally referenced the GM's behavior and rules manipulation/misinterpretation. I was always discussing the GM's behavior and not anything about what kind of content is in a game. Hence why I kept mentioning the "GM" and "misinterprets rules." I never once said there shouldn't be violent themes in gaming. (That Wraith game I mentioned? I of my own volition played a victim of a rape-murder. Obviously, I think those themes can be explored in an RPG, but there is quite a LOT to the how of it.)

If you can explain to me how I gave a different impression, I would appreciate it, so I can figure out how to be sure I am clearer in future.

Otherwise, if we agree that the GM in question was behaving inappropriately, then we are on the same page.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And, my friend didn't feel violated, just kinda pissed and uncomfortable with a decision being made for his character.

I, however, put myself in the situation. I would have felt violated. It would have brought me too close to painful memories not because it was sex in a game, but it was sex that I was forced to make my character go through, even if the character was okay with it.

But it doesn't even have to be sex. I have a friend who is fairly arachnaphobic. I don't introduce drow or the like when he plays in my games. It's only courteous.

The Exchange

DeathQuaker wrote:

Lord Snow, I apologize for going over the top, but obviously some of this conversation has struck a major nerve with me. (I almost typed "major nerd" which is probably also true. ;) ) You were not the first person to bring up the WoD as part of the issue and I was getting sick of that being used (by other posters) as a decoy that sidestepped the issues being discussed.

Quote:
Your post, which I qouted, seemed to me like it was implaying that violent sexual content has no place in gaming.

I have no idea how you got that impression, given I never said any such thing.

This is the phrase you quoted from me:

me wrote:
It is not to have to deal with a GM who misinterprets rules and his power as GM to engage in power/control fantasies and be emotionally abusive to his or her players and their PCs.

All of my other posts equally referenced the GM's behavior and rules manipulation/misinterpretation. I was always discussing the GM's behavior and not anything about what kind of content is in a game. Hence why I kept mentioning the "GM" and "misinterprets rules." I never once said there shouldn't be violent themes in gaming. (That Wraith game I mentioned? I of my own volition played a victim of a rape-murder. Obviously, I think those themes can be explored in an RPG, but there is quite a LOT to the how of it.)

If you can explain to me how I gave a different impression, I would appreciate it, so I can figure out how to be sure I am clearer in future.

Otherwise, if we agree that the GM in question was behaving inappropriately, then we are on the same page.

The qoute that confused me was this:

[qoute] The "personal horror" of WoD is, for example, to play out being a human facing the fact that he has now been transformed into a soulless bloodsucking monster, or is actually a part-beast killing machine.

given that you wrote this as a replay to someone saying that personal horror is a part of WoD, it seemed to me like you were implaying that sexual assault is not the kind of horror that WoD deals with and that the intention of the game is to focus on the inhumanity (or more correctly semi-humanity) of the characters, not on things like being compelled into sex you don't actualy want to have. That plus the rest of that post gave me the feeling that you were saying more than just that the GM in question did something wrong - I thought you were saying that even including themes of sexual violance in a WoD game goes against it's actual purpose of being scared by supernatural occurances.

Alas, that was nothing more than me misinterpreting your words, just as you misentrpreted mine when you thought I was defending the was the Gm from the OP was behaving.

So, now I think I understand what you meant to say and I hope you can see where I was coming from. As far as I am concerned, we are on the same page.

Cheers :)

The Exchange

DeathQuaker wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It is WoD after all, he might have taken it for granted that bad things usually DO happen to characters in those games. it is personal horror because as the books describe it you should be a little uncomfortable and in every game there are systems in place to make your character suffer

The "personal horror" of WoD is, for example, to play out being a human facing the fact that he has now been transformed into a soulless bloodsucking monster, or is actually a part-beast killing machine.

It is not to have to deal with a GM who misinterprets rules and his power as GM to engage in power/control fantasies and be emotionally abusive to his or her players and their PCs. This is the situation here. NO game system permits that or makes that okay. Okay, maybe FATAL.

Look at what you did. You made me mention FATAL.

no doubt the GM here was probably being a jerk but loss of control is a major theme in those games. Primal fears and passions, powers out of control, manipulation by others. Most of the characters in those games have built in mechanics to cause loss of player control, typically with terrible consequence for the pc

I have played the games you are talking about, and what you're saying is not the case. This is not about failing a Humanity check. This is about a GM manipulating rules that were not actually meant to be used in that way. I'm fairly certain if a White Wolf designer were to show up here they would agree with me.

The fact is, the system here is irrelevant. The GM overstepped a major social boundary no game system gives you the power to do. If I have to explain it to you further, then I don't think you'll get it--and frankly, I hope to god I will never end up at the same table as you.

Slow your roll there, no need to get so worked up. The fact is that the social roles are all about forcing behavour, especially in Vampire and Werewolf were your character is barely under control to begin with. Was this a dick move by the dm? most likely especially if he did not discuss the themes he intended to use before hand. But frankly while i would never do this as a GM i would not be suprized to be the victim of such as a player because i expect WoD to torture my character. As far as us playing at the same table, maybe a bad thing because i do not think i could deal with your outrage at a situation you barely even have one side of

Sovereign Court

Nepherti wrote:
And, my friend didn't feel violated, just kinda pissed and uncomfortable with a decision being made for his character...

Honestly, I think "pissed and uncomfortable" is a very clear way to describe the term "violated". There are different levels of this feeling - violated is a strong word, and maybe your friend was at the "low" of the spectrum of "pissed and uncomfortable" compared to where you would put yourself on that scale in a similar situation.

I have a severely arachnophobic player too. I'm going to have to make some serious retcons to an entire book of my current AP to cater to that a bit. This woman has jumped out of a moving vehicle while I was driving because she flipped down the visor and a spider was there. So...yeah...it's not a "fun" horror fear for her, it's a serious issue we avoid as much as possible for her gaming enjoyment.

The Exchange

Lord Snow wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:

Lord Snow, I apologize for going over the top, but obviously some of this conversation has struck a major nerve with me. (I almost typed "major nerd" which is probably also true. ;) ) You were not the first person to bring up the WoD as part of the issue and I was getting sick of that being used (by other posters) as a decoy that sidestepped the issues being discussed.

Quote:
Your post, which I qouted, seemed to me like it was implaying that violent sexual content has no place in gaming.

I have no idea how you got that impression, given I never said any such thing.

This is the phrase you quoted from me:

me wrote:
It is not to have to deal with a GM who misinterprets rules and his power as GM to engage in power/control fantasies and be emotionally abusive to his or her players and their PCs.

All of my other posts equally referenced the GM's behavior and rules manipulation/misinterpretation. I was always discussing the GM's behavior and not anything about what kind of content is in a game. Hence why I kept mentioning the "GM" and "misinterprets rules." I never once said there shouldn't be violent themes in gaming. (That Wraith game I mentioned? I of my own volition played a victim of a rape-murder. Obviously, I think those themes can be explored in an RPG, but there is quite a LOT to the how of it.)

If you can explain to me how I gave a different impression, I would appreciate it, so I can figure out how to be sure I am clearer in future.

Otherwise, if we agree that the GM in question was behaving inappropriately, then we are on the same page.

The qoute that confused me was this:

[qoute] The "personal horror" of WoD is, for example, to play out being a human facing the fact that he has now been transformed into a soulless bloodsucking monster, or is actually a part-beast killing machine.

given that you wrote this as a replay to someone saying that personal horror is a part of WoD, it seemed to me like you were...

If you read Vampire and Werewolf sex is next to violence (if not mixed with it) as the most common themes right after "hey you are a monster now" and often mixed into the fact that they ARE a monster with messed up instincts.

Sovereign Court

I'm sorry, could you explain that and maybe elaborate on which part of that giant quote you're responding to? Maybe I'm not just not reading well, but that made no sense to me.


Jess Door wrote:
Nepherti wrote:
And, my friend didn't feel violated, just kinda pissed and uncomfortable with a decision being made for his character...

Honestly, I think "pissed and uncomfortable" is a very clear way to describe the term "violated". There are different levels of this feeling - violated is a strong word, and maybe your friend was at the "low" of the spectrum of "pissed and uncomfortable" compared to where you would put yourself on that scale in a similar situation.

I have a severely arachnophobic player too. I'm going to have to make some serious retcons to an entire book of my current AP to cater to that a bit. This woman has jumped out of a moving vehicle while I was driving because she flipped down the visor and a spider was there. So...yeah...it's not a "fun" horror fear for her, it's a serious issue we avoid as much as possible for her gaming enjoyment.

Off topic, I know... but if you are seriously throwing yourself out of a moving vehicle because you see a spider, it might be a good thing to know that CBT can treat specific phobias in only a few sessions with an almost 100% chance of success.

Sovereign Court

Sissyl wrote:
Off topic, I know... but if you are seriously throwing yourself out of a moving vehicle because you see a spider, it might be a good thing to know that CBT can treat specific phobias in only a few sessions with an almost 100% chance of success.

CBT?

Either way, she's about 7.5 months pregnant with twins right now. It might not be the best time to push things.

Project Manager

Cognitive behavioral therapy.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Jess Door wrote:
Nepherti wrote:
And, my friend didn't feel violated, just kinda pissed and uncomfortable with a decision being made for his character...

Honestly, I think "pissed and uncomfortable" is a very clear way to describe the term "violated". There are different levels of this feeling - violated is a strong word, and maybe your friend was at the "low" of the spectrum of "pissed and uncomfortable" compared to where you would put yourself on that scale in a similar situation.

I have a severely arachnophobic player too. I'm going to have to make some serious retcons to an entire book of my current AP to cater to that a bit. This woman has jumped out of a moving vehicle while I was driving because she flipped down the visor and a spider was there. So...yeah...it's not a "fun" horror fear for her, it's a serious issue we avoid as much as possible for her gaming enjoyment.

Off topic, I know... but if you are seriously throwing yourself out of a moving vehicle because you see a spider, it might be a good thing to know that CBT can treat specific phobias in only a few sessions with an almost 100% chance of success.

I have an issue with bridges and often travel with a guy phobic of bees. some day a bee will get in the car as we are going over a bridge and everyone dies


The RL version of Rocks fall, then?

Liberty's Edge

I think the issue (and the OP's strong feelings about it) come from the Creepy GM's RL persona (ie, not a nice person) far more than the actual game situation described.

Dark Archive

Eh I could see how that'd bother someone, but as a guy and someone who doesn't take the game seriously much at all wouldn't faze me. I certainly know enough that it could bother a lot of people.

I think the bottom line is if something bothers any of my players enough that they have to mention it then I'd rather just not have it happen. System integrity or whatever aside, it's all about friends having a fun time. Sorta the reason why I stopped letting random dice rolls turn games on their heads :/

I do remember a lotta funny stories in game about stuff like that when we were teenagers, but that was more the GM and players all one-upping one another. If that's the case here, meh it's a phase players go through sometimes maybe. Still not cool of it to occur if it's bothering someone though.


Hey all! Creepy GM here. This is actually the first time I've heard about any of this being problematic, including from the player in question in my game, which the OP is not a part of, nor has ever been. In fact, she's not once accepted an invitation to a game I'm running, even one offs and hasn't ever mentioned it was because of a dislike of me, personally.

I've lurked on these boards for a few months now, and just happened to come across this thread, and was shocked to find a warped version of a scene from my game. A scene, might I add, that happened weeks, if not a month or two prior to the original post in January.

Now, to get a few things set in stone 100%. I completely agree. Rape scenes aren't cool in a game and have no place at the table. There were no rape scenes in my game. What the OP is referring to, that she failed to mention was that the player/character was being seduced by one of the Sidhe, over many rolls, and through various conversations and after having eaten Fae food and drink, which in all lore makes you more susceptable to the will of the Sidhe and/or having other various side effects of a magical nature. Rape was not a part of this, and the sex scene in question wasn't acted out. It was a fade to black.

What the OP also failed to note was that the character has now fallen in love with the Sidhe in question, because he was an acanthus, and had aspirations to be the master of Time Magic. The Sidhe's name in fact was the equivalent in high speech for time. She was the embodiment of time magic. The Acanthus in question is now on the path to becoming her Knight, a servant in the fallen world to a being in the supernal and last I checked was quite happy with the way the game is going.

The issue that the Acanthus had, was not the fact he slept with (not was raped by) a Fae Lady, but the manner in which the seduction happened, because she, being of the High Court of the Fae, came after him. That was my fault, admittedly. His character in game likes to chase women, not have them come to him with interest. I wasn't aware of this character trait, though after he pointed it out to me, it made sense.

Terribly sorry my first post has to be about this, but I've been wanting a reason to register an account here, and this huge slap to my face was good enough to do so. Furthermore, I hope if there's any issues with Nepherti, she'll come to me and talk about them to my face, rather than ranting here with what I hope is only having gotten half the story, rather than pointedly putting out half truths to try and make me out to be a horrible person in front of a group of people I've never met.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nepherti wrote:

This scenario presented itself in a friend's game.

GM: *rolls social dice pool and wins challenge against PC*. I win. Now your character has to have sex with *insert NPC here*
Player: what!?!? My character would never do that.
GM: those are the rules. If I win a roll, you comply.
Player: I'll go ahead and roll with this, but I'm letting you know I'm very uncomfortable with being told what to do like that.

Now, I know this is a game I don't attend, but I was invited. All I could think after this player told me this was how violated I would feel if I had taken up the invite and that had happened to me.

Am i being too sensitive?

If I had even a hint that the GM would pull this kind of crap, I'd walk straight out the door. He can go engage in his power mind f&#* games on someone else.


LazarX wrote:

If I had even a hint that the GM would pull this kind of crap, I'd walk straight out the door. He can go engage in his power mind f@$$ games on someone else.

I agree that would be the only sensible option, but you should read my above post.


Just because it was a fade to black doesn't mean it didn't happen to the character. It just means you didn't write out the details.

The point still stands that this isn't the kind of thing you just spring on someone in a game, regardless of whether or not you think the dice rolls of an NPC (technically played by you) should charm the pants of a player's character.

The only thing "your side of the story" has changed is the level of detail, not the context or actions initially presented.


Rynjin wrote:

Just because it was a fade to black doesn't mean it didn't happen to the character. It just means you didn't write out the details.

The point still stands that this isn't the kind of thing you just spring on someone in a game, regardless of whether or not you think the dice rolls of an NPC (technically played by you) should charm the pants of a player's character.

The only thing "your side of the story" has changed is the level of detail, not the context or actions initially presented.

Pretty sure I pointed out this happened over a course of several scenes "springing" wasn't the case. I didn't just up and go "Hey you're having sex with time magic!" We talked oocly about it before a bit, then I introduced the character, and rolls didn't go the way the acanthus/player thought it would have. But he's cool at this point, and we re-wrote how the seduction scene went oocly, to write it in with the character history. We've completely worked the situation out, and it wasn't ever that big of a deal to begin with, with all those involved in my game. This is the first I've heard of it since the night that scene took place.

Sovereign Court

In our game, it would take something like "Dominate Person" to remove all volition like that. A Charm Person or Diplomacy check instead provides feelings, like "you trust this person, you really like this person", etc and then leave the actual decisions on how to role-play that to the players.


Samurai wrote:
In our game, it would take something like "Dominate Person" to remove all volition like that. A Charm Person or Diplomacy check instead provides feelings, like "you trust this person, you really like this person", etc and then leave the actual decisions on how to role-play that to the players.

But that's exactly what I'm saying happened. Not the dominate person example, the later bit. There were multiple rolls, and things (such as the food he chose to ate, was not forced to eat) that went into this over awhile. They walked through the hedge together for hours talking about various things, before she brought him to a camp in between Arcadia and the Fallen World.

It wasn't a situation where I made one roll, and went "okay this is what's happening." which is what I fear I've been painted as having done.


Yes, s/he choice to eat the food. Was s/he warned that the food was Fey Roofies in disguise beforehand?


Rynjin wrote:
Yes, s/he choice to eat the food. Was s/he warned that the food was Fey Roofies in disguise beforehand?

Yes, the character before awakening was a Doctor of Mythology and taught a class on debunking the paranormal. He has 5 dots (max skill level) in occult, and made the appropriate rolls to see what he could find out about them, and he was told a fair bit of lore on fae food, taken from NWoD lore via Changelings.

101 to 150 of 178 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Would you feel violated? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.