What do you think of the new GM and players prescripted behaviour?


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

And while i'm on this, will these also be the new guidelines for 2e PFS?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So the "do not let players who are uncomfortable with various identities and experiences derail the game" is clearly in reference to something like, "people who IRL oppose trans, non-binary, etc. people" since we're not going to stop the game to argue about the Rivethun, the GM is free (and encouraged) to shut down "X race is inferior" or "there are only 2 genders" BS. Edgelord stuff and smack talking has never and will never be part of a game I'm running, full stop, and I have personally encountered very little of it and find it grounds for "walking away from a table."

As for the GM running bigoted characters, I would point you to the next parapraph, which reads:

Quote:
"...if a player tells you they’re uncomfortable with something in the game, whether it’s content you’ve presented as the GM or another player’s actions, listen to them and take steps to ensure they can once again have fun during your game."

So a player cannot run a bigoted PC because it's the GM's job to respond to a player who confides in them "I'm uncomfortable with X" but not a player's. A player is generally invested primarily in their own enjoyment of the game (though good players think of everyone), whereas a GM is responsible for everybody having a good time. An NPC who is genuinely upsetting in a bad way can easily be toned down or killed off when a particularly edgy PC who is an irritant to the game cannot be.

Also, the mono gendered GM stuff is not new. See for example Horror Adventures, which has this sort of thing all over it. It makes for a quick way to differentiate between the GM and "an unspecified player" without having to invent names or use titles in every sentence, since Horror Adventures for example refers to the GM using feminine pronouns and an unspecified player using masculine ones, to illustrate interactions between these two people. It's a lot more natural to do it this way, IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Treating others with contempt is a privilege some tables can retain if they choose to do so.

Whether this is good or bad; up to the individual.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm fully on board with explicitly banning racism, sexism, bigotry, and other deplorable behavior. I don't actually have the ability to empathize with someone who would complain about the rules suggesting those things should not be welcome.

I think it's well understood that if your entire group, to a person, is comfortable with edgelord junk, you don't have to listen to the rules on this.

It's strange to me that someone would argue that they have a right to offend or upset other people in a cooperative game that involves long hours, repeatedly, with real life people.

Lantern Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:

I'm fully on board with explicitly banning racism, sexism, bigotry, and other deplorable behavior. I don't actually have the ability to empathize with someone who would complain about the rules suggesting those things should not be welcome.

I think it's well understood that if your entire group, to a person, is comfortable with edgelord junk, you don't have to listen to the rules on this.

It's strange to me that someone would argue that they have a right to offend or upset other people in a cooperative game that involves long hours, repeatedly, with real life people.

Right so stories presented by the GM can never contain unpleasant or challenging themes and villains are not aloud to hold detestable views, the game world must be scrubbed cleaner than a Disney movie and the challenges presented should in no way resemble something realistic. I'm sure this create great stories and memorable villains when the world is near Utopian and the villains less threatening than those found in cartoons for 3 year olds.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ronin_Knight wrote:


Right so stories presented by the GM can never contain unpleasant or challenging themes and villains are not aloud to hold detestable views, the game world must be scrubbed cleaner than a Disney movie and the challenges presented should in no way resemble something realistic. I'm sure this create great stories and memorable villains when the world is near Utopian and the villains less threatening than those found in cartoons for 3 year olds.

If a single player is uncomfortable with any of that, then yes. If you can get a group of people together who really wants to get down and dirty with that stuff, you're free to ignore the suggestion that that's maybe not a good idea to drop on unsuspecting people.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ronin_Knight wrote:

Right so stories presented by the GM can never contain unpleasant or challenging themes and villains are not aloud to hold detestable views, the game world must be scrubbed cleaner than a Disney movie and the challenges presented should in no way resemble something realistic. I'm sure this create great stories and memorable villains when the world is near Utopian and the villains less threatening than those found in cartoons for 3 year olds.

It really seems like this is a deliberate misreading of the text in question since the GM is specifically empowered to push boundaries in a way that players are not, since a GM is responsible for everyone's enjoyment.

I mean, it's eminently possible to run some really dark and disturbing stuff without stepping on anyone's particular sore spots. It's just that a GM has to be aware and responsive to what their player's don't care for.

Like it's not hard to run a demon-worshipping cannibal murder cult as antagonists without having to draw on things like sexism or racism- they are no less disturbing a cannibal murder cult if they're equal opportunity and are entirely about the murder and cannibalism in order to covet favor with demons.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

If a player is uncomfortable with themes in my game they can find another table to play at. I don't change my narrative because someone is offended by it. I can and will use themes of racism. (Dwarves hating elves, humans acting superior, Etc) Sexism (orcs being sexist savages) and other themes that one might find offensive. I also make it clear that these themes will be present and that sensitive players will likely not enjoy my games or usual players.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There's some mighty big leaps of logic going on in here.

You do know you can have villains be villains without being bigoted, right? Like, that's a thing that exists?

As a DM, your first concern should be your players, not that your BBEG can't call the elf a racial slur.


So, my opinion on all of this is that it really just matters on the group and the people. I mean, from my point of view it's just a bunch of words that really just say "brah, you gotta do what you normally do and talk to your players about what they expect outta the game" and if something comes up that they are uncomfortable about they can set me aside during a break or after the session and we can discuss it.

It's all about being adults, I guess.

And yeah, I do get a little agitated when people stress about PC culture, I do as well, but I think I just have too much exposure to the internet and need to detox for a little while.

All in all, I don't think people are going on about it being "safe and happy". It's just words, guys. Ignore them if they bother you.

EDIT: Whoops!


12 people marked this as a favorite.

People are angry that the book says you (as a player or GM) shouldn't doing something that someone else in the game specifically says makes them uncomfortable? And they're taking that to mean that anything that might make anyone unhappy in the slightest is banned?
What?
Seriously?

It's not saying that you can't do something. It's saying that if someone in the game says "it makes me uncomfortable when you do/say X" then you shouldn't do that.
Because, really, why would anyone want to honestly make someone uncomfortable/feel unwelcome at a game being played among friends?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Edgelord stuff and smack talking has never and will never be part of a game I'm running, full stop, and I have personally encountered very little of it and find it grounds for "walking away from a table."

Well you aren't the only person playing this game. A large minority of my groups display this kind of behavior and sense of humor. Are they folks at paizo telling me that they should change or stop playing the game?

Quote:

As for the GM running bigoted characters, I would point you to the next parapraph, which reads:

Quote:
"...if a player tells you they’re uncomfortable with something in the game, whether it’s content you’ve presented as the GM or another player’s actions, listen to them and take steps to ensure they can once again have fun during your game."
A player is generally invested primarily in their own enjoyment of the game (though good players think of everyone)

But in this case they are specifically calling on the player, not the GM, to stop playing that character. So what should i do when i'm playing a dwarf that hates elves and i'm playing with a player that identifies as elf-kin. Roll a new character?

Quote:
An NPC who is genuinely upsetting in a bad way can easily be toned down or killed off when a particularly edgy PC who is an irritant to the game cannot be.

There are some capricious GM's out there that lose no sleep in killing off annoying or tedious PCs.

Quote:
Also, the mono gendered GM stuff is not new. See for example Horror Adventures, which has this sort of thing all over it.

I understand there are books and the like that do it. But with the intent of the new guidelines to include as many people as possible, why not do the correct progressive thing and make it gender neutral?

Just use "they", or "you".

I understand why they do this when explaining about making a fictional character that can have any gender. But when they are addressing the actual reader i find it strange.

Quote:
the GM is free (and encouraged) to shut down "X race is inferior" or "there are only 2 genders" BS.

Yea but, what if it's an actual discussion the players are having? What if the cleric PC has objections to marrying same gendered or mixed race couples? Is that something the PCs aren't allowed the play, but the GM is?

I can think of plenty of examples where IC the PCs can come across a discussion on pedophilia, racemixing, necrophilia, bigorty, slavery, corporal or capitol punishment, ect.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

"GMs should respect their players feelings and experiences ergo villains cannot be contemptuous" is one of the weakest straw men I have encountered of late.

Like people are generally not genuinely upset by the concept of evil or bad people doing bad things. I don't find any shortage of truly contemptible antagonists in fiction who are nonetheless presented with some consideration for the audience, which is all this section is asking you to do.


In a home game, you can just ignore it. I've never read similar blurbs in any RPG book.

In PFS, it might find a way to irritate me but Paizo can run their venue however they want.

Prescribing that characters shy away from bigotry seems like saying you can't portray Nazis as anti-Semitic. Players can consort with the very Devil of Hell but an Elf can't call a Human a dirty mayfly?

Lantern Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:


If a single player is uncomfortable with any of that, then yes. If you can get a group of people together who really wants to get down and dirty with that stuff, you're free to ignore the suggestion that that's maybe not a good idea to drop on unsuspecting people.

Then we can't even run base-setting Golarion, home to cannibalistic Goblins, inbred gang-raping ogres, and a rampant legal slave trade, by the gods you couldn't even run a tabletop version of Disney's Hunchback of Notredame in the new PFS. Or any campaign is Paizo's publishing hold there Ap's to the same rules they're apparently holding GM's and Players to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Prescribing that characters shy away from bigotry seems like saying you can't portray Nazis as anti-Semitic.

Why are you letting your players roleplay as Nazis? Like sure, there are special considerations for "evil" campaigns, but if someone who thinks "You know what fantasy I want to indulge? Being a virulent racist!" then that's someone I don't even want to know.

Like there's a range of different kinds of people with the Chellish nobility, most of them are contemptible, but it's easy enough to, as a player, play one who is actually kind of okay, and if need be show the villainous ones as more invested in the whole "diabolism" or "power is its own end" thing than any particular aspect of Chelaxian grodiness which might not fly with your players.

Customer Service Representative

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their replies.

The immediate use of labeling and diminishing of others and their opinions on this topic is not acceptable. This discussion is one that the community, as well as many tables are likely to have as they sit down to play. The discussion can always be had without labeling others with charged words.

Also, please bear in mind that you are still each in charge of your own experience in your games. Such discussions can get contentious as we try to find the balance in conflicting ideologies that extend beyond gaming.

We no longer allow political threads on Paizo.com. I will remind and encourage everyone who participates in this thread not to direct the conversation in a manner which will make it inappropriate to continue.

On that note, please remember that profanity is not allowed on our forums. Crude insulting words are also not acceptable.

Progress only if you can maintain mindful respect of your fellow posters and our community.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thaboe wrote:
Why then is this specific guideline necessary?

Because it's a good thing to put in there as a reminder.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Offensive humor is only funny when the offensiveness itself is the joke, offensive humor where the funny part is supposed to be making fun of a group or person is just bigotry.

I can understand not listening if one player out of six is being jerk to everyone else, but if they are just expressing their discomfort without being jerk about it, why shouldn't you show kindness towards?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

Offensive humor is only funny when the offensiveness itself is the joke, offensive humor where the funny part is supposed to be making fun of a group or person is just bigotry.

I still can't believe how hard you resist idea of not being jerk to someone. I mean, sure if out of 6 players, one of them is being jerk to everyone else I can understand not listening to them, but if out of six players one is honestly being uncomfortable with the situation, why shouldn't you show some kindness?

The best kindness to show that one offended player is to tell them to find another table tbh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I'm seeing a lot of extreme views from both sides.

Some are saying you should hard-line stop at offense and shut all of it down immediately, while others are swinging the other way.

Shouldn't you slow down and discuss it with the player(s) in question? I mean, if neither are going to move and said player is going to be disruptive, or the GM is gonna be bullheaded and ignore the player(s) then a change in table is in order.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
Thaboe wrote:
Why then is this specific guideline necessary?
Because it's a good thing to put in there as a reminder.

Then why not doing it along the same lines of uncomfortable topics (mature themes) as the original manual did? That could have deserved an specific reminder too. Or how to resolve a player conflict amicably.

As far as I've read, PF 2e is the only book that specifically takes this angle. It's not even in eclipse phase and that has an entire section on gender identity in regards to sleeves.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think I'll avoid further posting in this thread because its angering me, but on lighter note, I do want to point out that censorship is by definition something done by government :P It can't be done by companies or individual people by definition. I'm starting to gain pet peevee by people using term wrong

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / What do you think of the new GM and players prescripted behaviour? All Messageboards