|
JcDent posted:I should get AW book from somewhere because so far it seems like rules exist in it like some Fairy Dust and it was written by some hipster. Getting more into it would maybe correct misconceptions By the way, how noob friendly are retroclones in comparison to, say, DnD5?
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
JcDent posted:By the way, how noob friendly are retroclones in comparison to, say, DnD5? "Retroclones exist" is a huge reason for me why DnD5 as "a simpler 3rd Edition" is really redundant
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
From the Paizo forumsquote:Here I agree with you. One of the unfortunate elements of 4E is that their is this constant number escalation that serves no real purpose but is so entwined into the system that you can't really get rid of it. edit; vvvv I don't really think it's fair to call him a PF grog, he's currently running a 4E campaign. I'm just laughing how grog memes about 4E were so ubiquitous that even fans of the game sometimes believe in them. Chaltab fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Laughing my rear end off at the  of a PF grog complaining about ascending skill DCs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
It's also completely incorrect, but hey who's even surprised about that at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
Well, since you asked. My feelings are best summarized with the following quote found elsewhere on the Internets. "No depth needed for analysis because none was taken in design." To elaborate - Eberron is a kitchen-sink-mess of various fiction tropes. A pastiche of other published stuff and a few oddments besides. Among the harder things for me to understand would be how alignment is handled. The creator of Eberron seems to have misunderstood the way Detect Evil works and "solves" the problem (that only he can see) by flummoxing huge portions of the milieu (Why yes! That is a LG Cleric of "The Mockery". Why do you ask?). By keeping the underlying DnD game mechanic and "fixing" alignment the way he did Baker seriously mangled what DnD-style FRP is all about. It's like saying I'll get rid of racism in my Ars Magica campaign by making everyone everywhere have medium brown skin. Sure it solves the "problem" but it's also stupefyingly unimaginative. And the way magic is used as technology - ugh. In fact magic is technology in Eberron. And to rub it in there are PC/NPC classes like Artificer and Magewright. So with the odd approach to alignment and the magic-is-tech we get a world to play in that is... wait for it ...just like our own. Wee! Not! Seriously, all monsters can be any alignment or part of any political group. So in Eberron everyone is functionally like humans. The only differences being incidental fluff (e.g. darkvision). The quote I posted was from the WotC boards somewhere and encapsulates the error of the execution of Eberron quite well. Here let me further demonstrate with a hypothetical: Let's say Atlas Games posted a competition for a new official campaign world that would use their system. So I submit my "solution" to racism and throw in some Steam Punk elements and then add the Illuminati as a world power to rival the Pagans and Monotheists. Normally I would be unable to conceive such an atrocity but with Eberron as a living exemplar I find the hypothetical not so far out. And for all I know the Lords of Dust are simply a misunderstood trans-planar civic organization and not really evil. Because, hey!, this is Eberron - so let's make the Lords of Dust and the Church of the Silver Flame non-profit NGOs and Dask into a mafia-like cartel and the Dragonmarked houses trans-national corporations and... oh wait, it's already like that  Finally, the thing that gets me most about Eberron is the official products. They give big sweeping and sometimes vague generalizations about the history/politics of the campaign world and then tell the GM (and players) that if they need any more detail they should fill that stuff in "to make the setting truly their own". To which I reply; Why would I spend $30-$50 for products that, in the end, insist I do the leg work to make them useful? If I have that kind of time and imagination-reserves I don't need to buy their product in the first place. Full disclosure: Never played in Eberron myself to any significant degree but the campaigns I am familiar with have all been homebrewed to such a degree that they each emphatically support my last point above about the practicality of buying official Eberron products.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The Ken Hite thing was pretty much just me. I decided to not buy Kite's stuff in the future because he keeps promoting and associating with Zak.  I've arrived.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
It's pretty well known by now that Zak S obsessively googles himself and reads any forums that could involve him being mentioned so he can find who he wants to target and harass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Kenneth Hite has a Livejournal and posts to it regularly. Possibly he really is a Lovecraftian entity or a vampire lord, out of touch with modern technology. So he should get a pass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Eberron products. What makes that grog, besides "lol didn't play"? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What makes that grog, besides "lol didn't play"? Hanging on to the stupidest idea to come out of D&D (alignment) and trying to use it as a cudgel to attack one of the few settings that tried to actively ignore alignments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:
Idk if it counts as an organized boycott if it's just me saying it once on G+. Zak is hilariously self-absorbed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Idk if it counts as an organized boycott if it's just me saying it once on G+. Zak is hilariously self-absorbed. Well, it's not like he could describe it any other way. (that wouldn't make it sound as petty as it is)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
It's still jarring when his leering skeleton-face pokes itself into your feed to set the record straight TO YOU PERSONALLY about what really happened. Here's a link to a six page manifesto justifying something he's totally over, doesn't really care about, and can't stop discussing because it's about himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Hanging on to the stupidest idea to come out of D&D (alignment) and trying to use it as a cudgel to attack one of the few settings that tried to actively ignore alignments. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Littlefinger posted:But wasn't that little analogy an implicit admission that yes, D&D alignment, too, is a made-up, rigid system of arbitrary, essentialist categories whose primary purpose is to legitimize violence? To be fair, he could be read as saying "getting rid of alignment just whitewashes the fact that its hosed up that race is a biological fact in D&D."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Also, complete non-understanding of historical racism and race as it relates to Ars Magica. Skin color had far less to do with it than religion and nationality. ('Venetian' was a race.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Closer to what we would call ethnicity than nationality, as well, since there wasn't so much nations as there were culturally and linguistically distinct regions which swore their allegiance to a noble who might or might not swear themselves to a monarch in turn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What makes that grog, besides "lol didn't play"? A lot of it hinges on IT'S DIFFERENT SO IT'S BAD. Like his points about alignment would make sense if Eberron's setting was actually morally black-and-white but...it isn't. If there aren't satans of pure evil and angels of pure good dictating how everything works then the idea of strict/binding alignment should go out the window. Basically he's saying that Orcs should always be chaotic evil tribesmen, all moral complexity should dilute to "well did good god or bad god make you do it?", etc. And there's a ton of settings that already do that poo poo, and have been doing it since the 70s. You can argue about whether Eberron pulls off the moral-ambiguity schtick well, but if you say a setting can't try that at all that's being stupidly conservative. The only other points are that he dislikes magic-as-technology and he thinks the political details are too vague. The first is a matter of taste, and the second is just asking for stories instead of making your own and being, you know, original.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
I completely washed over the times Zak S. was here and posting. Can someone give me a rundown of how that went?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Nobody at Something Awful could see past his sex-having to understand how brilliant and nuanced he was. Source: Zak S
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Well as an EU nerd it makes me angry because they are totally portraying the Empire the opposite that they are. (I'm not sexist btw, it's just the empire is and they aren't really portraying that) The Empire had a policy called HuMan meaning discrimination against non humans (specism, xenophobia?) and against women. (with notable exceptions to brilliant people like Thrawn, Daala, and "Iceheart"). On a slightly OT note, who wants Admiral Ackbar to be a main supporting character in the new movies? edit: VVV right thread. alg fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
alg posted:Well as an EU nerd it makes me angry because they are totally portraying the Empire the opposite that they are. (I'm not sexist btw, it's just the empire is and they aren't really portraying that) The Empire had a policy called HuMan meaning discrimination against non humans (specism, xenophobia?) and against women. (with notable exceptions to brilliant people like Thrawn, Daala, and "Iceheart"). On a slightly OT note, who wants Admiral Ackbar to be a main supporting character in the new movies? Wrong thread. (Nerd) E: sorry, I somehow assumed Star Wars and grog were mutually exclusive 
Captain Walker fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
JcDent posted:What makes that grog, besides "lol didn't play"? It's a mix of "never actually read any of the books," "got half this poo poo wrong," and "it's different so it's bad." They heard a few things about Eberron and, not having gone to actually check it out, launches into this big rant that's mostly incorrect about why they hate it so much - except their reasons end up boiling down to "it's not stock cliche fantasy 101." Also they use "milieu" which is a sure fire sign that something really dumb is about to be said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
I like the word "milieu".
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:I like the word "milieu". Case in point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Also they use "milieu" which is a sure fire sign that something really dumb is about to be said. inklesspen posted:I like the word "milieu". Milieu is a perfectly good word that can be used quite adequately by competent writers. The problem is, most of the people who like to use milieu are not competent writers. Bringing it back to grog for a moment, it's like including sexuality in games; it can be handled well and tastefully, but the people who want to do it generally can't do it well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
On the other hand, "Dear reader" should be punishable by drawing and quartering. A classic:quote:Some men wish that things be presented in a clear-cut fashion to them; that difficult choices either not be made at all or made by someone else. Such men seek to avoid the responsibility of thinking, which is a desire to avoid the responsibility of freedom. Dear reader, you have become acquainted with the Knights of the Scarlet Woman. You may have been repulsed and sought refuge in the opposite of those knights in the hopes that they would be better, but the enemy of an evil is not necessarily a good. It can be another evil. History teaches us that evil does not manifest itself openly, that the evil that is done in this world is often done in the name of so-called goodness. (since there are those who disagree with the princinples of chastity, duty, altruism etc.) I am here to tell you about one such organization that does evil in the name of alleged goodness which you should already know a few things about : the Knights of the Virgin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
If we're doing oldies, here's one from last year ~*~ quote:But they all have content which if examined closely, is very troubling. Magical Native Americans in Werewolf, Neo-Confederate apologia in Deadlands, and even a creation myth for the Drow in Complete Book of Elves which is no different than the real-world Curse of Ham (evil people are marked by their dark skin)...An important thing to keep in mind is that writers make mistakes. White Wolf screwed up with World of Darkness: Gypsies, but they since apologized and the original writers don't work anymore. I have no problem continuing buying from them...A writer who doubles down on his stereotypical "noble savage" African nation while ranting about the PC Police is digging himself into a deeper hole... Is World of Darkness: Gypsies racist? Yes. Is it sexist to impose an artificial limitation on female PCs in D&D? Yes. But that doesn't make all WoD and D&D players racist and sexist. We can acknowledge problematic content, change it and discard it, when it impacts other peoples' enjoyment by reinforcing systemic stereotypes and imposes arbitrary limits on common fantasy archetypes. Wow. So many ways I can "make a mistake". So many ways I have to worry about giving offense to you. So many things you need to apologize for and cry mia culpa over. I'm not sure I can ever have a campaign that isn't going to be potentially offensive to someone. Oh my, World of Warcraft portrayed native americans as cows! That's so racist. The Drow are black skinned, that's so racist! Who is going to be appointed to keep track of all of this? I'm not that familiar with the stuff you site, but if my Tumessi make references to gypsy myths, is that over the line? If I have nation that was among other things inspired by the thought, "What if the romanticized African Kingdoms portrayed in films like Eddie Murphy's 'Coming To America' were real?" Is that too far into your 'noble savage' territory? In my game red hair signifies a fairy ancestry, and its particularly common among the Concherri people. Can you say, "Irish! Racist!!" I look at these laundry lists of things I'm suppose to take great umbrage at, and instead I just see people leaping to judgment and moral outrage because they can. One of the starting traits you can choose for your character in my game is "Fair Sex". I'll let the text speak for itself: FAIRER SEX [TRAIT] You are a female that comes from a culture and a race with significant differences in form and custom between the sexes. As a result, you have a slighter and more fragile build than is typical for your race, but you have a well developed intuition and natural charm. Prerequisite: Female, required background Benefit: You begin with -4 Strength, but +2 Wisdom and +2 Charisma. You cannot take this advantage if it would reduce your strength below 1. "Problematic"! And with such a laundry list we seem to have gone very far afield from you initial statement: "Many cases bear striking similarity; an uncomfortable attitude towards women gamers in various forms and degrees." Back to your Scythians, isn't the whole point of citing the existence of a warrior culture that it is not unreasonable for women to be competent fighters? So the fact that there is very ambiguous evidence for rare cultures or individuals that may have fought doesn't really address the heart of your complaint. No one denies women have always fought. The foulest chauvinist would be willing to accept that. If you aren't accepting, "Women have always fought and won.", then you aren't accepting anything of relevance. Suppose for example we have this well meaning GM whose just finished Neil Stephenson's Baroque Trilogy or for whatever reason is suddenly and deeply enamored with the idea of a gritty semi-realistic adventure campaign set nominally in the real 17th century pre-Enlightenment Europe. And he likes the Burning Wheel system or something similar as a resolution system for the swash buckling character driven game he envisions, and creates a custom character burner for the game where your characters starting abilities are based in part on life choices you make for the character. He spends six months getting the game ready, and Jane Gamer hears about the game and wants to play. "Great", says the DM, "It would be interesting to have someone that can bring a real women's perspective to the table." And so Jane comes to the first session where they are going to make characters and she says, "Hmmm... I notice that you have separate life paths for men and women." "Well, yes." "And I had really intended to play a female swashbuckler, but there is no way using the female lifepath to generate a character that is as skilled of a soldier as you could using the male life path." "Well, yes. Women weren't normally expected to have a martial role in 17th century France. Many of the lifepath branches even on the character burner represent fairly rare backgrounds suitable only for heroic characters like we are planning to play. But there isn't really a realistic lifepath that gives a women as much starting martial skill as is possible for the most skilled man. You can however start with a woman whose martial skill is above the ordinary man, and of course you can focus on those skills as you develop your character in play." Sexist? Is Jane right to be outraged? Things would be even worse if the DM had read "The Pillow Book" and was inspired to do realistic 11th century Japan. Where I see this going is essentially saying it is wrong to have any setting which isn't egalitarian because it might make people uncomfortable. And indeed, based on your laundry list, I suspect 'egalitarian' is a rather narrow term for the specifics of what you are going to eventually insist on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
I would greatly appreciate if people would stop mixing up sexual harassment and sexism. This, I find extremely offensive towards men. Some posters here have written six or seven letter-sized pages of text on male sexism; what about discussing female double standards, while we're at it? For example, the fantasies expressed in the worldwide bestseller Shades of Grey dwarf any display of sexual encounters I have ever witnessed in any game. Yet, it's socially acceptable, for whatever reason. But, no, we sexist pigs, having our dungeon-looting party of dwarves and hobbits celebrate in the Waterdeep whorehouse, that is so GROSS
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I'd guess that this is a pretty common point of mild but still annoying and unacceptable sexism that women have to put up with more than men. By the same standards, I'm not a true geek - but my geek credentials are rarely doubted. I suspect my departure from mainstream geekdom would get more questioning if I was a woman though. My advice is to treat this as the sort of minor hazing any cultural group does when trying to evaluate potential membership and go, "I'm geekier than thou" on them. Don't focus on the sexism, since at least some of the time you'd be wrong - men would get the same treatment at least some of the time. Throwing it back at them is the appropriate response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
First, the goal is never to send anyone packing forever. Secondly, judged as a practical action, what you've suggested at best buys the group some time. I've said before that if I had one player being a jerk to another player, it was something I'd have to deal with. I've never had to deal with this particular problem, but yeah, this is a pull the player aside at the end of the session and say, "What the heck, Bob?" sort of moment. "How about we not act like a jerk toward the new player, k?" And conversely, "I apologize for Bob's behavior Sue. That was uncalled for and I'm going to talk to him about it." But there is a very strong possibility that me coming down on Bob, especially if I do it public like isn't going to have the effect you think. a) Bob could now be jealous of Sue. Do you like Sue more than me? Is that why you are favoring them? b) Bob could see the fact that I've intervened on Sue's behalf, proof she's a weak link. Why do you need to protect Sue? That's just what I thought she'd do - run to daddy GM for protection. Boo hoo. c) The other players may side with Bob. Look, we all got along before Sue came along. Clearly Sue just doesn't fit in this group. It's not that she's a woman or anything, it's just she just doesn't really have the right personality. And you know, I don't know whether the odds are higher of all this happening if Sue is a woman, but I can tell you that its a pretty normal human dynamic even if it is a boy named Sue. It certainly doesn't happen all the time (thank God), but it's the way I've seen people behave. At best, if Bob really is being a problem my siding with Sue is just buying some time. Ultimately Sue still needs to convince Bob she brings value to the group, and the only way to do that is .... bring value to the group. Then whatever was motivating Bob's dislike of Sue, hopefully we get a new Bob that says, "Wow, X really can bring value to the group." One person. One relationship at a time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
What bothers me about the debate is that the OP did mix a plethora (yes, I am going there) of displays of sexist behavior, and that most of the posters in the thread followed up, without making a distinction. That makes most of this thread just the usual "mean men stories", which in my opinion misses the mark. As in, different forms of sexist behavior have been mentioned in this thread, and the arguments cross over in ways that are neither helpful, nor, frankly, appropriate. Sexist game-writing - Very much open for interpretation. What about narrative functions, what about the author's intentions, and, more importantly, what about free speech? Sexist roleplaying - Very much open for interpretation, as well. "Am I a murderer because my character murders somebody?" - I think we know the answer to that one. Sexism within gaming groups - NOT open for interpretation. There's banter, and there's serious offense, of course, but, really, a normal person can tell when a line is crossed. Sexism within the roleplaying community in general, or, sexism between people that don't know each other - also, NOT open for interpretation, and rarely excusable. Possibly criminal acts, really. Those are different topics that should be addressed separately, in my opinion. Now, what I find very problematic about this discussion, and about public discussions of sexism in general, is that there's always a certain notion that men need to be told. - In my experience, an average man, in adulthood, with responsibilities, with a job, with a formation, with an education, with manners, with life experience, with sexual experience, with relationship experience, with female family members, with female peers, with female coworkers, aaaaaaaaaaaand with or without a female sentimental partner, knows ABOUT AS WELL how to treat a woman, as women in general know how to treat men. So, let's just not equate boys, or losers, or nutjobs, or creeps with normal men. Because for every chauvinist, or harasser, or stalker that you show me, I can show you a hundred men that are none of this. And not because they would be suppressing our innate bestial urges, but because men are just about as capable of civil conduct as women are. Tika's chainmail bikini isn't the bane of modern women. Immature men are. But thank goodness there are less of them than women probably like to think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
quote:Your advice amounts to allowing people to be emotionally abused. Sorry, but I don't count that as one of the world's great ideas. What?? No body is being allowed anything here. No advice here can prevent a person from being 'emotionally abused'. If someone makes some one else uncomfortable, even intensely uncomfortable, no advice can retroactively stop what has already occurred. In this case the 'emotional abuse' in question is attack the identity of the person as a member of the social group, some variation presumably on, "You're not a real gamer, you're a girl!" Nothing anyone could advice to the person who has been targeted in such a manner can prevent that from having happened. What advice we must give must be in how to respond to that. My advice is: a) Wear your asbestos armor. Words can hurt, I should know, but at some point you have to develop 'damage resistance' to insensitivity, jerkiness, and teasing. I don't pretend that is easy, but it is necessary. Fundamentally, you should not be letting anyone, and certainly not strangers, dictate to you your feelings or any sense of self-worth. b) Put as good of face on it as you can. It doesn't do to show you've been hurt, this just opens you up for additional bullying. Also, being polite and good natured adds to your sympathy. Yes, this often means treating people better than they deserve, but that isn't always a bad thing either. c) Turn it back on them. Answer the implicit and explicit challenge. Some people are just jerks and aren't going to let it go, but many didn't mean to be jerks and many are willing to change their impression of you if you engage them. And like it or not, some of this is just biology. Deal with it on that level. Women in particular often inadvertently signal back low status and submissive behavior - distress cries, distress postures, losing self-control, threat displays, etc. You'd be amazed at what signaling back high status by showing you aren't distressed can accomplish at times. And I've seen women who are good at this, unconsciously imitating the demeanor of a high status male.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
I bet that all was really goddamn easy to find, too, and that just makes it so much more depressing
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
When my GM told me that my Rogue Trader was gettitg kinky with a noble woman, my sole objection was that my character never said he was gonna do that. That's it, the thread tought me that I'm a grognard I'll collect my neckbeard and cheeto dust at the exit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
I find Paizo's attempts to be inclusive rather bizarre, since D&D is founded on racism being measurably true (e.g. dwarves are genetically hardwired to be good at appraising precious metals, half-orcs are genetically stupider than humans, etc) and ethnic cleansing and crime fantasy being a common past time (e.g. breaking into the homes of goblins, orcs, gnolls and other "ugly" peoples to kill them and take their stuff). It's very strange to me when in the game world, its okay to be racist towards elves and orcs (even killing them), but when someone is prejudiced toward black people, gay people, or female people, they're irredeemably evil as in the real world. Just because elves and orcs are fictional doesn't excuse prejudice against them or the racist way they're designed. D&D societies display this bizarre moral system where they treat their own kind with 21st century liberal attitudes, but otherwise act like conquistadors/cowboys/etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:I bet that all was really goddamn easy to find, too, and that just makes it so much more depressing It was Quite A Thing for me to realize that, terrible as the video game industry is, it's still where most minority developers in tabletop games want to escape to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Sarah Caudwell used "dear reader" in her novels and she was awesome, so there.The Shortest Way to Hades posted:Cost candor what it may, I will not deceive my readers. By some whim of the publishers, and despite my own protests, the ensuing narrative is to be offered to the public in the guise of a work of fiction. Well, I will have no part in so gross an imposture: what follows is not some ingenious invention, but a plain, unembellished account of actual events, of interest, I fear, only to the more scholarly. Some of my readers, perhaps many, having expected to find in these pages diversion rather than instruction, will now hasten back to their booksellers to demand indignantly, it may be with threats of legal action, reimbursement of the sum so ill-advisedly expended. So be it: such readers will give me credit, I hope, for having enabled them by my prompt confession to return the volume unread and in almost pristine condition; and I for my part (for publisher and bookseller I cannot speak) would rather forgo the modest sum which would accrue to me from a sale—very modest, meager might be a better word, one might almost say paltry—would infinitely rather forgo that sum than think it obtained by deception.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
quote:I'm a relatively new DM and the only woman in our player group. The players constantly want to have sex with/ say creepy things to/ sexually assault my NPCs. This has been making me increasingly uncomfortable. I try to gloss over any sexual encounter by "fading to black", but routinely it is the area of play that my players are most interested in. I can't tell you how focused you can make a party when a child is killed, tortured or mutilated in a campaign. I've DMed games where these things happened and I have played games in which this happened. I actually had one game where I, a player, tortured a Mage that was experimenting on children. It can make campaigns very mature and adult if handled correctly. But ONLY if handled correctly. Talk to them about that it's weird and makes you uncomfortable. If that doesn't work, you're the DM- every PC gets a horrible eldritch STD that rots their dick off, and every time a player makes a rapey joke at the table, their character has to make a DC 30 Will check not to drop unconscious from psychological trauma. Two things, Succubi and STDs. Have the things that they try to rape turn the tables on them! You're the DM? Cursed poisonous chastity belts. Problem solved. If characters are having too much sex, feel free to say that they where so loud that no one got a good night's sleep so no one gets their spells/abilities back. Honestly, you're the DM. If it bothers you, don't. Next time someone makes a move that even remotely bothers you (in character, or out), guards burst in and it was a sting operation of some kind. They're ALL either taken to jail to be tried in the morning (if you're feeling generous) or they're taken to the gallows immediately for attempted rape. Then, they are swiftly hanged, and have to roll new characters. Sounds like you're playing with 14 year old boys. I had 1 guy in my group really try to focus on that aspect, he was playing a Barbarian raider who spent his days raising small villages and enslaving the people. So I let him capture a woman here and there to take back to his raiding party as a "reward", but we didn't go into details (more important things happening elsewhere anyway). Next time one of them tries to rape a woman or even do is consensually, have them make a perception check, maybe a reflex too, and if they fail, bam their penis is sliced off because they failed to see the hidden blade. In general I let my players go at it, as long as they arnt overdoing it, not in explicet details but rather I have them roll a D20 for how good the sex was. Roll a 20 and godamn that women or man thinks your a/the god of sex. Roll a 1 and you just couldnt get it up. Your situation id leave that group but not after having one of the women npcs actually be assasin who kills the party or juat gives them all STDS. So running, excuse me, walking away from the situation isn't the cowardly route. Funny, I didn't know it was opposite day. Just slice their characters' dingus off or some equivalent. They can't rape when their genitalia has been mutilated into an unusable state. Turn the tables on them. Then maybe they'll think twice in the next game that they try to pull this juvenile bullshit in. Maybe they'll be less of a problem for OP or the next GM to take them in. Then again, there is that high road of walking away and passing off that social responsibility to the next GM. Maybe the next GM will do the humane thing and neuter their overly sexually aggressive PC's. Attempts to rape just about anyone end up with a ring/pendant/belt/corset releasing issuing a Word of Recall and leaving behind a cloud of putrid decaying zombie wombats. What's the time requirement to don armor? Just make sure there's a priest/priestess who was assaulted/had a child assaulted/had a loved one assaulted etc etc and they made it their mission to prevent the problem from occurring in the future so they've equipped all ladies of the realm with equivalent items. === To be fair, about 3/4ths of the thread was "Holy poo poo run away from that group ASAP". It's just that the rest are "punish the players in-game through some convoluted means"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 02:36
|
|