PC Red Flags (OP by candidgamera)
What player
character traits immediately set your GM's mind on high alert?
I've got two that
popped into my head while I was pondering the subject.
1.) Pacifism in a
game that includes combat. And I don't mean technical pacifism where they only
fight to knock someone out, or pacifism in a game that runs 90% on social
interactions ... I mean a Dungeons and Dragons, or Star Wars typical adventure
campaign wherein a character will not swing or fire a weapon at enemies even if
he or his party members are in danger. Had this one crop up twice (though both
times, the character ended up breaking the pacifist vow when the player got
pissed off about something, so it was poor roleplaying on a couple of levels).
2.) Serious mental
illnesses, particularly in systems that have no way to model them. I seriously
knew a dude in a D&D 4E game who decided his character was Claustrophobic
and addicted to drugs. Nevermind that it's called DUNGEONS and Dragons.
Nevermind that, as of the start of the game, our characters had been slaves for
months, with no access to drugs. He was still going to be addicted, damn it,
and he was still going to curl up into a ball in any underground space when he
failed one of his self-imposed will saves.
Eh, a pacifist character can work
in just about any game, including the kind of pacifist that will not attack
under any circumstances. And such a character breaking and attacking isn’t
necessarily poor roleplaying. In fact, depending on the circumstances, it could
be great roleplaying. As for #2, that
can also work in a lot of games. It’s all dependent on the player and the GM.
By Godfatherbrak:
I had a new player
tell me, "my character is an orphan loner."
Me: "No he's
not."
Then you maybe shouldn’t try to GM.
By Blackwingedheaven
Kender. Always
kender.
Kender aren’t a problem. Shitty
players allowed to play Kender are a problem. I’ve never had any problems
running or playing one.
By LeighTheDwarf
I've never been a GM
before,
Shut the fuck up then.
By EvilSchemer
I had a player one
time make a character who was severely allergic to air. In concept, it was kind
of neat. He had to wear an oxygen mask to breathe. In play, he got really pissy
whenever it became an actual liability.
That’s actually pretty decent.
Hell, it’s a requirement for a couple of species in Battlelords. But yeah, the
player shouldn’t get pissy when it’s an actual hindrance.
By jerandall
Player: 'My
character has [socially unacceptable beliefs such as virulent racism or sexism]
but it fits his culture because [he's an Orc / Klingon / whatever].'
Me (GM): 'Nope.'
Then perhaps you should not be a GM
also. Because that’s pretty easy to work with and can generate some tremendous
roleplaying.
By thorya
For me it's
"I'm going to multi-class."
For new players that
means I want to do all the roles and I will be upset when I do none of them
well. For experienced players it usually means, I found a loophole I am going
to exploit.
Then you’ve got shitty players and
should find a new group.
By Devil’s Avocado
Amnesia. It almost
always means "I want the GM to write my background for me but will
complain if there's anything I don't like in it".
If they complain, tell them to shut
the fuck up. Taking amnesia is shorthand for “Gamemaster, do whatever the fuck
you want to do with my background and origin!”
By BASHMAN
Yeah the pacifism
one on Dungeons & Dragons is a real irritant. So you get a share of our XP
and treasure... but refuse to do anything at all to help earn it? (this was
AD&D when most XP was from killing monsters or the amount of treasure you
collected from killing said monsters).
If you think that the only way the
character can help is by taking up arms against an enemy, then you’re a fucking
moron. That’s a problem with you, not the other character or the game.
By sulldawga
The player who wants
to play the same character concept, regardless of the rules or setting.
Especially when
you're running a gritty realistic sandbox D&D game and the guy still wants
to play his female 12 year old mage. So she's smart enough to cast spells
before puberty but dumb enough to think dungeon delving with a bunch of
inexperienced murderhobo-wannabes is a promising career path?
You should get a better grasp on
the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom.
Most of the remainder of the thread
is bickering about the “red flags” already discussed. Essentially, it’s a
thread by people who should either not run games, or should find new players.
GMing advice--reconciling players
who have different political opinions? (OP by MistahJ)
I need advice about
something very specific that's happened with a gaming group of mine.
Okay, so normally
politics don't come up with my gaming groups. Ever. And normally I have a rule
that says "leave that at the door, this is about elfgames, please."
Usually there are no problems.
But I've run into
one problem with one particular group lately. I tend to try to be inclusive
with my content if people request stuff they want. One player has requested
something--it's nothing major--it's just that one of my players (we'll call him
Z) wanted his barbarian hero to save a Prince rather than a Princess, with a
romantic plot there. Not a big deal to me, and my group never spends any
significant screentime on romances anyway. I thought it was a very minor thing.
It's arguably the tiniest piece of LGBT content I could include. It would just
be for this part of the plot; Z said he doesn't want to make it a huge focus or
anything.
One of my players
(we'll call him R) is very upset. R doesn't like this being included. He's
ridiculously upset and says that if I allow this as a GM, I am violating my
rule about leaving politics at the door. I was floored. R and I have never
argued over anything; he's typically been one of my most exemplary players
(always on time, never misses a session, pays for snacks if I'm hosting, has
often helped new people to the group adjust or learn). But Z is also just as
exemplary a player.
“R, shut the fuck up and play the
game. Bitch about it if, at some point, your character is required to engage in
homosexual sex. Until then, hush. If it’s so bothersome to you that you can’t
play, we’ll enjoy having you back for the next game, gimme a call.”
Bam! Problem solved.
By Godfatherbrak
He would never call
saving a Princess and having a romantic subplot political. His prejudices are
making something political that is supposed to be romantic.
Yeah, pretty much.
By damiller
I'll probably regret
this but...
Then maybe you should rethink how
you’re going to say it . . .
I don't think R is
out of order for letting you know that a topic in the game is making him
uncomfortable. I don't care what the topic is. If it were about rape or racism no
one would be upset at R, in fact he might be applauded. The fact that R seems
to have views that are not currently acceptable is besides the point.
Awesome. You just compared a
same-sex romantic sub-plot with rape and racism. No wonder you knew you might
regret your post. You were aware beforehand that you were going to be a dumb
fuck.
I am not a
therapist, I am not gaming to change or challenge anyone's views. And
presumably no one is there for the that reason.
No, you’re not a therapist. You’re
also not a thinker, from the sound of it.
For me in this game
as a GM if Z wanted to save the prince great, but there would be no mention at
all of any romance. I'd say, great you saved him, fade out, next player.
Because you suck.
By the OP
Very hard to try to
find balance with this. I feel like he's entitled to his beliefs and
opinions--it's just a matter of what degree do I feel comfortable letting those
beliefs influence my group's game.
Of course R is entitled to his
beliefs, even if they’re stupid. R is not entitled to screw over the game
because of them, and his or her misguided notions of what is political. As was
said above, if it were male/female, R wouldn’t have a problem. That makes this
R’s burden to carry, not yours, not the other players. This would be different
if R’s objection were to any romantic sub-plot, but that’s not the case
according to what you’ve said thus far.
By Michael Brazier
Let me take a
different angle on this: have you considered the political effects within your
game's setting of a homosexual Prince?
Let’s not, since that’s not
important to the topic at hand.
By baakyocalder
Me, I'd be more
willing to side with R since the 'saved the royal, get a romantic relationship'
meme is stale.
Then I’m comfortable determining
that you’re
A. An asshole
or
B. Don’t actually understand what’s
being discussed and should shut the fuck up and pay attention.
By RavenMM
Maybe it's a
non-american thing, but I can't understand this divide between non-political
and political some people express here.
Some are arguing
that having homosexual relationships are not political because they exist in
real life (which of course they do). Well, COmmunism, Liberalism, Mocharchism,
Sexism and a whole other bunch of different -isms also exist in our world - yet
they seemed to be banned by the gms "no politics" rule.
I say you should
have a talk with your players what they think your no-politics rule mean and
then decide a common interpretation, so that nobody is blindsided by a topic
they thought would not come up in play.
That is not a “non-american thing”,
it’s you being stupid. A homosexual relationship isn’t anywhere near the same
as Communism, Liberalism, and what not.
No, this is a "you’re stupid" thing.
By the OP
Okay, so I met R and
Z for breakfast to talk; R specifically asked for Z in his message.
It was a weird talk.
R let me ask him
questions, and it turns out that yes, there was something going on in his life
that makes him not want to see a gay couple in a RP.
R's brother came out
as gay less than a month ago, and there was a really bad break with the family.
R's brother left and refuses to speak to R's family any more. Religion was the
big starting point of how it all blew up for R's family, too. R is still
feeling hurt. He also said he's been clinging pretty hard to his religion
because he picked the rest of his family and religion over his brother, which
has him a lot more 'militant' than he really is. He conceded he was venting too
many RL frustrations into the group.
Man, that’s rough for R’s brother.
R can go fuck right off though.
Z surprised me by
being really sensitive about this; I thought Z wasn't going to compromise at
all (and I didn't necessarily see a need for Z himself to compromise--plus, Z
had been super angry during the initial disagreement when his character romance
was first broached), but Z thought about it and asked R there was anything that
might make this a more tolerable subject for him. R explained he was frustrated
because LGBT content is being allowed, but my "no politics" rule has
kind of barred some of his favorite topics from the group, so that was another
reason he was getting frustrated. Z apparently knows some of R's favorite
tabletop games, and asked R if the compromise could be that Z's character can
have the barbarian/Prince relationship, but...the group would play Dark Ages:
Inquisitor after this campaign, which Z knows R really likes.
R was surprised at
the suggested compromise and asked if Z would even be comfortable playing that
game because of the blatant Christianity themes and had assumed Z wouldn't play
it. Z pointed out that there was room for nuance in that sort of game, and so
long as R didn't demand he play a "perfect Catholic," they could
probably enjoy the game and all its political nuance. He also said it was a
game where it would be fun to have characters have religious and philosophical
disagreement and that Dark Ages: Inquisitor's appeal for Z was precisely in
that sort of thing. R and Z both agreed playing that particular tabletop might
be cathartic for them both, and they both conceded that they might fight IC,
but they'll stop fighting OOC. They'll let the dice decide what happens if they
disagree and asked if I'd allow PvP. It'll be our "heavy game" after
this light-hearted hack n' slash elfgame.
It’s nice that you all worked
things out, but you’ll notice R is still being an ignorant douche, so you’ll
want to keep an eye on that.
Splitting the party? (By Seiberwing)
There's a single
person in a few groups I've run with who always plays the mysterious rogue-type
character (which is fine), and in the games I've been in with her always seems
to find a reason to be away from the rest of the party for long spans of time
(less fine). I'm told she does it a lot.
In one of the two
games I've been in with her she spent most of it somewhere else. I've also been
in games where the party seemed to split apart often and for long periods,
meaning that there were long spans where the rest of us just went out to 7-11
or lounged on the couch doing nothing. I don't entirely understand the appeal
of breaking up when it means folks have to wait for the spotlight to get back
to them, but no one else seems to have a problem with it. Possibly it's IC, but
it's not bringing the fun. The one time we made it work out was when the GM
swapped back and forth between us, giving a few minutes to each group (for
those in combat, a full round before moving to the ones fleeing the area for a
few minutes), which made it less excruciatingly dull for me.
What are your
experiences with this issue?
What issue? Splitting the party?
That’s not an issue. It’s something that happens. You go back and forth if each
group is engaged in something, or, if they are not, you tell the players with
the unengaged characters “Hey, run and get me a soda pop please and thanks”.
That was what tended
to happen with the mysterious rogue person, which they seemed to be totally
okay with. Which confused me, as mentioned. Why would you not want to be doing
more actual playing?
Doesn’t matter, because it’s not
your concern, and your understanding isn’t required.
So, a PC dies… (By Caplin)
I was playing Horror
on the Orient Express, and sacrificed myself to blow up a bunch of cultists.
This effectively ended my participation in the session for the evening, though
I wondered if I might end up playing an NPC at some point.
Has anybody come up
with innovative approaches to solving the PC death problem?
Well, first you would have to
define the problem. I don’t see one in your post. Your character died. In a CoC
game. It happens. You move one.
Oh, you mean what will you do while
the rest of them forget to mourn? Right. You start pondering your next
character and how to integrate them into the game. The GM might give you an NPC
to run for the rest of the session. It really depends on what’s going on in the
game at the time.
The rest of this is mostly some not
great ideas and the on-going “Well I don’t allow death in my game unless the
player wants it” which is stupid, since the OP said they sacrificed themselves,
which means they wanted it, so shut the fuck up.
[DnD5e] My best player is a
Gamergater....what do? (By TheDiceMustRoll)
So then he asked me
to add him on facebook, and his profile picture is Vivian James. His wall is
filled to the brim with tons of links from KotakuinAction, most of which is
having a tantrum over a woman saying...something or a person getting screamed
at(BTFO, apparantly) by random nobodies on twitter.
I broached the topic
with him and he got pretty defensive. I didn't want to start a fight in front
of everyone but he talked about it a bit and he does unfortunately live in a
fantasy world where 'SJWS' are trying to ruin just about everything good in the
world. He even opened the player's handbook and pointed at the little blurb
about gender stuff on the character creation front page and cited it as an
example of "SJW Cancer".
So I'm at something
of an impasse here. He's actually until recently come off as a really cool
dude, and like, my other players are good at playing their classes, but they
dont know the setting like he does and they probably wont enjoy playing without
him due to him sort of uh, elevating the style of game.
So should I kick him
out and go back to just running more traditional quests? It's guaranteed to be
less fulfilling for me. But....he's from fucking gamergate........
What do?
This is pretty simple:
Are you comfortable with this
person playing so long as they keep their vile beliefs and views out of the gaming
space?
If Yes, then continue to play until
they actively make the space unpleasant or toxic
If No, then you tell them thanks,
but their presence is no longer required.
By JetstreamGW
Just in case it
isn't: Y'all have been playing together for how long? It didn't come up before,
just don't discuss that sort of thing. Who cares about someone's political
views, if you don't discuss politics?
Indeed. I mean, who cares if JoeBob
is a Klansman if we don’t talk about race? Because some people need to be excluded.
Period. Some views are so vile that simple ongoing association effectively
validates them. If you don’t hold that position, fine, but don’t act like it’s
some fucking mysterious thing you don’t understand.
By neowolf
It's all down to
what you can tolerate. If your personal ethics makes associating with him
intolerable, well then, that's it. You've answered your question. If not, then
the suggestions as to how to just avoid the topic like it's the plague are your
best approach. If he's perfectly agreeable in every other way, and you're comfortable
doing so, compartmentalize him to just a gaming friend and leave it at that.
As a side note, if
this is a make it or break it issue for you, while it's certainly sad, it's not
something you can help. It's nothing for you to feel guilty over.
Well, darn, I should have just
waited and quoted this person for truth.
By ClassDunce (a known asswipe)
Oh yeah. It sounds
like he's a total piece of shit. He showed up to the game actively helped
everyone enjoy it more and kept any and all personal toxic opinions to himself.
Until he was asked. What a piece of shit.
By Blackwingedheaven in response to ClassDunce
Strangely enough, a
person can be a lot of fun to hang out with and still hold beliefs that make
him a total piece of shit. The two things aren't mutually exclusive. If you
find out someone is a member of a hate group, it's important to evaluate how
much you value "having a good time" versus "not dealing with
people who are in a hate group."
There’s not anything I can add to
that.
By Sunsword
I would unfollow him
on Facebook. But if it doesn't come up in your games, and he isn't a
distracting player, your essentially booting him because you disagree on an
issue.
No, the person would be getting the
boot for being a misogynistic shit stain who endorses swatting, doxxing, and
rape and death threats. Because vidya games!!!
Don’t be a fucking moron.
By Moonmover
I don't see what his
political* affiliations have to do with your D&D game. If everyone at the
table is having a good time and he isn't offending any of you, then why are YOU
the one bringing politics into this?
You clearly lack an understanding
of what Gamergate is. It’s not “political affiliations”, it’s a mother fucking
hate group.
By conduit (member for 2 months with 22 posts at the time of
this posting)
Let him stay. If for
no other reason, being in an RPG group is an exercise in empathy. Players, and
their characters, have to try to see things from the other point of view, and
learn to think critically about motivations. It could be good for him.
I've been gaming
with many of the same people for a decade. I've seen people change for the
better, over time. I'm not saying that a game group is a panacea for every ill,
but I really think that positive interactions with good people in a creative
environment fosters mental health.
For all anyone
knows, this could just be an embarrassing phase. Maybe he doubled down because
he got called out and became over-defensive. Maybe he's in a bad place right
now, and is grasping at straws for some kind of thing to hold on to. If there's
a chance this dude is redeemable, you
oughta try.
Fuck you. It’s not the OP’s job to try and make the gater a better person, and especially not during their happy fun
hobby time.
By Black Vulmea (often wrong on things)
Shunning doesn't
redeem pariahs; it breeds them.
That’s true! IF YOU IGNORE HISTORY
AND THE WAY PEOPLE WORK.
By TheMouse
I think that the
nicest I'd have been able to pull off in response to the, "SJW
cancer," comment would have been, "And I'm the Social Justice gods
damned Game Master, and if any more of that bullshit sticks its nose so much as
a quarter inch into my game in the future, you're out."
I'm plenty willing
to give people some slack when it comes to accidentally saying something
offensive or not having thought through a particular perspective. But GG is a
hate group. They make bomb threats and shit. The degree to which I'm willing to
extend slack toward such individuals if very, very limited. And I value all of
the trans, gay, female, etc gamers who might potentially join a gaming group
too much to give a GGer any leeway.
Fucking right.
By Gilda (3 months as a poster at this time)
It's up to you if
you're willing to play with someone of a different tribe than yourself.
I'll just say that
as a Christian, I don't kick people out of groups I'm in for Christian-bashing
on Facebook.
Christian-bashing isn’t really the
same as belonging to a hate group that has literally attempted to use terror as
a weapon. As in, the fucking definition of terrorist.
Lot of hate group apologists in
this thread.
By Jigawatts
Being unable to game
or be friends with someone who has differing political viewpoints is myopic and
small minded. Dont be that guy. If he is respecting everyone while at the
table, thats all that matters. And sounds like he is an awesome roleplayer
anyway.
Lot of GamerGate apologists in this
thread also. Interesting how many people keep trying to classify this as a
political difference. Doing so either requires no knowledge of GamerGate, in
which case, they need to shut the fuck up, or a deliberate attempt to excise
from discussion the truth of GG.
Disclaimer: I think
Gamergate is stupid, I think complaining about boob armor/sexy attire is
stupid, I think complaining over the new Ghostbusters movie is stupid, I think
complaining about Black Widows characterization/role is stupid. The
rage/trigger/pile-on culture that has risen in the last decade is ridiculous
and silly. People take entertainment far too seriously.
Awwwww, someone thinks they’re edgy
and cool and above the concerns of the too-sensitive internet people. In other
words, Jigawatts is a fuckhead. Oh look, they’re not done:
I'll be honest, I
dont know much about Gamergate, I thought it was more of a conservative/liberal
standoff type thing. I remember the original accusation levied was that some
girl had slept with a journalist in order to get a good review on her game,
with the opposing side saying that had not taken place. I had also heard there
were some extremists, some on the one side who were threatening violence and
rape, but I also remember hearing a story on the other side threatening violence
in that they were going to find someone and literally castrate them. Seems like
both sides have some issues. Honestly I tend not to waste personal time or
brain space on these things.
So Jigawatts decided, with no
actual knowledge of the subject, to come in and tell everyone that they’re
wrong, myopic, and small-minded. Man, living in righteous ignorance must be
fucking nice. Also with a nice helping of “BOTH SIDES!!!!!”
I will say this
akajdrakeh, my personal policy is to treat everyone I meet with respect, and to
continue doing so until their actions dictate otherwise. Using politcal stances
as an example, I have friends that are both super liberal and super
conservative, their political viewpoints have zero impact on my ability to call
them a friend. My initial response to this thread was based on the information
the OP shared in his first post, and what I saw described was a person whos
actions hadnt dictated anything to constitute his removal. If this person has
personally threatened people (or taken other such deplorable actions) then that
would indeed change things, but everyone should be judged solely based on their
personal actions.
This is bullshit. Which Jigawatts
would know if they weren’t such a stupid mother fucker. Fucker’s trying to vaguely walk back their
position. But only vaguely, enough to hope they don’t get jumped on anymore.
Fucking chickenshit.
From shosai (joined same month as this post, 3 posts at this
time)
I think you need to
first determine if he actually harbors the toxic views that we're projecting
onto him. Since he's open about his opinions, instead of speculating about how
he feels about women and minorities in games, maybe just ask him? From his play
sessions, it sounds like he's gotten along with female players fine, but you
know him better than we do. Has he ever encouraged or aided in threats against
other people? What about his facebook posts? If he just dislikes Anita
Sarkeesian or twitter e-celebs its one thing, but if he's ever actually hurt
people then he needs to go.
Read the thread. Including the VERY
FIRST POST that establishes that the person in question does harbor these views. Fuckwit.
From Nahash (3 posts in 4 years)
I feel that this is
very much a case of missing the nuance in the potential views of someone else,
and believing that they are extreme in some fashion that they may not be. Not
everything is black and white, not everything needs to be full of hate and opposition.
People can hold moderate or even contradictory viewpoints. People who believe
in different things can still be friends. That's my feeling.
Yeah, OP! How can you miss the
nuance in supporting the terrorization of people because of them being women
who dare to have opinions on things?!?!?!?
The rest of the person’s post is
more apologist, tone-policing, tolerate intolerance bullshit.
And hey look! Coincidentally, with
all these new and/or low-count posters showing up to defend the continued
presence of the GG in the game, we find that this thread is linked to in one
the main places on the internet where GGs like to socialize with each other. I
am shocked and amazed at this development.
I hate half races (By Death; join
May2016, first post) (note the the OP on the thread is also all in bold text)
I just want to say,
half races are lame. How do you cross an elf that lives thousands of years with
a human that lives 100 years? Or an orc with a human. Just because its DnD and
there is magic dosent mean that science still doesn't exist. Genes and stuff.
Different races have completely different genes & different creators.
Its kind of like
mating a male lion with a female tiger, you have offspring, but it can't
reproduce.
I just think the
world should know how much I hate this half race bologna . I flip threw DnD
Players guide, Human, Dwarf, half elf, half orc, half halphling, half gnome,
gnome, Dragonborne. wtf.
o by the way hi I'm
Death
That’s nice, now go fuck off and
try to come up with an original thought, or at least a more original argument
for your position. Also, you’re not Death, you’re a fucking sockpuppet, and I’ll
put money on that.
Huh. 173 posts in the thread, and
we have yet to hear back from the OP . . .
It's 2016. Can we please get rid of
the girl gamer/PC stereotype? (By Lemue, one month on the forums)
When I started
gaming and DMing, back in 1979 girl gamers were a rarity. I've absolutely no
clue why, unless it may have been in that timey old time, boy gamers might have
felt nervous inviting us girls into the game.
There isn't much
more creepy than guys thinking that because you're a girl gamer you are a)
single (often not true) b) looking for a date (often not true). No. We are girl
gamers looking for a good game.
And then even
creepier is guys who want to play girls who want to be ninja strippers. Ugh.
But even that I can deal with if they focus on RP.
Meanwhile 30+ years
have passed, and many of us have taught our DAUGHTERS to play these games.
Maybe a little
respect, decency and less of the "I want to play uncle creepy" madness
Yeah, you know some people are
working on that, but they’re outnumbered by the assholes. And here is the very
first response:
By RogerBW (5 years on, all of 42 posts)
I've not witnessed
the problems you describe. I think the male gamers I know have tended if
anything to be slightly over-deferential to female gamers, on the basis that
they probably have more social opportunities than we do and we'd like them to come
back.
Oh. Well, fuck, go home, everyone!
Roger hasn’t seen it, so it’s not a problem or a thing that happens.
Stupid mother fucker, that’s what
RogerBW is.
By IanTheMoxious
I've only witnessed
poor treatment of female gamers at one shop that is now closed. My personal
group is usually 50 to 75% female. As somebody said above, I generally see
female players treated with more respect than males.
Seriously, go home everyone. Ian agrees with Roger that there is no poor treatment of women in gaming, because
the behavior at the one place (because Ian, though they don’t mention it, has
been at every gaming table during every game ever), so clearly this is not an
actual problem.
By Churchill
Not this thread
again...
Someone call the cops! Someone’s
got a gun to Churchill’s head and is making them read a thread that they don’t
want to read about a subject they don’t want to read about!!
By DavetheLost
I guess I have been
lucky.
Yes, you have, by being a male and
therefore not really subject to the sexism that the OP is talking about, you
stupid fuck.
Then the thread devolves into an
argument about what does and doesn’t qualify as roleplaying, with a dose of
VictorVonDoom talking about how the subject clearly isn’t a problem since he’s
never seen it in his vast expanse of gaming experience. A position that he ends
up tripling down on.
By DeathbyDoughnut
. . . I do find it
unfair that threads like this pop up again, and again and again all over the
internet, preaching about breaking stereotypes against women while
simultaneously reinforcing stereotypes against men.
Right on! How dare the people
subjected to this behavior in far, far greater numbers and an even greater
percentage or players not talk about the menz with equal time?
By Michael K (one year, 73 posts)
I feel uncomfortable
continuing this discussion because I feel that I cannot say where the
boundaries of in-thread behavior exist. As a final word, I would not deny the
experiences of female posters.
Except that you’ve been doing that. That’s why you feel you can’t continue
within the rules the mod just reminded everyone about.
By Got no guts (one month, 83 posts)
With the fear I will
suddenly for some reason be cut off by red text for some reason:
If you think that’s going to
happen, that means you know you’re about to post some bullshit and are grabbing
at pre-victim status.
As a just post
adolescent guy I guess I can answer to that question on behalf of some of them;
A) No, we/they don't
believe that you are single. or B) looking for a date.
BUT
It does mean that
(In the opinion of an awkward gamer) You are pretty smart. And probably nerdy.
And that you have atleast something in common with the really socialy awkward
adolescent gamer. And whats the harm in asking if you are single, right?
Because they’re there to play a
fucking game and not get hit on by dipshits like you?
By Nibbler
I don't know if this
has been mentioned before, but I think the social awkwardness in RPGs comes
from both sides.
If a girl shows up
to a con, just like if a guy does, a good chance exists that she's gonna be socially
awkward and not have a good understanding of social cues.
In fact,
anecdotally, when I think back on this MOST of the girls at cons are pretty
weird... along, of course, with most of the guys.
So this creates a
ton of misfired social situations on either side.
I think, really,
both parties in these situations are often 'Strangers in a Strange Land'...
guys, sitting at a con table with the rare girl (in my neck of the woods, it's
still roughly 3/1 ratio, and back in the 80s it was more 10/1)... and girls,
sitting at a con table with a bunch of guys.
We're all pretty
nerdy folks.
No, we’re not all pretty fucking
nerdy, dipshit. And hey, anecdotally, you can’t speak to MOST of the girls at
cons because you haven’t interacted with anything approaching a significant percentage
of them.
Then there’s a significant derail
about sea-lioning and the comic it comes from (look it up). Also, by the time VictorVonDoom picks up the
thread ban, you get the impression that he’s a GG apologist and sexism denier,
but is relatively good about staying just
inside the rules.
Well, that's all for now. Maybe next time there will be better questions and fewer shit stains.
