Quote from: John Scott;1038741Generally I agree especially with the last paragraph, but we are not exactly like that you describe. We all have or had a number of girlfriends and some of us have wives now. Me and my friends when we gather we don't give a F about sex, about politics or about transgender hentai elfs! We want to play games. RPG is a form of escapism anything that remind us real life is a no go.

I have no desire to offend anyone f I did then I apologize, the reason I made the comment you see is that I have many personal "horror stories" with gay people (most older than me) hitting on me, some are quite comical. (at least from my perspective) No drama here, we are grown up but they where not "emotionaly" very stable.

Although I am a lurker to many sites TheRPG site is the only one that I considered registering both for it allows many different voices to be heard and because I find "the sage advice" of the participants here of high quality.

To clarify, I'm straight. I'm just not very sexually motivated, but some of my co-workers, spend like every waking moment devoted to mating rituals, who are also straight.

Quote from: Azraele;1038590This is what sets therpgsite apart from lesser forums. It is, at its heart, a collection of gentleman and ladies, dilettantes all, possessed of the highest caliber of social grace.

Awesome! Thank you Azraele!

Quote from: jhkim;1038501I find that it's not uncommon for modules to specify couples in the text. Here are some examples from Temple of Elemental Evil, for example - .

Thank you jhkim. You're right that hetero couples did exist in modules.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602Blue Rose was intended for a gay audience, and that's fine.

The romantic fantasy genre is primarily a female audience and for whatever reason, many heterosexual women are excited by gay male romances.  Maybe its the gender flip version of why many heterosexual men are excited by lesbian porn?  

However Blue Rose was not intended for a gay audience, but a "gay friendly, politically "progressive" audience.

A Conan RPG with loads of oiled body builder Franzetta art? Now THAT's gonna get your gay audience.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038610D&D never supported steampunk fantasy mecha, but Iron Kingdoms did and it rocked.

Fuck yeah!

Quote from: jeff37923;1038610and nobody wanted to be part of the group that "fought Jesus and killed him for XP",

You didn't go to a Catholic all boys high school.

Yeah...listening to black metal, drawing upside down crosses and statting out Jesus to get whacked was a thing.

We played a time travel campaign where we stole Mourneblade and Stormbringer and went sucking the souls of guys from the Bible. I collected 6 apostles in Mourneblade. Jesus totally kicked our ass, so we went back and killed Moses and empowered the Egyptian gods so the Hebrews never were freed from Egypt. God got pissed and send the angels after us and that fucked us up badly so we time traveled back to Noah and destroyed the Ark so everything in the world died in the Flood.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1038725IME, most of the sex-obsessed players I've encountered have been old straight men.

I wouldn't call them obsessed but the most interested in sexuality and related topics in our games have been women with men showing more interest after the ice was broken, so to speak.

Quote from: KingCheops;1038617Why not leave "core" D&D as devoid of sex and then open up the space through community/third party work?

As jhkim pointed out, core D&D has not been devoid of sex. The old modules had some heterosexual couples defined in the text.

Thus, in the modern age, the modern audience would expect new modules to have both hetero and homosexual couples defined in the text.

And we can kill and loot those NPCs just like old times.

Or am I really the only poster here who's gonna admit to depopulating Hommlet?

Quote from: KingCheops;1038617How about a LGBTQ category on DM's Guild where you can see all the products that creators have flagged as LGBTQ in a quick to find category?  Let's see how big that market is.

THAT is a good idea. I bet it would do well.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038628No, because it's entirely a product of his screaming homophobia.

I don't think Silas is homophobic. He's clearly stated support for gay rights. He just believes discussions of homosexuality are politically charged and not family friendly and doesn't want anything politically charged in his RPGing.

He's why comedian Patton Oswalt says liberals should accept "imperfect allies" instead of driving them away.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038633Or can we not trust the common gamer with that much freedom?

Freedom doesn't guarantee adherence to doubleplusgoodthink.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1038654Should have called them Bert and Ernie.

Bert is a power bottom.

Quote from: jhkim;1038708I'll say it - We can be goddamn foul-mouthed, argumentative, offensive mother-fuckers here on theRPGsite.  We trash-talk other people, and we should expect other people to trash-talk us.

Fuck yeah x 1000!!

I fully support and thank Game Daddy for pushing back on the trash talk and its utter bullshit that G+ allows the easy silencing of opposing voices BUT supporting free speech demands we unconditionally support the rights of those worthless G+ fucknut cowards to say crap we don't like.

Quote from: John Scott;1038717From my personal experience most gay people are obsessed with sex to an unhealthy level just like mentally ill sexomaniac, so it's natural to them to seek sex in everything including rpgs.

Most guys joke and banter about sex. Some just banter more about ass than pussy. But I've been on this planet almost half a century and I'm still unsure whether straight guys or gay guys obsess more over dicks. Some straight dudes jabber a LOT about dicks.

I know gay guys who love being outrageous and embarrassing easy targets, but even they drop the schtick when we get serious about the game.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1038733I wish they would unleash the sex robot hordes in the US so I wouldn't have to deal with these thirsty dudes in my games.

[video=youtube_share;IrrADTN-dvg]https://youtu.be/IrrADTN-dvg[/youtube]

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038757As jhkim pointed out, core D&D has not been devoid of sex. The old modules had some heterosexual couples defined in the text.

Having NPCs linked as wife, girlfriend, paramour or whatever isn't really introducing sex.... no more than having a king and queen would be introducing sex.

QuoteThus, in the modern age, the modern audience would expect new modules to have both hetero and homosexual couples defined in the text.

That's the rub isn't it? According to jhkim no one should be bothered by the orientations of NPCs in a book because no one can force you to play the game a certain way. He kinda of keeps going to that well. But, he is being intellectually dishonest. If a game was written without non-hetro couples, it would be a problem to him. The whole argument of change the game how ever you like (including adding in non-hetro relationships) falls away and is no longer a legitimate "argument".

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1038725IME, most of the sex-obsessed players I've encountered have been males.

Fixed it for you.

Quote from: CarlD.;1038730The overzealous Left sees '-isms' everywhere, the overzealous Right doesn't see them anywhere. This goes double online.

Probably the smartest thing I've heard on the whole subject.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1038732I honestly can't think of any other RPG forum where you could get away with saying something like this and not just being banned for it.

We prefer to mock him mercilessly rather than ban him.  It's much, much better sport.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1038757Or am I really the only poster here who's gonna admit to depopulating Hommlet?

I know a bunch of Boot Hill players who got dubbed "The Drinkwater Gang" after they killed every single man, woman, child, and puppy dog in the town of Drinkwater, Texas (former pop. 175).

I never played in that particular game, but it was very much "Wild Bunch as black humor."  Like the distraction for robbing the back being placing 20 full cases of dynamite under the one-room schoolhouse and detonating them at 9:20 Tuesday morning.

Quote from: Silas1066;1038602Blue Rose was intended for a gay audience

Uh, no. I think you have some unusual and false preconceived notions about that game. I mean, think it's intended to include gay people, and a goal of the game is inclusion (but not just of gay people). But the game is "intended" for those who like romantic fantasy.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1038687Because West Coast America will destroy him professionally if he didn't.

This does not sound rational to me. I've lived on the West Coast all my life, except for a brief stint when I was ages 1-3. There is no gay police here that patrols your works and makes sure gay people are portrayed in them. Nobody is destroyed if you just don't mention sexuality, or if you only mention heterosexuality. Whatever boogeyman you imagine exists out here, I assure you it's badly exaggerated by whatever entertainment media you've been consuming that apparently poses as factual.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038713I'm probably going to get dogpiled for this, but there is an inherent problem with Rufus and Burne being listed as a gay couple in the module. It limits the choices that individual GMs have for those two non-player characters' motivations and actions. The more information that an author provides in an adventure about the NPCs, the less utility they have because that information limits their range of possible actions to what would be considered "in character". If the NPC is just a stat block and thus tabula rosa for the most part regarding their character and motivations, the more utility that NPC has for the GM. Nothing homophobic about that, it is just looking at the game product as a game product that needs to be as utilitarian as possible for the buyer to find useful.

Actually I disagree.  Tabula Rasa stat blocks aren't as useful as fleshed out NPCs.
A tabula rasa stat block I have to fill in - always.
A fleshed out NPC I may have to fill in - only if I don't like what they gave me.

By definition, a fleshed out NPC would be of more utility since simple averages would mean some of them you use as is.

I don't like Rufus & Burne banging each other, I can make them friends, brothers, mentor and student, master and servant, business partners who can't stand each other "off the clock" or anything else I can think of.

Quote from: Mistwell;1038784This does not sound rational to me. I've lived on the West Coast all my life, except for a brief stint when I was ages 1-3. There is no gay police here that patrols your works and makes sure gay people are portrayed in them. Nobody is destroyed if you just don't mention sexuality, or if you only mention heterosexuality. Whatever boogeyman you imagine exists out here, I assure you it's badly exaggerated by whatever entertainment media you've been consuming that apparently poses as factual.

I guess if you ignore movies, tv shows and video games you'd be right.... but alas.

Quote from: jeff37923;1038713I'm probably going to get dogpiled for this, but there is an inherent problem with Rufus and Burne being listed as a gay couple in the module. It limits the choices that individual GMs have for those two non-player characters' motivations and actions. The more information that an author provides in an adventure about the NPCs, the less utility they have because that information limits their range of possible actions to what would be considered "in character". If the NPC is just a stat block and thus tabula rosa for the most part regarding their character and motivations, the more utility that NPC has for the GM. Nothing homophobic about that, it is just looking at the game product as a game product that needs to be as utilitarian as possible for the buyer to find useful.

I see nothing wrong with building in motivations for NPCs and/or flavor text. The only issue I could see is the reason for doing it. If it was to add to the story or something along those lines, then great. If it is simply virtue signaling, then we have an issue. Folks should tell their stories with their characters and not feel obligated to check box down the list (gay character(s), person of color, etc).

Tell a good story, great. Pander, no so great.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038771Having NPCs linked as wife, girlfriend, paramour or whatever isn't really introducing sex.... no more than having a king and queen would be introducing sex.

It's introducing the two NPCs as a heterosexual couple.

It's different from introducing Queen and her wife the Duchess which would be NPCs introduced as a homosexual couple.

The NPCs may or may not engage in sex, but they do have relationships defined by sexuality.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1038771The whole argument of change the game how ever you like (including adding in non-hetro relationships) falls away and is no longer a legitimate "argument".

Why not?

Let's say Paizo publishes the best adventure ever next week and every NPC is non-white and non-hetero, except for the villains who are Redneck Christian Honky Orcs. The entire adventure is a SJW wankfest, but its an amazing adventure and everybody in the hobby wants to run it for their group.

What stops anyone from changing the NPCs to whatever they want?

I don't see this as a worthwhile battle. Modern culture is pro-LGBT & POC inclusion in entertainment, thus we can't expect major publishers to ignore that trend when trying to sell books to the buying public. At best, a smart publisher will make the effort to avoid tokenism and virtue signalling, but I am not holding my breath.

Yet again more reasons to write your own stuff for your own table. Only individual GMs know the political flavor of their table and what works best for the entertainment of those actually seated at the table.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1038774We prefer to mock him mercilessly rather than ban him.  It's much, much better sport.

Hell yeah!