I thought it was an anomaly to have people *explode* in the store bathroom, or forget their kids until they are leaking poo behind the PC games aisle. But, lo, I was wrong when online to share horror stories. This was in the halcyon afterglow of web 1.0, in the age of geocities' dying light and a post-Netscape world.

Apparently the rise of video sharing has opened new vistas of verifying these horror stories. I hesitate to guess it's probably its own Youtube channel by now. You don't need America's Funniest Videos anymore... Welcome brave, new world.

Quote from: markfitz;875940Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?

Generally, yeah I think that tends to be true. Plenty of exceptions but it's a tendency.

Quote from: S'mon;876581Generally, yeah I think that tends to be true. Plenty of exceptions but it's a tendency.

Yeah I could definitely buy this as true.  I suspect the difference is probably more pronounced in cases where the game group includes several women.  I know my wife and her group of friends are FAR more likely to get into some pretty personal discussions about "bedroom adventures" than myself and my buddies ever would.  It's a subject that basically never comes up between us in any way deeper than "whoa check out the hooters on her!"

Quote from: camazotz;876507A lot of the "why do we tolerate violence in RPGs but not sex?" queries come from people who fail to see that while violence seems bad, it's contextually acceptable in the fiction we create, and is evocative of emotions and experiences of empowerment and success in ways that are all but impossible to engage with in real life without being arrested or shot.

Sex, on the other hand, is something you can engage with in real life if you put some effort in to it, and sinking that effort into a simulation seems downright weird*....plus if the sex starts to interpose with violence then it gets even more uncomfortable. It's not like there aren't groups out there that could get in to that, but it requires the right mix of compatriots. As it happens, more people (who are in to RPGs, anyway) can grokk violence as escapism but recognize that RPGs as a medium are not a good medium for sexual escapism. And in this day of the internet age, if you are somehow prohibited from actually seeking out a partner for such acts, you can readily find much better venues online. So....yeah....the idea that RPGs happen to be good mediums for violent escapism, at least better than for sex, makes sense. And those who seek the latter can (and probably will) find like-minded folk but as it happens, it's going to be a minority, because most people who get into that actually want real sex, or as close to it as they can get, not living vicariously through their barbarian elf. But Rule 34 says the latter does exist, so more power to them.




*Because after all the payoff for sex is not found in sitting around a table of guys explaining how your barbarian elf dude totally banged that princess. And if it is, then you have bigger problems than figuring out how to get the other guys at the table to listen to your exploits

The above would seem to imply that the people who play games with more erotic themes are somehow compensating for lack of sex...
Yeah, that's an opinion I can only laugh at;).

Quote from: Nexus;876515Like I've said before this entire hobby boils down to adults playing Let's Pretend so its pretty damn weird to most people to begin with. If some enjoy including romantic, erotic or sexual elements in their play, that's up to them. And, its doesn't mean they have emotional, mental or sexual problems. Erotica is fun. Some people write it for fun. Sex and sexuality are elements of a character's personality and their world. For those that value that kind of immersion, exploring them makes the character feel more complete and real. There are many reasons why you might include these elements.,

And yeah, vicarious pleasure is one of them. Just like I enjoy imaging I'm a barbarian warlord hacking down monsters I might enjoy being James Bond seducing the sexy Russian femme fatale. I'm not more likely to actually kill an orc than I am to bed an Elvish princess but both might pleasant to imagine. And make for a fun time and entertaining "story".

At least that's how I feel about it.

Edit; my initial response was needlessly hostile. My apologies,.

That, on the other hand, is pretty much spot on.

Quote from: Gormenghast;876525Right, Bren. That's just what I was driving at with the comment.

Not that I am suggesting that anyone else should not discuss his ideas about sex related differences among gamers. Not at all. That's not my place.

The question was "Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?"

Exactly why you two feel compelled to take it as a personal attack on women is anyones guess.

Quote from: Omega;876665The question was "Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?"

Exactly why you two feel compelled to take it as a personal attack on women is anyones guess.

I reported that I did not see a difference in my gaming circles and experiences between men and women.
If your experience differs, that is cool. Tell me about it.

I have no idea how you arrived at the mistaken conclusion that I have interpreted anything anyone has written in this thread as an " attack" upon "women."

I wonder if you somehow think you are dealing with a white knight? A feminist?
LOL
Way off, son.


I suspect Bren has quite different views, but you will need to ask him.

Quote from: Omega;876665Exactly why you two feel compelled to take it as a personal attack on women is anyones guess.

WTF gave you that impression?

My objection has nothing to do with women, qua women. I find categorizing people by arbitrary phenotypical characteristics pointless when the number of people at issue is small. Why not treat people as individuals? What is gained by characterizing a handful of people as male/female, straight/gay, college educated/or not, democratic/republican, christian/or not, old/young, tall/short, fat/thin, etc?

In the situation described, there are more possible and relevant categories than there are people to categorize. It seems stupidly and inefficiently reductionist to stick them in categories when the total number of people at issue is small enough to treat them as individuals instead of as members of many different classes or categories. Do you see some value in treating a handful of people not as individuals, but as a particular instantiations of multiple classes?

Quote from: RPGPundit;876446Yeah, I have had cats several times (I currently have two) and it should be noted that it takes a serious level of failing to properly care for cats (or a very serious level of not keeping even the most basic level of home cleanliness) for a person to smell like cat urine.  Obviously, most cat owners don't.  Even slightly messy cat owners don't, or slightly neglectful cat owners.  You have to be seriously fucked up.

Step 1: Let your cats piss on you.

JG

I'm still wondering where all this so called OSR eroticism people keep talking about is.

Quote from: cranebump;871638I suppose some amount of eroticism is okay, seeing as how we have a vinyl mat to protect our dining room table. Just be quick about it, and don't spill any drinks.:-)

Quote from: markfitz;875547It occurs to me that maybe all of classic D&D is one huge metaphor for the fears of pre adolescent boys about sex ...

"You arrive in front of the Mysterious Chasm armed with your trusty +2 Phallic Symbol. What do you do?"

"Check for traps!"

These quotes are best pony.

Quote from: AsenRG;875065A single-digit number of individuals can't be allowed to shape a whole segment of the roleplaying hobby.

But this one comes pretty damn close.

Quote from: Gwarh;875749I personally find it uncomfortable at best and honestly downright creepy.

That's why we have discussions before play, and the X card during play, to establish boundaries.

Quote from: Nexus;874866I've found autistic to be a very mixed bag.

Well why wouldn't they be?

Quote from: Bren;874802If it's truly a spectrum, isn't everybody on it somewhere?

Quite possibly.

Quote from: Nexus;874888One that seems to stand is the autistic people I've personally met that acknowledge their condition and work with people tend to be much easier to deal with than the ones that seem to feel its everyone else's that has a problem. Or that have have brought into the idea that their condition makes them superior not just different.

This goes for any 'condition' which makes interacting in society at large more difficult, because what ends up happening is these people form separate societies around their condition with a set of values based on that condition. Gay culture is like this. Deaf culture is like this. Hell, gamer culture is like this. So I see no reason to believe Autism culture would be any different.

Quote from: TristramEvans;874821Because actual autistic people are, on the whole, more courteous, polite, intelligent, imaginative, and engaging than an atypical NT.

No they're not. Autism is not synonymous or antonymous with any of these traits. At all.

Quote from: Omega;874327Never seen anyone autistic.

It's more likely you have but didn't notice, because we're all over the place.

Quote from: Bren;874833just because one finds someone else objectionable that doesn't give one the right to be an ass towards them. But some people seem to feel a burning need to create some category of untouchable people that the rest of us (whoever "us" is) are allowed to treat terribly and towards whom it is OK to be an ass. I see that as part of the nerd pecking order urge of the insecure.

Do you believe the pursuit of social status is fundamentally a product of insecurity?

Quote from: AsenRG;874767Well, I'll take your word for it - since I haven't been to the US yet.

Then better get here quick before we stop letting people in

Quote from: Lunamancer;872088Okay, so everyone gets to decide for themselves... except for the guy who wrote it, and only after you decided to put your deceptive spin on it. Because it's not like you were just deciding for yourself what it meant. You were trying to dictate what it meant.

The problem is your statements are almost always value assessments disguised as facts, which is what Bren, AsenRG, and I are effectively calling you on. I know this because of your continual use of the word 'purpose', which is meaningless outside a specific set of values.

Quote from: Lunamancer;871460I think you left out the most important part. The purpose or goal to the encounter.

And who decides the purpose of an encounter?

Quote from: Lunamancer;871460But if the purpose to the player is to gain valuable information (or better stats for offspring), that's going to be an entirely different thing if the goal is to produce erotica or simply role play the character with no bearing at all on tangible effects on the game.

I suspect by tangible you actually mean 'legitimate', and are once again making a value rather than categorical assessment.

Quote from: Lunamancer;871883The reason it matters is because if we're playing the scene out, say, for the sake of information gathering, everyone on the table is clear that we're doing it for information gathering, not for the sake of perversion.

This is why sharing a creative agenda during play is so important. However, that still doesn't mean a playstyle with different priorities than yours is 'perverse'.

Quote from: Lunamancer;871883I would disqualify "role play" as a qualifying purpose for reasons that would require a metaphysical discussion on free will vs determinism to spell out. The simple version is that there is no one correct way to role play the character. You could just as easily choose not make time with the harlot without breaking character. To the extent that we are role playing sentient, willed beings, role playing can never be a sole purpose. It's always coterminous with some other purpose.

Are you saying the very act of roleplaying a sentient being also means you must account for their values and pursue their desires in the process, thereby roleplaying can never be the sole purpose?

Quote from: Lunamancer;872030Actions have purpose--to bring about the end. Scenes likewise have purposes because playing them out is an action.

An act can be an end in itself. Lots of non-programmers don't understand that I (at least use to) program not to solve another problem (though this was often accomplished in the process) but because I enjoy programming. For some the purpose of a scene in play is the scene itself. For others the purpose is to gather information or earn XP. And conflicts can arise when players play at cross purposes.

That was the primary purpose of GNS theory, not to design games around an agenda, but to help players identify and agree on one so conflicts over play priority could be avoided.

Quote from: Lunamancer;87203095% of all information, theories, schools of thought, journalism, etc in the financial industry is false. Once you've seen that, you realize it's probably true that 95% of schools of thought on just about anything is patently false. It's just that when it comes to games of make-believe, things are a lot more forgiving. Doesn't mean I should give a shit what they would disagree with.

That's a very specific percentage for an extremely broad premise and considerable leap of logic. Perhaps you can share your sources

Quote from: Alzrius;871793Reading Gold Digger was like reading about somebody's Monty Haul campaign where the characters all started at 20th level and got XP bonuses for making wisecracks.

Aaand I have my next campaign premise

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876741the X card during play

What the fuck?  There are people that actually use that shit?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876741

Quote from: Bren;874833...just because one finds someone else objectionable that doesn't give one the right to be an ass towards them. But some people seem to feel a burning need to create some category of untouchable people that the rest of us (whoever "us" is) are allowed to treat terribly and towards whom it is OK to be an ass. I see that as part of the nerd pecking order urge of the insecure.

Do you believe the pursuit of social status is fundamentally a product of insecurity?

Fundamentally? No. I doubt there is a single reason for the pursuit of social status. I would expect a constellation of reasons. Insecurity is one of the possible reasons. My comment was directed to a specific subset of people pursuing social status who "feel a burning need to create some category of untouchable people." It shouldn't be read as applying to all persons or all pursuits of social status.

I get what those who were saying that we shouldn't make generalisations about "all women this" or "all men that" were saying, and I also totally understand that they DIDN'T respond as if this was an attack on women. That wasn't their point.

While I do believe that there are more differences between individuals, especially when considered in small groups, than there are massive commonalities, and everyone should be judged as an individual, I do also think that there are cultural reasons that we can observe certain behaviours as being more common among certain groups than others. Obviously not all women gamers are like this or like that, but I do feel that there's an observable difference in the level of investment in the interpersonal relationship aspect of RPGs in many women I've gamed with.

This might help explain the fact that WoD seemed to bring many women into the hobby. Those games had much more of a focus on the social, as well as just the sexual, than most previous games. Maybe the taste I've seen among women for more sexual content is a subset of a taste for more relationship focus.

But I've also noticed that among groups of women, discussion of sex tends to be more detailed than it is among groups of men. With my female friends I find discussion more easily moves to discussion of sex and relationships, whereas with my male friends I have to push a little to get to that, which is something I am interested in from them too, and therefore seek.

Perhaps there's something about intimacy there. Male intimacy often seems to pass through an external object or pursuit that can be shared, whereas female intimacy is more straight ahead. Again, I don't mean this is the case for everyone, but our cultural norms on what is "guy stuff" and what is "girl stuff" must have an impact on how we relate to each other. You only have to look at Hollywood marketing of more male external action oriented films versus more female relationship oriented films to see this in action.

In gaming, it seems to hold true that many women are more interested in the interpersonal details of play and men in the more action or competition oriented details (such as combat). Hence perhaps women's higher interest in the erotic in games?

Quote from: markfitz;876940I get what those who were saying that we shouldn't make generalisations about "all women this" or "all men that" were saying, and I also totally understand that they DIDN'T respond as if this was an attack on women. That wasn't their point.

Thanks.

QuoteThis might help explain the fact that WoD seemed to bring many women into the hobby.

I"ve noticed people say that a lot. I think maybe it is a generational thing. I had hardly any female players in the 1970s, but a fair number and high percentage of female players starting in the 1980s, well before Vampire the Masquerade, and continuing through today. But I've never played WoD. I don't think anyone I've regularly played with has played WoD (other than a 1-shot at a con). So if the women (or men) that you game with were introduced to RPGs by WoD or played a lot of WoD you already have a gamer population that is different from the population I have and that difference may be more relevant to the type of gaming people prefer than their gender.

Historically (and anecdotally), the two players I've known who were most interested in relationships, romance, or anything approaching erotic content were (first) a guy and (second and much later) a gal. They are also the two players who were most interested in taking a lot of time in play interacting with NPCs - sometimes far preferring interacting with NPCs to interacting with fellow PCs.  I don't think their gender had much to do with their preferences, rather I see preferences as one part of their individual personalities.

But if you find that with the people you game with gender is a useful proxy for gaming preference who am I to argue.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876741No they're not. Autism is not synonymous or antonymous with any of these traits. At all.

Nothing is synonymous with any personality trait, but my experience has led to estimation based on the likelihood from an averaged aggregate. Over the course of my lifetime, what it comes down to is any autistic person I engage with is more likely, by a large factor, to be  good-natured, intelligent, and imaginative, than the average person.

In my experience the average person tends to be self-absorbed, obsessed with what other people think of them, inane, uneducated, lacking in imagination and problem-solving skills, judgemental, insecure, passive aggressive and petty. This is, from what I can tell over the course of an extremely well-travelled near 40 years, the default condition of humanity. The lowest common denominator = the vast majority of the species.

 What changes this is when one examines certain social groups from a more narrow focus. Certain social groups have a higher percentage of people not adhering to the general status of "normal fucktard".

For example, being a genuinely good person who cares for other unconditionally and without judgement is not synonymous with down syndrome. Its not an associated symptom, or something caused by it. But that describes every person with DS I've ever met barring less than a percent.

As such, talking about autistic people (and by that I mean people genuinely diagnosed with autism in their childhood, not self-diagnosed online jackasses, adults who have "decided"- with or without the help of a medical professional - that they have some sort of autism, or those who exist on the far extremes of the spectrum, from those incapable of communicating or functioning in the outside world on one end, to the person with "mild autistic tendencies" that could just as easily be diagnosed as bi-polar, schizoid, or sociopathic depending on the doctor), such a vast majority fit the stereotypical behaviour traits I noted that 9 times out of ten its a functionable stereotype.

I think Europeans in OSR games/campaigns is ok.