TheRPGSite

Greetings!

What are your thoughts on trigger warnings?

Do you feel its something that the hobby was sorely lacking and its inclusion and enforcement is way overdue?

Do you believe its not something that should be retroactively included in all rulebooks but you are glad to see it when it is presented?

Do you find them a strange, maybe even awkward novelty, but at the end of the day a harmless addition that neither adds nor detracts from the experience, so you comply if you are presented with them but do not ask for them if you are not?

Do you reckon that they end up doing more harm than good, because by presenting a warning, it creates a negative expectation that soils the experience, that is, it creates the same boogieman that it tries to prevent. That by creating the warning it gives the people at the table anxiety over the kind of game it will be, but does nothing to really prevent the distress of something that they could find triggering?

Do you think this is an insidious way to provide the rules lawyers/special players ammunition to muscle the spotlight on them and their character and to have only what they want happen at the table. Where do you draw the line on how triggering is a description?

Let me hear your thoughts!



For those of you who want to read and are curious about the context of why I am asking this:

My understanding is that, as adults playing a game for fun, conversations about the tone and feel of the type of game we are going to play is something discussed in Session 0. And even if something crosses a line for someone, in my experience, it can be talked outside of the game and no one is left traumatized or friendships destroyed.

However, that was back in the day when I had friends to play IRL. I am so desperate to play that I joined an online 5e (ugh, yes. I caved) recently. I decided to play a Paladin of Lathander. I know paladins don't have to be religious anymore but I asked and the DM said it was OK with my character choice. We also had a Cleric of Lathander so it made sense for me to be a member of their militant order and our stories were connected, my character being a guardian for this cleric's pilgrimage.

Session 0 happened last week and we discussed that this was going to be a heroic style of game, which I like. The trigger warnings were mentioned about nothing sexual and such, which I am fine with. And also, they said no racism or bigotry of any kind. Which I don't have a problem with. They specifically said "No racial slurs, racial profiling or name calling/bullying of any kind". Since I am not a bully or a racist, I found no problem with those statements.

We started at level 3 and played a session last Sunday. We met again this past Friday for another session. The story so far that there had been some kidnappings in a city and the Mayor suspected cultists or monsters. We did some investigating, ruffed up some bandits for info, killed some spiders in the sewers and eventually it was revealed that a wealthy merchant was responsible because he is a Vampire Spawn, gathering flock to feast and/or to send to his master.

My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

The other Players derided me as a murderhobo for not trying to reason with the vampire spawn, saying that he could be doing all of this against his own will, as the spawns must obey their Masters. I said that be that as it may, there is no way to cure vampirism so I was giving this poor creature mercy, by freeing them from their shackles.

I was corrected by saying that there are ways, such as the Wish spell. I didn't thought of this, but I am not sure if we had a feasible way to ensure this creature would not commit more crimes before someone can cast Wish and cure his vampirism.

After a lengthy discussion, the table agreed that this was bigotry and attacking the vampire without offering him a chance to explain was considered unnecessary violence. And as such, I was told that if I went through with striking down a vampire spawn, a foul undead creature, in the name of Lathander then that would break my Oath and I would lose my powers. I said that I disagreed with their consensus and decided that the game was not for me and left, without raising my voice or flinging insults.

The DM sent me a private message afterwards telling me that I was in the wrong, because the trigger warnings were already discussed beforehand and that I was rude and that with my attitude he would not be able to allow me to play with them in the future. I replied in the most polite way I could think of, that I was not interested in playing with them in the future.

Now, I can see the argument that if they want to have a game with little to no fatalities or no killing that's fine. But, I still think that my character shouldn't be threatened with breaking his Oath for striking down an undead creature. Maybe I am just an old fart, but I thought undead are monsters beyond redemption. This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation. It is my firm belief that in the past, we could have had a discussion about this at the table without the need for the table to brow beat me with the trigger warning shield and label me a 'bigot' for calling a vampire a "filthy bloodsucker". From what I understand, the problem wasn't that I wanted to kill the vampire, but that I acted as a bigot against vampires by calling him that and then proceeding to wanting to slay it.

Even the person playing the cleric of Lathander argued that Lathander disavowed of murder and accused me of trying to commit a "hate crime", when I pointed out that there is no way to 'kill' a vampire since they are no longer alive.

Anyways, I am eager to hear your thoughts about trigger warnings. Their inclusion and enforcement and what is their effect on the way we enjoy our hobby.

After that experience, you have to ask?  That's the problem with "trigger warnings"?  The people who use them can't be trusted to be fair, logical, etc.

I can tell people I run a PG-13 game (generally), which gets them in the ballpark of where the limits are. Then if something comes up, it's likely to be minor, and we can handle it after the game.  The difference is, that's no "trigger".  It's merely a statement of expectations that reasonable people can work around.

I tend to think of role-playing as an inherently "dangerous" activity in the sense that it involves inter-personal interaction, violence, various historical contexts, and so forth. Often the format allows people to act in ways that would be unacceptable in real life. That said, I think it's thoughtful and helpful to give people a heads up if you are going to be introducing some potentially thorny issues. It's pretty easy to guess what might be triggering to a lot of people. Other times, it's not as obvious, and you will have to navigate with the fallout as best you can.

In the US, just saying PG-13 or something like that does set some pretty good overall expectations.

Your story was full of red flags long before you came to the incident.  Terms like "trigger warnings" and "racial profiling" are code words used by the left to indicate the level of control they intend to have.  I would have noped the hell out of there on session 0.  I damn sure would not have been there long enough to see the end of the "lengthy discussion."  Dude, you got put through a struggle session and now you're feeling the post session insecurity that it's intended to cause.

The term "trigger warning" is flat out cringe when you fully understand what it's about.  The very use of the term "trigger warning" is enough to get me to loose respect for the person using it.  "Triggered" is a term that means that a PTSD flashback has been activated.  As someone who's done a lot of work with those that have been diagnosed with PTSD as well as personally being diagnosed with it, I find how it's used as a weapon to control other people's behavior absolutely revolting.  Shame on anyone that is using their trauma as leverage and if you are simply exploiting those around you by pretending to have trauma you are trash.

I appreciate content warnings when it comes to my entertainment though.  Sometimes I'm just not in the mood to digest some topics well and some topics I think aren't a good fit for me to use as subjects of play at the table.  When I run a game, I lay out that I run a PG-13 game and I don't really like getting too far into either romantic or sexual topics.  If I am looking to join a game as a player, I will talk to the GM and see what their guidelines are; if they are not compatible with me then I thank them and move on. 

A content advisory is a tool for the GM to let potential players know "you might not like this." At the table safety tools are a power mechanism for players to manipulate the experience without facilitating it. It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time.

Voted "May prime players to be anxious about content, setting them up for distress" as this happened to me a bit. I didn't walk as the GM asking for my triggers is a friend, but telling her ("they") my triggers wasn't great. Nothing in the Vaesen game itself was a problem ofc.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 28, 2024, 05:54:26 PM
After that experience, you have to ask?  That's the problem with "trigger warnings"?  The people who use them can't be trusted to be fair, logical, etc.

I can tell people I run a PG-13 game (generally), which gets them in the ballpark of where the limits are. Then if something comes up, it's likely to be minor, and we can handle it after the game.  The difference is, that's no "trigger".  It's merely a statement of expectations that reasonable people can work around.

I am just that desperate. I don't even like D&D anymore, but agreed because at least that table was looking for players to run a heroic game, instead of a morally grey our outright villainous campaign.

I am not saying those styles are "bad wrong fun" but I don't care for the edgy stuff. I like to play virtuous characters. If everyone at the table wants to commit crime and I don't' then I become the quote unquote "Lawful Stupid" cliche. To spare everyone, I rather just not join that kind of game.

I had heard about this "trigger warning" stuff but never actually been at a table/game that had them before. My stance previously was that it was unnecessary but harmless. Now, I am not so sure.

I see now that, like you said, I thought we were all in agreement of the type of game we wanted to have. It seems I was the one that was not in consensus with the rest. To me, that's not really the problem and wouldn't have made me quit the table. What made me quit was the almost two hours of everyone trying to shame me into change my stance and convince me not that I was just wrong, but that I was being a bigot. I can accept to have misunderstood the mood the table desired. I can even agree to not take offensive action against an undead on sight. But I will not and did not agree with their assessment that I was being a bigot.

For me, this was the problem with the idea of "trigger warnings". Their argument was that my actions were unacceptable because we had discussed the trigger warnings at the table and that I was breaking them by being a bigot. I categorically refused to accept that claim. I would have preferred two things instead of what happened:

1.- They, in character, try to convince my character why there is value or why I should stay my hand and not attack the vampire on sight.

2.- They let me know my actions are against the tone they want to have for the game. I decide if I want to continue or not.

I would really have welcomed  the first option. You know, actually roleplay the disagreement and even show my characters the supposed error of his ways. Absent of that, I would have been OK with just discussing the tone of the game.


But, my problem is that the game grind to a halt because I was, supposedly, breaking the trigger warning agreement that we had by being a bigot. I take this ordeal as a learning experience, and then pondered about this "trigger warning" business and how common and welcome it is within the hobby. Hence why I created the poll.

Quote from: BadApple on January 28, 2024, 06:15:52 PM
Your story was full of red flags long before you came to the incident.  Terms like "trigger warnings" and "racial profiling" are code words used by the left to indicate the level of control they intend to have.  I would have noped the hell out of there on session 0.  I damn sure would not have been there long enough to see the end of the "lengthy discussion."  Dude, you got put through a struggle session and now you're feeling the post session insecurity that it's intended to cause.

The term "trigger warning" is flat out cringe when you fully understand what it's about.  The very use of the term "trigger warning" is enough to get me to loose respect for the person using it.  "Triggered" is a term that means that a PTSD flashback has been activated.  As someone who's done a lot of work with those that have been diagnosed with PTSD as well as personally being diagnosed with it, I find how it's used as a weapon to control other people's behavior absolutely revolting.  Shame on anyone that is using their trauma as leverage and if you are simply exploiting those around you by pretending to have trauma you are trash.

I appreciate content warnings when it comes to my entertainment though.  Sometimes I'm just not in the mood to digest some topics well and some topics I think aren't a good fit for me to use as subjects of play at the table.  When I run a game, I lay out that I run a PG-13 game and I don't really like getting too far into either romantic or sexual topics.  If I am looking to join a game as a player, I will talk to the GM and see what their guidelines are; if they are not compatible with me then I thank them and move on.

I was just that desperate to play again.

I had heard of the term "trigger warning" in TTRPGs before, but never participated in a game that was actually using it. I don't even like D&D anymore but I decided to join this game because they said they wanted to play a heroic game without sexual stuff. Heroic as in "virtuous" or "the good guys" not necessarily as in power levels.

After seeing so many "looking for players" posts that have requirements about including sexual identity and foreplay and such, this game seemed vanilla enough for me. I personally do not have any "triggers" as such. I don't like to play the bad guy, I don't like sexual/romantic stuff but I am an adult and I can just let others have their fun and tune out and then tune back in when that stuff has passed. I have never said to a GM that a certain description is "too much information" for me. That's just the way I am. I like chill games where we take things seriously enough for the roleplay to have meaning and forge a story through our character's choices.

I've been a forever GM for years and I never had anyone give me any content warning or also tell me my descriptions are "TMI". Unfortunately, as I said, I don't have access to play with any of my friends anymore since about a handful of years and I am really desperate to return to the hobby either as a GM or as a Player. I just want to roleplay again.

This event has been a learning experience and I will be weary of a table that has "trigger warnings" moving forward. Before this, I would have voted the 3rd option of the poll: "Unnecessary but harmless".

Now, I am not so sure if they are really harmless and I wanted to gauge how others within the hobby think about the existence and inclusion of trigger warnings in their games.

Quote from: Wisithir on January 28, 2024, 06:38:00 PM
A content advisory is a tool for the GM to let potential players know "you might not like this." At the table safety tools are a power mechanism for players to manipulate the experience without facilitating it. It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time.

So, if I understood your stance correctly, and please do mention if I am not, you are fine with content advisory such like the old VtM games mentioning "this is a game about sex and violence", so everyone can know what kind of game they are getting into and bow out if they don't find it appealing, right?

But, you are not fine with trigger warnings as "safety tools" because there is no need for them since, like you said: "It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time."


Correct?

I'm not really "trigger warnings", but I am a "is there anything that would make you feel too uncomfortable to play so I can take that into consideration?"

I then supply an example, "for example, I'm really uncomfortable with explicit romance in my games, particularly if I'm having to run the girl, so anything that gets to a certain point WILL fade to black."

I don't give lists or anything so it generally has to be something right at the top of their mind when asked rather than something they see on a list and might have political thoughts about.

When you do that you tend to get much more constructive and useful answers than some list of potential triggers.

One of my players once said they'd just come off a game with a lot political wheeling and dealing (think a VtM relationship chart on steroids) and wanted to play something with fewer interpersonal rivalries/interconnections as a pallet cleanser/burnout avoidance. I found that a reasonable request so focused the campaign more on taming a frontier region.

One of my players in another game had a phobia of spiders, but as long as I didn't go into explicit descriptions of them, they would be okay. That was also reasonable, and so I didn't bother to describe their glistening fangs or hundreds of faceted eyes... just "it's a spider about the size of a man. It tries to bite you. Roll your Armor defense."

The funny ones for me are when people bring up something I had no intention to deal with anyway; as a rule I tend to stick to PG-13 (or PG if any players are under 12-ish), but can go mild R with the right crowd.

The idea is for everyone to have a good time, and if you can do something to improve someone else's enjoyment without penalizing someone else's; why wouldn't you?

However, since I don't have a list to prompt them or treat their input as any sort of "vote" (or that one vote means automatically means "vetoed") it lets me decide for myself how to handle things (often I can just go "soft focus" like with the spiders and that's sufficient for normal people).

Quote from: S'mon on January 28, 2024, 06:41:19 PM
Voted "May prime players to be anxious about content, setting them up for distress" as this happened to me a bit. I didn't walk as the GM asking for my triggers is a friend, but telling her ("they") my triggers wasn't great. Nothing in the Vaesen game itself was a problem ofc.

I added that option because I've heard of that before in other forms of media. Telling people they should be wary of graphical content makes them actually more anxious about the idea of actually how graphical or explicit the content will be to elicit such a warning, without really doing anything to alleviate the distress they will experience when said content is presented.

Through these lenses, I think they would do more harm than good. Since, no one can really know for sure how much is too much or how little is too little. One could say "I am not into gory descriptions" and then complain that even spilling blood is triggering or talking about corpses is triggering.

Someone said that "PG-13" is a good blanket statement but I disagree. I would say it is a good jumping point, but not all PG-13 content is made equal. Take a look at the 2000s Ninja Turtles cartoon. It was PG-13 with mostly no blood but there were some heavy and fairly dark themes in some episodes.

This is my concern here, where does anyone draw the line? For me its an unknown, because I don't have any such "trigger warnings". There is stuff that I like in games and stuff that I don't like, but it doesn't "trigger" me and I won't stop the narration or have the players not do/roleplay something just because its something that I don't enjoy. For example sexual stuff. I don't care for it in TTRPGs, but I won't stop others roleplaying about banging some prostitues at the whore house or women flirting with male NPCs.

And that's something that happened in my youth a lot. One girl that was semi-regular at our table, whenever a male NPC was introduced she would ask "Is he handsome?". If the answer was "yes" then she would immediately flirt with the NPC.

I find that sort of behavior annoying but not "triggering". I won't participate but I won't spoil her fun either.

I've been a long time lurker here to read some of the posts but never bothered to register.  It's been in the back of my mind to do so, just so I could use the search function.

But your post "triggered" me to register.  ;)

Your experience is why I never attempted to join an online tabletop group.  Like you, I haven't had a good group of friends to play locally for a very very long time.  For me, part of the enjoyment of tabletop...is the tabletop.  The game itself, the drinks and snacks, shooting the breeze, are all important parts of the experience.  Online games take away from much of that.  I understand others feel differently but I personally am not ready to go online.

But I agree with some here.  Once the discussion for trigger warnings happened in session 0, I would have bailed.  And quite frankly, according to what you said, I don't even know what you did wrong.  You played your paladin according to his faith.  Lathander hates undead because it's a corruption of life.  If anything, as a DM or player, I'd be more upset at players roleplaying against their alignment or character core values.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2024, 07:31:35 PM
I'm not really "trigger warnings", but I am a "is there anything that would make you feel too uncomfortable to play so I can take that into consideration?"

I then supply an example, "for example, I'm really uncomfortable with explicit romance in my games, particularly if I'm having to run the girl, so anything that gets to a certain point WILL fade to black."

I don't give lists or anything so it generally has to be something right at the top of their mind when asked rather than something they see on a list and might have political thoughts about.

When you do that you tend to get much more constructive and useful answers than some list of potential triggers.

One of my players once said they'd just come off a game with a lot political wheeling and dealing (think a VtM relationship chart on steroids) and wanted to play something with fewer interpersonal rivalries/interconnections as a pallet cleanser/burnout avoidance. I found that a reasonable request so focused the campaign more on taming a frontier region.

One of my players in another game had a phobia of spiders, but as long as I didn't go into explicit descriptions of them, they would be okay. That was also reasonable, and so I didn't bother to describe their glistening fangs or hundreds of faceted eyes... just "it's a spider about the size of a man. It tries to bite you. Roll your Armor defense."

The funny ones for me are when people bring up something I had no intention to deal with anyway; as a rule I tend to stick to PG-13 (or PG if any players are under 12-ish), but can go mild R with the right crowd.

The idea is for everyone to have a good time, and if you can do something to improve someone else's enjoyment without penalizing someone else's; why wouldn't you?

However, since I don't have a list to prompt them or treat their input as any sort of "vote" (or that one vote means automatically means "vetoed") it lets me decide for myself how to handle things (often I can just go "soft focus" like with the spiders and that's sufficient for normal people).

Before this past experience, I would agree with this take. I don't mind "fading into black" as you say or be more minimalist in terms of description if someone asks.

This is what I meant with "having a discussion about it, as friends".  But, since now if I want to play I have to play with strangers, I was willing to go through the "trigger warning checklist".

I don't really remember all the stuff in there, because I just said "I don't have any trigger warnings, everything is fair game with me". But, like I said in my post, the agreement was no sexual stuff and no bigotry and racism. There were some specifics about that, but I paid no mind since I am not into being a bully a bigot or a racist.

However, it seems I grossly misunderstood what the meaning of those words mean for the table I was in. And after this experience, I wanted to gauge how the people that play TTRPGs see trigger warnings and their implementation.

Quote from: Silverblade on January 28, 2024, 07:32:41 PM
I've been a long time lurker here to read some of the posts but never bothered to register.  It's been in the back of my mind to do so, just so I could use the search function.

But your post "triggered" me to register.  ;)

Your experience is why I never attempted to join an online tabletop group.  Like you, I haven't had a good group of friends to play locally for a very very long time.  For me, part of the enjoyment of tabletop...is the tabletop.  The game itself, the drinks and snacks, shooting the breeze, are all important parts of the experience.  Online games take away from much of that.  I understand others feel differently but I personally am not ready to go online.

But I agree with some here.  Once the discussion for trigger warnings happened in session 0, I would have bailed.  And quite frankly, according to what you said, I don't even know what you did wrong.  You played your paladin according to his faith.  Lathander hates undead because it's a corruption of life.  If anything, as a DM or player, I'd be more upset at players roleplaying against their alignment or character core values.

Indeed!

And, I would have been completely fine and open for their characters to make their case and convince my character that letting the vampire remain and interrogate/imprison him was the best outcome.

Before this experience, I was neutral on this "trigger warning" business. I've heard of it but never actually have been in a table/game with it. After this, I am not so sure if I would participate since I thought I understood what they did not wanted to be present in the game but it seems that I was the only one not in consensus on that.

As a laid back dude with no "trigger warnings", I think I am not a good fit for a table that enforces them since I clearly do not really understand their reach and application.


Like you, I vastly prefer IRL to have some beers and pretzels. But, since I moved away from my hometown I was playing online with my friends. However, life happened and everyone that I could play that was a friend just moved away from the hobby. It's understandable and I hold no ill will towards my friends for making that choice.

But, I am just so hungry for some roleplay that I decided to jump in with some strangers online and even agreed to play 5e, which I don't really care for. Needless to say, this has been a learning experience.

That's an awful experience. I would have quit too.

My view is that the rule book is the basis for the game. All of its content should be expected. And/or I might cite a movie or book as an example.

A bunch of adults gabbing at the pub don't need trigger warnings, so neither do imaginary elf games. With the exception of running games for kids. And in that case it's not even a trigger warning; it's a filter.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

These people have a mental issue and you need to get the F away from them as fast as possible. I'm quite serious. You could bump into one of them accidentally and end up in a police station charged with sexual assault.

As for the concept of a "trigger warning". If I'm at a table that wants to delve into extreme things that would classify a movie as NC-17, then yeah, that could do with some warnings up front so I know that that specific game isn't for me. I personally like to keep my games more PG-13, but don't mind a slight dip into R now and again where it's pointing out the absurd(Deadpool level stuff). Even then, I personally steer clear of sexual content. Some tables are into that, and if they are it should be stated up front.

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 28, 2024, 07:52:37 PM
A bunch of adults gabbing at the pub don't need trigger warnings, so neither do imaginary elf games. With the exception of running games for kids. And in that case it's not even a trigger warning; it's a filter.

So true. 

I always played with friends so my experiences are skewed.  We never had trigger warnings and never needed one.  But even if I did play with strangers, I'd like to think that if some content became uncomfortable, then the person who is uncomfortable could speak up.  A table of adults would honor that request and tone down the scene and continue gaming.  But I think those types of days are long gone.

A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

Sounds like they've had one.

That's such a weird story. To me it almost sounds like a clash between what 5e says a vampire is, versus the group's understanding.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
But, I still think that my character shouldn't be threatened with breaking his Oath for striking down an undead creature. Maybe I am just an old fart, but I thought undead are monsters beyond redemption. This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation. It is my firm belief that in the past, we could have had a discussion about this at the table without the need for the table to brow beat me with the trigger warning shield and label me a 'bigot' for calling a vampire a "filthy bloodsucker". From what I understand, the problem wasn't that I wanted to kill the vampire, but that I acted as a bigot against vampires by calling him that and then proceeding to wanting to slay it.

It seems to me that this is a problem not with trigger warnings per se, but with the others' attitudes over bigotry and vampires.

As for your attitude about undead -- that is something that depends on the game world. For example, in the world of my current campaign, there are many non-evil undead creatures. There are holy mummies, specters of righteous vengeance, and helpful ghosts. Different worlds have different rules. As another example, in the "True Blood" book and TV series, there are many well-meaning vampires. In other worlds, vampires strongly tend towards evil but there are a few exceptions, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or World of Darkness, where a vampire might resist being evil.

I've had some recent discussions of times in my past where I was accused of being a murderhobo or the equivalent for something I did. I think the clash can happen regardless of trigger warnings.

---

Regarding the poll, I had trouble with the categories. I think it's important to talk about levels of content like romance, sexuality, torture, gore, rape, and so forth -- but I'm not sold on trigger warnings as a specific means of talking about it.

I have a certain liking about the "lines and veils" type of presentation, but some people seem to think it's imposition. And yet, if someone decided to describe a rape in detail, during a game, I'd probably get up and walk away, whether or not such rules were part of the formal agreement for the game or not.

By any chance, was this a game being played with a group of white women?

If so, the level of mental illness and the absurdity of the labeling of "bigot" would make a lot of sense.  To a lot of modern women a vampire is erotic partner because of the twilight series.  From their perspective, you would be a bigot for killing a vampire.

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2024, 08:31:23 PM
It seems to me that this is a problem not with trigger warnings per se, but with the others' attitudes over bigotry and vampires.

As for your attitude about undead -- that is something that depends on the game world. For example, in the world of my current campaign, there are many non-evil undead creatures. There are holy mummies, specters of righteous vengeance, and helpful ghosts. Different worlds have different rules. As another example, in the "True Blood" book and TV series, there are many well-meaning vampires. In other worlds, vampires strongly tend towards evil but there are a few exceptions, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or World of Darkness, where a vampire might resist being evil.

I've had some recent discussions of times in my past where I was accused of being a murderhobo or the equivalent for something I did. I think the clash can happen regardless of trigger warnings.

---

Regarding the poll, I had trouble with the categories. I think it's important to talk about levels of content like romance, sexuality, torture, gore, rape, and so forth -- but I'm not sold on trigger warnings as a specific means of talking about it.

The game world is obviously Faerun since the character was a paladin of Lathander.  If you are going to use a game world, then they should honor the lore of the world.  Lathander hates undead because they are an abomination to the cycle of birth and rebirth.  The player roleplayed correctly, in my opinion.  I don't understand why you are bringing up different worlds when clearly the setting was established?

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

From what I understand after the lengthy discussion, they really didn't want me to kill the vampire but the real problem was that I called it a "filthy bloodsucker" which apparently makes me a bigot.

As they described it, my actions were problematic because of those two things. First, being a "murderhobo" for reaching the sword without letting the vampire explain his actions but even more problematic than that was my word choice. It was a game of 5, a DM and 4 Players. Two of them really, really had a problem with me calling the vampire a "filthy bloodsucker" for reasons that I never fully understood.

The female player that was playing the cleric of Lathander said that it was not something Lathander would approve because it was "merciless", since vampire spawns still have intelligence and feel emotions, meaning I was essentially attempting to kill a person with an act of unprovoked violence.

I replied something to the effect of "the violence is provoked, since we have irrefutable evidence of the crimes committed. This vampire kidnapped innocents and either feasted on them, send them to his master to feast on them, or worse."

That's when the conversation turned to "he is a victim because vampire spawns cannot disobey their masters".

Like I said, in hindsight, I would have been OK with their characters trying to argue for not slaying the vampire. I think there are some arguments to be made here. Like getting information on the bigger threat, that is his Master or an even nefarious reasons for the kidnappings.

In that sense, I would have agreed that my character may have turned hostile a little prematurely. But, my stance would have been to vanquish the vampire after we got the info we needed as such a foul creature should not be left to feast on the living any longer. Even in jail, there is no guarantee it will not escape. In fact, talking with the creature may give him time to escape our grasp. Such was my reasoning for attacking on sight.


My problem and the reason why I left the table, was the discussion was being levied at me, not my character. I entertained the discussion because I am that desperate to play again and because I am not a murderhobo and actually do not like that behavior. So, I treat it as a misunderstanding and I wanted to explain my train of thought and demonstrate to them that I was not trying to be a murderhobo since I dislike that style and that my character had a legitimate reason to smite a vampire without questions.

When the conversation turned into my supposed bigotry that's when I slowly started to realize the game was done for me and now I was in a situation where I had to defend my character, as in my own values as a person, and not my character as in the paladin I was playing as.

It has become clear to me that my definition of "Don't be a racist. Don't be a bully. Don't be a bigot." are not the same as the people in that game. As such, the trigger warning discussion that we had did not helped me understand their trigger warnings. Perhaps the way the discussion went was not exhaustive enough, but I was thinking that maybe the trigger warnings themselves could be the problem and so I was curious to see what others within the hobby think about it. This is why I created this poll.

Greetings!

Conquest, war, hatred, bigotry, and sexism all flow like floodwaters in my campaign.

Might makes right. The strong rule over the weak.

My campaign world is like Rome, Sodom & Gomorrah, the Dark Ages, and the Crusades, but with magic. There are no "Trigger Warnings". I play with adults, and generally have a film rating of Rated R. ;D

DEUS VULT!!!!

Cipher, your situation is terrible. Don't play with Leftist Woke morons, no matter how desperate. Solo Gaming until you find an appropriate group!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

They wanted you to bring him to a jail, so that they could pay his bail and get him back on the streets. Art imitates life.

Quote from: BadApple on January 28, 2024, 08:47:20 PM
By any chance, was this a game being played with a group of white women?

If so, the level of mental illness and the absurdity of the labeling of "bigot" would make a lot of sense.  To a lot of modern women a vampire is erotic partner because of the twilight series.  From their perspective, you would be a bigot for killing a vampire.

It was an online game so I have no way to know. This is why I decided to go this route, since my local scene is either completely dead or only accommodates games for the "tumblr" crowd on the few places that actually have local games running. You know who. Oh, and they only run D&D 5e. The very few times I decided to not judge a book by its cover and showed up to play, they told to my face that as a white straight man that is well off in terms of money, I had to sit quietly in my chair and let them pontificate to me about how much privilege I have and basically they police what kind of games I can run and what kind of characters I can play.

Never again.

I though playing online with strangers would go better, since they couldn't see my "white maleness". But, now that you mention it, that could have been the reason. These people are younger than me, of that I am sure as some of their banter flew right above my head and we joked that I was the "fossil" at the table, something I took no offense at all and laughed it off as the playful joke it was. But, it could be that their idea of vampires is different than mine. Specially because the female player playing the cleric referred to him as a "victim" because as a spawn he had to obey his Master's orders.

As far as I know of the lore, I know this to be true but I am not sure how unwilling this NPC was about kidnapping people. Perhaps he truly was a victim or perhaps not. As I said, I would have been completely OK for their characters to make that argument. I am not privy to any lore changes 5e has in regards to Forgotten Realms, as I understand, Lathander is anti-undead so I thought my actions were 100% in character and not out of line.

It seems the real "trigger" was my usage of "filthy bloodsucker" to refer to that vampire. I still think that its not a bigoted statement.

Even in Vampire: The Masquerade, where the Players are actually vampires, the game is about wrestling with being a filthy bloodsucker undead monster while holding on to the last embers of humanity as you try to perish as you navigate a cutthroat landscape of political intrigue.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 28, 2024, 09:00:28 PM
They wanted you to bring him to a jail, so that they could pay his bail and get him back on the streets. Art imitates life.

This comment made me belly laugh very loudly.

Thank you, sir!

At some point, it kind of appeared that way. Not sure how much in jest was this comment made but perhaps you are more right than I realize.

Quote from: Silverblade on January 28, 2024, 08:47:43 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2024, 08:31:23 PM
It seems to me that this is a problem not with trigger warnings per se, but with the others' attitudes over bigotry and vampires.

As for your attitude about undead -- that is something that depends on the game world. For example, in the world of my current campaign, there are many non-evil undead creatures. There are holy mummies, specters of righteous vengeance, and helpful ghosts. Different worlds have different rules. As another example, in the "True Blood" book and TV series, there are many well-meaning vampires. In other worlds, vampires strongly tend towards evil but there are a few exceptions, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or World of Darkness, where a vampire might resist being evil.

I've had some recent discussions of times in my past where I was accused of being a murderhobo or the equivalent for something I did. I think the clash can happen regardless of trigger warnings.

---

Regarding the poll, I had trouble with the categories. I think it's important to talk about levels of content like romance, sexuality, torture, gore, rape, and so forth -- but I'm not sold on trigger warnings as a specific means of talking about it.

The game world is obviously Faerun since the character was a paladin of Lathander.  If you are going to use a game world, then they should honor the lore of the world.  Lathander hates undead because they are an abomination to the cycle of birth and rebirth.  The player roleplayed correctly, in my opinion.  I don't understand why you are bringing up different worlds when clearly the setting was established?

Indeed, Silverblade!

I must admit, however, that I am not privy to any changes to the lore in 5e. They asked me if I was OK with playing Forgotten Realms, I said that I was fine and that as a fan of the Baldur's Gate games, I was familiar with the lore and appreciated that they wanted to make sure I was on board and that everyone would be creating characters that fit that established lore.

It is my understanding that Lathander is anti-undead and as such that's why informed my decisions when encountering the vampire spawn. Maybe the lore has been changed and I failed to do my homework, but I don't recall that being mentioned when had that lengthy discussion that halted the game. It was all centered about me playing wrong because I was acting like a murderhobo and then it shifted towards being a bigot for calling the vampire a "filthy bloodsucker." I don't remember anyone pointing out that Lathander was no longer anti-undead.

One player playing the cleric of Lathander did point out that attacking the vampire unprovoked was an act of merciless violence and thus was against Lathander's will, but I argued that the act of violence was provoked since the vampire was caught holding innocents in a hidden room in the cellar of his estate, basically an underground prison with evidence of the people caught not being the only ones to ever be held there.

Quote from: SHARK on January 28, 2024, 08:51:41 PM
Greetings!

Cipher, your situation is terrible. Don't play with Leftist Woke morons, no matter how desperate. Solo Gaming until you find an appropriate group!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Greetings to you as well, Shark!

I tried that but I found the experience unrewarding. It left me with an urge to just write stories instead. I've been a forever GM for so long, that when I GM I want to be surprised by the Players actions and how their choices carve a story out of the game we all share.

As a Player, I want to do the same. Not hating on people that enjoy solo gaming and maybe I am doing it wrong, but to me it just felt like writing with extra steps.

I'll rather just write, read a book or play a videogame. It just doesn't scratch that "I want to roleplay" itch.


Maybe one day I can find a group of old farts online or IRL. I am keeping my hopes up.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
I said that I disagreed with their consensus and decided that the game was not for me and left, without raising my voice or flinging insults.

You made the right choice.

Like I would take, "no slurs, no bigotries" to mean it's not funny to make up slurs for dwarves, and you definitely shouldn't roleplay cultural prejudice against other humans, not "don't kill dangerous monsters."

If you have PTSD and have altered consciousness, disorientation, lost time, and panic episodes from stress in imaginative mutual discussions with other people then do not play D&D or rpgs.

Quote from: Silverblade on January 28, 2024, 08:47:43 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2024, 08:31:23 PM
It seems to me that this is a problem not with trigger warnings per se, but with the others' attitudes over bigotry and vampires.

As for your attitude about undead -- that is something that depends on the game world. For example, in the world of my current campaign, there are many non-evil undead creatures. There are holy mummies, specters of righteous vengeance, and helpful ghosts. Different worlds have different rules. As another example, in the "True Blood" book and TV series, there are many well-meaning vampires. In other worlds, vampires strongly tend towards evil but there are a few exceptions, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or World of Darkness, where a vampire might resist being evil.

I've had some recent discussions of times in my past where I was accused of being a murderhobo or the equivalent for something I did. I think the clash can happen regardless of trigger warnings.

---

Regarding the poll, I had trouble with the categories. I think it's important to talk about levels of content like romance, sexuality, torture, gore, rape, and so forth -- but I'm not sold on trigger warnings as a specific means of talking about it.

The game world is obviously Faerun since the character was a paladin of Lathander.  If you are going to use a game world, then they should honor the lore of the world.  Lathander hates undead because they are an abomination to the cycle of birth and rebirth.  The player roleplayed correctly, in my opinion.  I don't understand why you are bringing up different worlds when clearly the setting was established?

Because that's what jhkim does.  Read any post he makes here.  First, he takes one small element of any post and disagrees with it, usually in asserting that there is no solid line of delineation (i.e. he always argues that there is a gray area, so any dichotomies are wrong).  He follows it with a personal anecdote intended to show that, since he's come up with one (usually made up by the sound of it) example, any attempt to categorize or label something is futile.  Honestly, you could write an AI to make every one of his posts following that formula and no one could tell the difference.  Don't take my word for it... he'll follow this pattern in just about every interaction...

To the OP's point, the problem is that stupid and damaged people have invaded our hobby.  First, they feel some kind of pride in being damaged, so much so that most of them make up their "mental illnesses" altogether.  I've met more self-diagnosed such-and-suches in this hobby than anywhere else.  They wear their "illness" as both a badge and an excuse to not behave like decent human beings.  Whenever they behave like spoiled brats and are called on it, they fall back on their self-diagnosed whatever.  As such, they attempt to use psychologically-inspired terminology, only they are too stupid to use it correctly.  This is where "trigger warnings" come from.  These morons want to pretend that their soft, meaningless lives have been so traumatic that they can compare their experiences to PTSD, when the vast majority of psychologists will tell you that the proper approach to trauma is habituation, not avoidance.  But snowflake zero over there doesn't want to have to listen to anything that might confirm the realities that they don't want to hear (life is hard, they are not special, men can't become women, an awkward pass is not "rape"... and you should be thankful someone was desperate enough to ask you out, etc.).  So they pervert the meaning and application of "triggers" to weaponize it so they can control others around them.

Long story short: there are no triggers in the context of RPGs; it is a misuse of the term and context.  Unpleasant ideas can't hurt you.  It is your responsibility to handle material you don't like, through adult conversation.  Anyone in RPGs who unironically uses the term "triggers" is a vile piece of garbage and should be avoided like the plague.

In my experience, trigger warnings tend to be a tell for political junk. I'm sure a few are put in with well-meaning intent, but more often than not it usually is a sign that the game has been padded to protect the feelings of otherwise overly sensitive individuals. I wouldn't play in a group that used them. Especially if it were for stuff like, "this game includes smoking and drinking, mild fantasy racial tensions" etc. I mean if you can't play an elf game without getting triggered over the term knife-ears, then we don't belong at the same table.

If you play Cyberpunk 2020, you have to except some dark stuff to happen, it's just the nature of the game. And if you can't handle cosmic horror, why are you playing Cthulhu games? That said, there's no reason you shouldn't consider the people you're playing with, especially if they're your friends. I'm all about playing a mature game, but I don't want something with all edge and no point, it ends up being shocking in a dumb way.

There's being courteous, and then there's being controlled.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 28, 2024, 10:26:58 PM
Long story short: there are no triggers in the context of RPGs; it is a misuse of the term and context.  Unpleasant ideas can't hurt you.  It is your responsibility to handle material you don't like, through adult conversation.  Anyone in RPGs who unironically uses the term "triggers" is a vile piece of garbage and should be avoided like the plague.

There are lots of perfectly well functioning human beings out there who, if they encountered something unexpected in an RPG context, might be triggered. For instance, someone who was a kidnapping victim might be triggered by an in-game abduction. Unpleasant ideas can hurt you. And it's not their fault they feel that way; it's a natural reaction to something horrible something else did. That is, in fact, what a trigger is; a trauma response to a non-threatening situation. If I had a friend who was a war veteran, and they asked me not to shoot fireworks at my picnic because it triggered them, I would try to accommodate that. I'm not actually placing them in danger, they know it's not actually dangerous, but it's stressful. And a highly traumatic childhood is as bad for you, health-wise, as smoking. I'm not sure what "adult conversation" means to you, but to me that would include a certain amount of vulnerability, and a certain amount of respect for other people's feelings. No one is trying to ruin anyone's fun by saying "these things happen."

I think experience shows it's a lot easier to deal with certain issues ahead of time, then to find out in the middle of your game session that someone is going to have to step out, because something occurred that put them right where they were when their grandma got murdered or whatever. It certainly doesn't hurt, or anyone else, to take a pause now and then. RPGs are supposed to be fun. If something gets too intense, that's really against the purpose. An RPG session isn't supposed to be flooding therapy. It's not supposed to be brutal. It's supposed to be fun, maybe even engaging, perhaps uplifting or cathartic.

The trigger warning, like so many other things, is rooted in something solid. That's how ideological subversion works.

A content warning is a valid concept. Some people just don't want to play in another person's sexual fantasy, for instance. However, this is being weaponized by a particular segment of the hobby. A trigger warning is not the same thing as a content warning. Every last one of us knows it. A trigger warning is not about letting squeamish people know the game will feature excessive gore, it's about ideological purity tests and Marxist struggle sessions.

When the radical activists have all been expunged from the hobby, then we can talk about the validity of content warnings, but until that point, you're just carrying water for them if you pretend like a trigger warning is anything other than hostile and malicious.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 07:24:24 PM

Quote from: Wisithir on January 28, 2024, 06:38:00 PM
A content advisory is a tool for the GM to let potential players know "you might not like this." At the table safety tools are a power mechanism for players to manipulate the experience without facilitating it. It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time.

So, if I understood your stance correctly, and please do mention if I am not, you are fine with content advisory such like the old VtM games mentioning "this is a game about sex and violence", so everyone can know what kind of game they are getting into and bow out if they don't find it appealing, right?

But, you are not fine with trigger warnings as "safety tools" because there is no need for them since, like you said: "It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time."


Correct?

Exactly. It is good to know what the game is about and what non obvious issues may come up. At the table, handle any unpleasantness like a functional adult in any other social circumstance, including excusing yourself if need be.

As for the filthy bloodsucker; it was a bloodsucker, it was engaged in the filthy deed of detaining other without consent or authority to, and it if it was a helpless pawn, it warranted a mercy killing followed by proper burial rights.

As for the other players, some people are so dysfunctional that they would not want thrier murder brought to justice if said murdered belonged to some designated as underprivileged class, completely failing to understand that society cannot function that way.

Movies have ratings with warnings about the kinds of content within.

I think that a lot of the players you find in conventions have needlessly thin skins and that this phrase "trigger warning" is probably bad terminology, and the X-Card is now used to ruin everyone's immersion more than help anyone get out of permanent brain damage. But do not confuse the smoothbrain implementation with the idea itself being bad. The idea itself is good and helpful, especially if you keep the entire table on topic on what kind of story they are telling.

I mean, I don't take a position at either goalpost. I see how various tools and approaches can be helpful in a smooth, and enjoyable experience. At the same time, I don't really enjoy it when the first meetup is just creating characters together and talking about potential triggers, lines, and so forth. I just want to play. I think, really, the less you know people, the more valuable it is to maybe map this stuff out in advance. Especially in an essentially formal situation, like a convention game. Once you know people better, you know, I hope a close-knit group that is respectful to each other can kind of feel it out, and catch anybody if things take a wrong turn.

I think it can challenging, too, to address everyone's potential triggers when the game itself is a lot grittier. I'm not saying people should just sit in silence, but I think there are situations where some people shouldn't dive into some games, and some players may not be a good fit for a group wanting something a little darker. Again, not just for misery's sake. But just as some people love horror movies or thrillers or heart-rending real-life dramas, some people like RPGs that are more on the heavy side.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on January 28, 2024, 10:45:43 PM
In my experience, trigger warnings tend to be a tell for political junk. I'm sure a few are put in with well-meaning intent, but more often than not it usually is a sign that the game has been padded to protect the feelings of otherwise overly sensitive individuals. I wouldn't play in a group that used them. Especially if it were for stuff like, "this game includes smoking and drinking, mild fantasy racial tensions" etc. I mean if you can't play an elf game without getting triggered over the term knife-ears, then we don't belong at the same table.

If you play Cyberpunk 2020, you have to except some dark stuff to happen, it's just the nature of the game. And if you can't handle cosmic horror, why are you playing Cthulhu games? That said, there's no reason you shouldn't consider the people you're playing with, especially if they're your friends. I'm all about playing a mature game, but I don't want something with all edge and no point, it ends up being shocking in a dumb way.

There's being courteous, and then there's being controlled.

Interesting. I would say that I am someone that has no trigger warnings. There's stuff that I like and stuff that I don't like but I wouldn't say anything "triggers" me in a game of make believe.

I don't like playing edgy games or being villains or even quote unquote "heroic" murder hobos. But, I do agree that if the idea of the game is playing amoral pirates out for gold and mischief, then I know from the get go what type of stuff its going to happen and if that game is or isn't for me. But, I have played Shadowrun and Cyberpunk games that were serious without being edgy and I really enjoyed them!

I agree with you on the "knife-ear" stuff, but I remember a discussion in the old WotC forums back when they announced what was then called "D&D Next", and someone was saying that calling dwarves "noseys" or "big noses" was a racial slur against jewish people, and someone mentioned calling drow "darkies" also being considered a racial slur, the same with "greenskins" for Orcs and Goblins, although that's more of a Warhammer fantasy thing.

In that case, do you agree? If not, then where do you draw the line? Meaning, what makes refer to elves in a derogatory manner due to the shape of their ears more acceptable than doing the same for dwarves and their noses?

Quote from: Corolinth on January 28, 2024, 10:55:52 PM
The trigger warning, like so many other things, is rooted in something solid. That's how ideological subversion works.

A content warning is a valid concept. Some people just don't want to play in another person's sexual fantasy, for instance. However, this is being weaponized by a particular segment of the hobby. A trigger warning is not the same thing as a content warning. Every last one of us knows it. A trigger warning is not about letting squeamish people know the game will feature excessive gore, it's about ideological purity tests and Marxist struggle sessions.

When the radical activists have all been expunged from the hobby, then we can talk about the validity of content warnings, but until that point, you're just carrying water for them if you pretend like a trigger warning is anything other than hostile and malicious.

In my experience, the thing about the "personal sexual fantasy" has never been a thing because, as you say, no one wants to play that. So, as soon as that starts I would leave and never come back. I assume most people would.

However, I do notice that for whatever reason, it seems sexual and romantic themes are more common nowadays. Not that they were non-existant before, I told in a previous post about one female player in the AD&D 2e games of my youth that would always flirt with "handsome" male NPCs without missing a single opportunity. But, now it seems that even games that are revolved around that are somewhat popular, like the Thirsty Sword Lesbians example.

In that sense, I don't really understand the idea of a content warning beyond something akin to the ESRB in videogames meaning a quick blurb about: "this game contains profanity, blood and gore, drug use" and such. So people that want to play with children know the game is geared towards adults.

Outside of that, the LFG places that, at a glance, have more traffic seem to be sometimes have requirements instead of content warnings.

I've seen stuff like: "Must have LGBT representation" or "Women ONLY". I couldn't find the opposite, meaning "Cannot have LGBT representation" or "Men ONLY".

Quote from: Wisithir on January 28, 2024, 10:59:54 PM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 07:24:24 PM

Quote from: Wisithir on January 28, 2024, 06:38:00 PM
A content advisory is a tool for the GM to let potential players know "you might not like this." At the table safety tools are a power mechanism for players to manipulate the experience without facilitating it. It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time.

So, if I understood your stance correctly, and please do mention if I am not, you are fine with content advisory such like the old VtM games mentioning "this is a game about sex and violence", so everyone can know what kind of game they are getting into and bow out if they don't find it appealing, right?

But, you are not fine with trigger warnings as "safety tools" because there is no need for them since, like you said: "It's a social game not a therapy or bondage session, no one is compelled to participate and is free to walk away at any time."


Correct?

Exactly. It is good to know what the game is about and what non obvious issues may come up. At the table, handle any unpleasantness like a functional adult in any other social circumstance, including excusing yourself if need be.

As for the filthy bloodsucker; it was a bloodsucker, it was engaged in the filthy deed of detaining other without consent or authority to, and it if it was a helpless pawn, it warranted a mercy killing followed by proper burial rights.

As for the other players, some people are so dysfunctional that they would not want thrier murder brought to justice if said murdered belonged to some designated as underprivileged class, completely failing to understand that society cannot function that way.

Indeed, Wisithir!

That was my reasoning. But, as I said, I am going off on the Forgotten Realms lore at the time of the original Baldur's Gate games so maybe something changed in the 5e version that I am not aware off.

As far as I know, vampires and undead in general are always evil monsters beyond redemption and Lathander is anti-undead.  After re-telling the events across this thread I think perhaps there was an idea about maybe interrogating the vampire spawn but that argument was never brought up or else I would have considered it.

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 12:06:44 AM

In my experience, the thing about the "personal sexual fantasy" has never been a thing because, as you say, no one wants to play that. So, as soon as that starts I would leave and never come back. I assume most people would.

However, I do notice that for whatever reason, it seems sexual and romantic themes are more common nowadays. Not that they were non-existant before, I told in a previous post about one female player in the AD&D 2e games of my youth that would always flirt with "handsome" male NPCs without missing a single opportunity. But, now it seems that even games that are revolved around that are somewhat popular, like the Thirsty Sword Lesbians example.

In that sense, I don't really understand the idea of a content warning beyond something akin to the ESRB in videogames meaning a quick blurb about: "this game contains profanity, blood and gore, drug use" and such. So people that want to play with children know the game is geared towards adults.

Outside of that, the LFG places that, at a glance, have more traffic seem to be sometimes have requirements instead of content warnings.

I've seen stuff like: "Must have LGBT representation" or "Women ONLY". I couldn't find the opposite, meaning "Cannot have LGBT representation" or "Men ONLY".

It's self insertion.  It's the same reason people write doctorate essays on character backgrounds and hate to see their character die.  It's the reason why their characters have the same world view, fears and phobias as their players.  RPGs have become a form of escapism that, I think, might be unhealthy for some individuals.  They can't seem to separate themselves from the game.

And this idea of self insertion is festering across all forms of entertainment.

Quote from: Fheredin on January 28, 2024, 11:12:37 PM
Movies have ratings with warnings about the kinds of content within.

I think that a lot of the players you find in conventions have needlessly thin skins and that this phrase "trigger warning" is probably bad terminology, and the X-Card is now used to ruin everyone's immersion more than help anyone get out of permanent brain damage. But do not confuse the smoothbrain implementation with the idea itself being bad. The idea itself is good and helpful, especially if you keep the entire table on topic on what kind of story they are telling.

I used to agree with this take before this experience, but after that I am unsure on what would be a good implementation specially what you meant about: "if you keep the entire table on topic on what kind of story they are telling."


What I mean by this is that, it seems everyone understood the trigger warnings except me. I thought we were all on the same page after the Session 0 discussion. We are going to play heroes, that is the 'Good Guys', no sexual stuff nor racism, bullying or bigotry.

Then, it turns out that calling a vampire that had captured innocents and kept some in a dungeon on his estate a "filthy bloodsucker" and preparing to attack him on sight was somehow breaking that trigger warning and then I got that "X card" as you put it.

My concern about trigger warnings now is, where do you draw the line? It is apparent to me now that we had different definitions of what is and what isn't bigotry. How long should the "trigger warning" discussion be? Can it really cover every single aspect of play?

As someone that has no trigger warnings, this is somewhat confusing to me. I understand the idea of people not wanting certain stuff in the game but I don't really understand the idea of getting "triggered" by it. I really, really dislike when dogs, specifically dogs, are killed in movies, specially in graphical fashion.

However, that doesn't trigger me. I don't look away. I don't have nightmares about this at night. I just really love dogs and don't want to see them getting hurt. Is this what they call "privilege"? The fact that nothing really triggers me, is that because I have led what they called a "privileged life"?

I don't think so, but a lot of folks are commenting that they do like content warnings so perhaps I am the odd man here that does not get triggered by anything.

And that's not me saying that I don't dislike stuff when I am playing a roleplaying game. I don't really care for sexual stuff or romance, but I won't get trigger if players flirt with NPCs, if they bang prostitutes in a whore house, if they flirt/bang with each other's characters or if I am in a game and the GM narrates dogs getting brutally killed or even sexual abuse.

I just tune that out. It's make believe. I know it can't hurt me and I don't have to imagine it if I don't want to. When I am the one running games, if someone would ask me to skip a description or getting into too much detail about a certain situation or just to "fade to black" and move along what happens next, I would comply to be friendly even though I wouldn't ask them to do so if they were the ones running the game.

I don't think that's because I am "privileged" but perhaps that's what they mean when they say it?

Quote from: Silverblade on January 29, 2024, 12:11:47 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 12:06:44 AM

In my experience, the thing about the "personal sexual fantasy" has never been a thing because, as you say, no one wants to play that. So, as soon as that starts I would leave and never come back. I assume most people would.

However, I do notice that for whatever reason, it seems sexual and romantic themes are more common nowadays. Not that they were non-existant before, I told in a previous post about one female player in the AD&D 2e games of my youth that would always flirt with "handsome" male NPCs without missing a single opportunity. But, now it seems that even games that are revolved around that are somewhat popular, like the Thirsty Sword Lesbians example.

In that sense, I don't really understand the idea of a content warning beyond something akin to the ESRB in videogames meaning a quick blurb about: "this game contains profanity, blood and gore, drug use" and such. So people that want to play with children know the game is geared towards adults.

Outside of that, the LFG places that, at a glance, have more traffic seem to be sometimes have requirements instead of content warnings.

I've seen stuff like: "Must have LGBT representation" or "Women ONLY". I couldn't find the opposite, meaning "Cannot have LGBT representation" or "Men ONLY".

It's self insertion.  It's the same reason people write doctorate essays on character backgrounds and hate to see their character die.  It's the reason why their characters have the same world view, fears and phobias as their players.  RPGs have become a form of escapism that, I think, might be unhealthy for some individuals.  They can't seem to separate themselves from the game.

And this idea of self insertion is festering across all forms of entertainment.

I see.

See, I find that interesting, Silverblade. Because I have created characters that are basically me in that setting. With my appearance and values, and I have never felt the need to have them hog the spotlight or never die.

Don't get me wrong, any character that I create I put a lot of thought into their background and personality so I never want to see them die before completing their personal goals in the game. But, if that happens it happens, that was their story. Sometimes, you fail. And failure can lead to interesting stories, as well. I remember one time where an adventure got "derailed" because one of our party members died and we did a lot, and I mean a lot, to have them brought back to life.

That was an awesome story. Also, when a character stays behind and does the "you shall not pass!" and holds the line to let everyone escape with their hide. Heroic sacrifices are really cool, at least in my opinion.

Having said that, I think I see what you mean about "They can't seem to separate themselves from the game." I think that would be a key difference. Even though I have "self inserted" myself into a gameworld and I roleplay in first person and sometimes do funny accents or voices to reflect how my character would talk, I do have that degree of separation between me and my character.

This is a very interesting opinion. What would be your assessment on why these people can't separate themselves from their character?

In your opinion, would that be because they are unwilling or because they are unable?

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 12:28:35 AM
I see.

See, I find that interesting, Silverblade. Because I have created characters that are basically me in that setting. With my appearance and values, and I have never felt the need to have them hog the spotlight or never die.

Don't get me wrong, any character that I create I put a lot of thought into their background and personality so I never want to see them die before completing their personal goals in the game. But, if that happens it happens, that was their story. Sometimes, you fail. And failure can lead to interesting stories, as well. I remember one time where an adventure got "derailed" because one of our party members died and we did a lot, and I mean a lot, to have them brought back to life.

That was an awesome story. Also, when a character stays behind and does the "you shall not pass!" and holds the line to let everyone escape with their hide. Heroic sacrifices are really cool, at least in my opinion.

Having said that, I think I see what you mean about "They can't seem to separate themselves from the game." I think that would be a key difference. Even though I have "self inserted" myself into a gameworld and I roleplay in first person and sometimes do funny accents or voices to reflect how my character would talk, I do have that degree of separation between me and my character.

This is a very interesting opinion. What would be your assessment on why these people can't separate themselves from their character?

In your opinion, would that be because they are unwilling or because they are unable?

They are narcissistic and have low self esteem.  But instead of facing the issues that are causing the low self esteem, they expect others to conform to them.  I am not a psychologist and only play one on TV but every person I've ever met whom I believed were narcissistic in nature also had low self esteem that they tried hard to cover.  Since they can't control reality, they will control what they can through the pretense of justice and self-righteousness.

I think most of us have self inserted ourselves in our characters.  But the characters are never carbon copies of my own personality with my same morality and beliefs.  Like you, I like to play heroic characters so an exercise in heroism is fun, just like a great heroic tale such as Lord of the Rings is fun.  But I am always able to separate myself from the character.  It's an exercise of character building and storytelling. 

Quote from: Silverblade on January 29, 2024, 12:45:33 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 12:28:35 AM
I see.

See, I find that interesting, Silverblade. Because I have created characters that are basically me in that setting. With my appearance and values, and I have never felt the need to have them hog the spotlight or never die.

Don't get me wrong, any character that I create I put a lot of thought into their background and personality so I never want to see them die before completing their personal goals in the game. But, if that happens it happens, that was their story. Sometimes, you fail. And failure can lead to interesting stories, as well. I remember one time where an adventure got "derailed" because one of our party members died and we did a lot, and I mean a lot, to have them brought back to life.

That was an awesome story. Also, when a character stays behind and does the "you shall not pass!" and holds the line to let everyone escape with their hide. Heroic sacrifices are really cool, at least in my opinion.

Having said that, I think I see what you mean about "They can't seem to separate themselves from the game." I think that would be a key difference. Even though I have "self inserted" myself into a gameworld and I roleplay in first person and sometimes do funny accents or voices to reflect how my character would talk, I do have that degree of separation between me and my character.

This is a very interesting opinion. What would be your assessment on why these people can't separate themselves from their character?

In your opinion, would that be because they are unwilling or because they are unable?

They are narcissistic and have low self esteem.  But instead of facing the issues that are causing the low self esteem, they expect others to conform to them.  I am not a psychologist and only play one on TV but every person I've ever met whom I believed were narcissistic in nature also had low self esteem that they tried hard to cover.  Since they can't control reality, they will control what they can through the pretense of justice and self-righteousness.

I think most of us have self inserted ourselves in our characters.  But the characters are never carbon copies of my own personality with my same morality and beliefs.  Like you, I like to play heroic characters so an exercise in heroism is fun, just like a great heroic tale such as Lord of the Rings is fun.  But I am always able to separate myself from the character.  It's an exercise of character building and storytelling.

I see. I think you are right about the low self-esteem thing. People that have low self-esteem are very fragile to any kind of frustration. If the smallest thing doesn't go their way, they take it badly and have a lot of problems adapting to stress.

Which checks out for the trigger warnings and playing the X Card. I would assume its the same kind of people that claim that women cannot be sexy anymore in media, since that frustrates them because they themselves don't consider themselves to be sexy. Even though, it has been proven time and time and again that women want to see good looking and sexy characters in their media, even other women. This is why fashion magazines have good looking women in them.

What I find strange is that all these talk about trigger warnings seems to be new/recent. If its indeed the case of people that are having a hard time with low self-esteem and anxiety and unable to adjust to stress, then why did this not happen in the past?

And I played AD&D 2e when I was 14 years old with other nerds. So, its not like these guys were jocks living the life in high school. But, when we were playing, they could be wise wizards or daring knights or canny rogues or pious clerics. There wasn't this idea of "this triggers me" and we were children.

And that never changed across the decades. I am only facing this situation now, when my old friends are not available to play and I have to seek games online with a younger crowd. As far as I am aware, these people are full adults, like 25+ or so, but I have no way to confirm since I didn't really asked their ages, but they didn't struck me as 18 year olds.

And back in the day we had Call of Cthulhu and World of Darkness so its not like people only played "power fantasy kiddie games" like D&D. And no "trigger warnings" on sight. Why would somehow there be a need for them now?

Quote from: Silverblade on January 28, 2024, 08:47:43 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2024, 08:31:23 PM
As for your attitude about undead -- that is something that depends on the game world. For example, in the world of my current campaign, there are many non-evil undead creatures. There are holy mummies, specters of righteous vengeance, and helpful ghosts. Different worlds have different rules. As another example, in the "True Blood" book and TV series, there are many well-meaning vampires. In other worlds, vampires strongly tend towards evil but there are a few exceptions, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer or World of Darkness, where a vampire might resist being evil.

The game world is obviously Faerun since the character was a paladin of Lathander.  If you are going to use a game world, then they should honor the lore of the world.  Lathander hates undead because they are an abomination to the cycle of birth and rebirth.  The player roleplayed correctly, in my opinion.  I don't understand why you are bringing up different worlds when clearly the setting was established?

Maybe in your games the GM has to stick to everything published, but lots of groups play differently -- where the game-world for that campaign is different than the published material. i.e. It's Greyhawk but X, Y, and Z are different - or it's Faerun but in year 1400 and A and B are different. Faerun a ton of varied sources - and even some that are contradictory. Even in canonical Faerun, there have apparently been a few good vampires like Thibbledorf Pwent (who was eventually cured of vampirism).

What's true in the world of that specific game is up to the GM, not up to TSR and/or WotC.

---

To Cipher, you say:

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation.

It seems like the same issue. Some players see goblins as inherently evil, and it's a good act to kill them, even if they are prisoners or babies. Others see it as a moral dilemma. Likewise, if there is the possibility of a good vampire and/or a cure for vampirism, then it's a potential issue to deal with someone who has been turned. For example, in a scenario based on Dracula, if a character encounters Lucy Westenra and immediately kills her, that might be seen as evil by the other players who were looking for a way to save her.

Quote from: jhkim on January 29, 2024, 01:18:42 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation.

It seems like the same issue. Some players see goblins as inherently evil, and it's a good act to kill them, even if they are prisoners or babies. Others see it as a moral dilemma. Likewise, if there is the possibility of a good vampire and/or a cure for vampirism, then it's a potential issue to deal with someone who has been turned. For example, in a scenario based on Dracula, if a character encounters Lucy Westenra and immediately kills her, that might be seen as evil by the other players who were looking for a way to save her.

The thing this is a specific setting. Like I said, I am not privy to any changes to the lore in 5e Forgotten Realms, but as far as I know, undead are evil and monsters and Lathander is anti-undead. It was pointed out to me that a Wish spell can cure vampirism. And then what, does that excuse the vampire spawn of the crimes he committed? And this kidnappings are the crimes we know for sure, never mind whatever else he did to not turn into dust. You do realize they need to drink blood to exist, correct?

Some editions of D&D are very specific about orcs being evil because they were created by an evil god, so that makes sense. The same with drow. Individuals can curve this expectation but as a whole drow are evil.

Other settings like Goblin Slayer where goblins can only reproduce by rape, make it clear goblins are evil and are irredeemable. Even the baby goblins will grow up to prey on women.

In Lord of the Rings orcs/goblins are evil.

See, I can play the "in this setting" game just as well. But we are talking about specifically 5e's version of the Forgotten Realms.

If I google "D&D 5e Vampire Spawn" it says they are Neutral Evil undead. Meaning that they are evil as a whole, as well. And this one in particular was guilty of crimes against humanity and the city that hired our party. The same happens if I go to the Forgotten Realms wiki so I assume that this information is accurate.

As I said before in this thread, I would have been receptive to the characters making an argument about why we should interrogate/apprehend the vampire instead of killing him but I still don't buy the idea of "that specific vampire could be good!"

Giving the vampire time to escape or get the upper hand on us would have been not only a wrong choice but a potentially deadly one for our characters. The difference with the "goblin babies in a cave" is that the goblins are alive and, in that example, they are babies. This is an undead monster that is an adult and has been for some time before he was turned into a vampire spawn, and then existed as a vampire spawn for however many months or even years.

Why no argument for the giant spiders everyone gleefully killed in the sewers? Spiders are actually alive. I would think that killing living creatures would be more reprehensible than killing undead. We didn't need to kill them, they were just in the way, we could have fled or find another way around the sewers to get to the secret dungeon below the vampire's estate. But, we didn't. Spiders appeared, everyone rolled initiative. No one was triggered.

That's the thing here. And the female player playing the cleric made the same argument, that "killing" the vampire is wrong. But, I cannot kill a vampire since the vampire is not alive.


And as I said, they really didn't wanted me attacking the vampire on sight, but the real "trigger" was calling it a "filthy bloodsucker". Do you believe I am a bigot because of that, like them?  I don't think using that word choice is rude to anyone or insulting to anyone. Do you think I was wrong for referring to the vampire as a filthy bloodsucker just because there might be a chance this particular vampire spawn wasn't Neutral Evil like the book describes?

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 01:54:25 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 29, 2024, 01:18:42 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
This is not the "goblin babies in the cave" situation.

It seems like the same issue. Some players see goblins as inherently evil, and it's a good act to kill them, even if they are prisoners or babies. Others see it as a moral dilemma. Likewise, if there is the possibility of a good vampire and/or a cure for vampirism, then it's a potential issue to deal with someone who has been turned. For example, in a scenario based on Dracula, if a character encounters Lucy Westenra and immediately kills her, that might be seen as evil by the other players who were looking for a way to save her.

Giving the vampire time to escape or get the upper hand on us would have been not only a wrong choice but a potentially deadly one for our characters. The difference with the "goblin babies in a cave" is that the goblins are alive and, in that example, they are babies. This is an undead monster that is an adult and has been for some time before he was turned into a vampire spawn, and then existed as a vampire spawn for however many months or even years.

Again, I don't know the specific situation, but my impression from what you say is that they saw the merchant as an innocent civilian who was preyed on by the master vampire and turned into a pawn against his will. It's a mismatch of how different people see the monster.

Goblin babies might be alive, but they are also evil as defined by the game. Someone can reason that if left alive, they will just grow up and commit evil acts. Allowing them to grow up is just inflicting their evil on their future victims, and thus the wrong choice.

I'm not saying siding either way - just that this seems to be the disagreement. How I would decide would depend on the specific details.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
Greetings!

What are your thoughts on trigger warnings?

They are a way for abusive people to manipulate others.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 29, 2024, 03:20:47 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
Greetings!

What are your thoughts on trigger warnings?

They are a way for abusive people to manipulate others.

I can't say I've ever been abused by a trigger warning.

People who demand trigger warnings or safety tools are a big red flag for me.  It's not because I reject the general concept of trigger warnings though I am dubious about their utility in a ttrpg context.  It's because players who demand this sort of thing have a strong tendency to be manipulative, narcissistic. self-absorbed control freaks who cause nothing but problems.  For me, this is not a philosophical issue.  It's a practical one.  Players who demand trigger warnings and talk about being unsafe while playing an rpg are very, very likely to be problem players who will cause me endless problems.  I don't need that shit.

I had a player who was literally triggered by unexpected sudden loud noises with involuntary reaction. She would become unresponsive for a minute as she tried to regain control. We would roll the dice more slowly and be careful not to drop anything. Everyone in the group knew about her condition and tried not to get too heated during RP to not smack the table as a reaction.

One of my friends has arachnophobia. Its not something that comes up as often, but when a giant spider or something like bebilith became an encounter, he would panic so his GM would replace the encounter on the spot. And this was a very "anti-consent sheet" grognard group.

Another friend was going to start a game with underwater exploration. One player realy wanted to play a game for the first time, but he had some kind of accident as a kid and had fear of drowning so he was going to leave the group. GM did the unthinkable and vaporized the whole lake and changed the adventure into "why has it been vaporized" mystery.

None if these people had a session long discussions on what they want or dont want in a game. They just stated their real life fears and triggers to the party/gm. GMs tried their best to accomidate them so they wouldnt feel like coming to an hours long torture session. But when something slipped past our control they never blamed others. And we never spent more than 5 minutes on the issue after apologizing.

IMO, if someone is demanding no sexism/racism/slavery/etc. at all, they are not suited to have a meaningful conversation in or out game at all. You can ask the GM to not shove one in all the time but even the most kid friendly heartwarming game is going to have that "girls cant play/boys are icky" children who the party is going to prove wrong. The general expectation of kid friendly/pg13/18+ is useful to determine what is going to happen in game but even pg13 cartoons have their dark moments.

Also by their standards, rest of that oarty is bigoted against beast. Giant spiders have int score too and being a "beast" creature you can use speak with animals spells to talk with it, something far more accessable than a level 9 spell. Maybe they are innocent and forced to attack you due to that vampire spawn. Of course they never think of that angle.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 07:12:01 PM
I am just that desperate. I don't even like D&D anymore, but agreed because at least that table was looking for players to run a heroic game, instead of a morally grey our outright villainous campaign.

Let's refocus the conversation for a moment to fix the underlying problem.  Which do you think is the easier lift:

1. Run a game yourself for some friends/acquaintances who you already know to be normal people, though not experienced gamers.
2. Find a way to have a fun game with the stark raving loons who already know the rules.

In the first option, you have to run the game. It's more work but also rewarding.  You need to teach new players that you already enjoy being around how to play.  Which means that the game might not be exactly what you want at first, because learning to play is a skill just like any other.  New players fall of the bike a few times before they get their balance.  You'll have some that aren't interested.  Some will drop out.  If you stick with it, eventually you'll find enough that enjoy it to keep going, and then build from there.  In other words, all you need from other people is the willingness to try it.

In the second option, you either have to adjust your thinking to accommodate things you already know are wrong, or you have to change a whole group of other people by getting them to examine their entire view of the world--which will touch on their deepest insecurities, assuming they are not blatantly lying in order to manipulate others.   The chances of success are negligible, and every step of the way will be frustrating to the Nth degree even if you did get some minor success. Assuming they don't toss you out first.   

I don't mind professional products having some indication of what's inside, not everyone is an 'I spit on your grave' fan for example.

But home game? Know who you are playing with is the simplest answer. My games are dark, although rarely do I get graphic in my description nor do I bring evil shit upfront to rub in peoples faces. My players twisted psyches do that for me.

I'm running another game where it's more Jason and the Argonauts so villains are more melodramatic than sadistic.

In both games the same rules apply, I know the players and they know me so we find a balance.


You try and x-card my game mid session though and you can take your idiot ass to play my little pony.

Quote from: Llew ap Hywel on January 29, 2024, 08:05:25 AMYou try and x-card my game mid session though and you can take your idiot ass to play my little pony.

I was thinking about the difference between playing the X-card and simply raising a hand to say "whoa, hang on, can we talk about this a second?" to a GM, and suddenly it struck me:

The thing with the X-card is that it is designed to give the complainer formal authority. Like Robert's Rules of Order, it's an attempt to formally bind the group to an agreement that obliges them to recognize a complaint and act to alleviate it; it's about putting power in the hands of the complainer rather than in the hands of the group, and whenever power is formally allocated to an individual over a group, the tendency is for individuals to come along who will start abusing that power. What starts as a way for rare players with genuine trauma to express objections without having to defend or justify themselves is always exploited by people simply looking for leverage over how to run a group.

Having accumulated enough observational data by now to know that trigger warnings don't in fact help people endure disturbing content any more than coming upon it "cold" would -- that they really only work as help deciding whether to engage at all, a choice which isn't always practical -- the notion of "enforcing" them only rings like another example of the same process.

The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse. 

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 11:58:25 PM
Interesting. I would say that I am someone that has no trigger warnings. There's stuff that I like and stuff that I don't like but I wouldn't say anything "triggers" me in a game of make believe.

I don't like playing edgy games or being villains or even quote unquote "heroic" murder hobos. But, I do agree that if the idea of the game is playing amoral pirates out for gold and mischief, then I know from the get go what type of stuff its going to happen and if that game is or isn't for me. But, I have played Shadowrun and Cyberpunk games that were serious without being edgy and I really enjoyed them!

I agree with you on the "knife-ear" stuff, but I remember a discussion in the old WotC forums back when they announced what was then called "D&D Next", and someone was saying that calling dwarves "noseys" or "big noses" was a racial slur against jewish people, and someone mentioned calling drow "darkies" also being considered a racial slur, the same with "greenskins" for Orcs and Goblins, although that's more of a Warhammer fantasy thing.

In that case, do you agree? If not, then where do you draw the line? Meaning, what makes refer to elves in a derogatory manner due to the shape of their ears more acceptable than doing the same for dwarves and their noses?

I'd say I don't have any trigger warnings too, but that said there's some stuff I don't bring up in games just because it's not really something that needs to be brought up. If someone else did I wouldn't have a problem, but as a referee I don't. Take sex for example: if a PC in one of my games goes to bed, I don't describe the whole process, I just tell them they did their biological duty, and have them roll 1d10 to see how well they did.

And I should clarify that I think you can play games like Cyberpunk 2020 without being super-edgy, rather that like you said with the pirate game it sort of implies certain topics. For example I wouldn't go into graphic detail about drug use and ODing in Cyberpunk, explaining all the ins and outs of drug abuse. Rather that coming into a game like that, you should expect drug use to be baked in the cake even if it's just mentioned.

On the knife ear/nosey topic I'll say that I don't think name calling is really an issue, unless the person is going out of their way to use actual real-life slurs. The nosey name is just that, and I think that just like with orcs if anyone sees anything more than a dwarf they're the one with the issues. That goes both ways: to the SJW and to the actual racist, it's just a game don't make it out to be more than that. Me picking on the party dwarf isn't going to influence my life and views outside of the game, and I'd wager most people are the same way.

And again, I don't go out of my way to detail the various racial tensions, or keep lists of nicknames they have for each other. I just make a note of it, occasionally bring it up when relevant and leave it at that. There's no need to try and tie in real racial conflicts and graft them into the game.

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

That's a really good point too. You can be considerate for someone in your game group. It doesn't require giving anyone and everyone you play with an abusable veto-card to control the game. And as Pundit has mentioned before in one of his videos, a player can always just leave the game.

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 12:21:27 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on January 28, 2024, 11:12:37 PM
Movies have ratings with warnings about the kinds of content within.

I think that a lot of the players you find in conventions have needlessly thin skins and that this phrase "trigger warning" is probably bad terminology, and the X-Card is now used to ruin everyone's immersion more than help anyone get out of permanent brain damage. But do not confuse the smoothbrain implementation with the idea itself being bad. The idea itself is good and helpful, especially if you keep the entire table on topic on what kind of story they are telling.

I used to agree with this take before this experience, but after that I am unsure on what would be a good implementation specially what you meant about: "if you keep the entire table on topic on what kind of story they are telling."


What I mean by this is that, it seems everyone understood the trigger warnings except me. I thought we were all on the same page after the Session 0 discussion. We are going to play heroes, that is the 'Good Guys', no sexual stuff nor racism, bullying or bigotry.

Then, it turns out that calling a vampire that had captured innocents and kept some in a dungeon on his estate a "filthy bloodsucker" and preparing to attack him on sight was somehow breaking that trigger warning and then I got that "X card" as you put it.

My concern about trigger warnings now is, where do you draw the line? It is apparent to me now that we had different definitions of what is and what isn't bigotry. How long should the "trigger warning" discussion be? Can it really cover every single aspect of play?

As someone that has no trigger warnings, this is somewhat confusing to me. I understand the idea of people not wanting certain stuff in the game but I don't really understand the idea of getting "triggered" by it. I really, really dislike when dogs, specifically dogs, are killed in movies, specially in graphical fashion.

However, that doesn't trigger me. I don't look away. I don't have nightmares about this at night. I just really love dogs and don't want to see them getting hurt. Is this what they call "privilege"? The fact that nothing really triggers me, is that because I have led what they called a "privileged life"?

I don't think so, but a lot of folks are commenting that they do like content warnings so perhaps I am the odd man here that does not get triggered by anything.

And that's not me saying that I don't dislike stuff when I am playing a roleplaying game. I don't really care for sexual stuff or romance, but I won't get trigger if players flirt with NPCs, if they bang prostitutes in a whore house, if they flirt/bang with each other's characters or if I am in a game and the GM narrates dogs getting brutally killed or even sexual abuse.

I just tune that out. It's make believe. I know it can't hurt me and I don't have to imagine it if I don't want to. When I am the one running games, if someone would ask me to skip a description or getting into too much detail about a certain situation or just to "fade to black" and move along what happens next, I would comply to be friendly even though I wouldn't ask them to do so if they were the ones running the game.

I don't think that's because I am "privileged" but perhaps that's what they mean when they say it?

Again, I think the problem there was smoothbrain implementation, because anyone who is triggered by calling a vampire a "bloodsucker" was destined to get triggered just by having a vampire antagonist in the campaign. This strikes me as a potentially bad faith use of safety tools, because it looks like the intent was to smack you around with it rather than make the table safer.

All I can say is what I tend to do with my campaigns. I have a Whitelist (content I need to have to make the campaign work) and then use a derivative of the Monte Cook Games Consent in Gaming questionnaire to determine if other stuff can be included without concern, included with metagame approval of the GM and any affected players (PC-PC romance typically falls here), or flat out banned. Yes, that's a questionable source, but it's useful.

Typically, I replace X-Cards with a Parlaimentary Vote to change something about the campaign. This does allow for emergency stop conditions for the rare cases when a player irresponsibly forgets their triggers when first joining the campaign, but because the majority vote of the table manually overrides the safety concern the table chemistry is shifted away from outrage and towards consensus. It also comes with a built in campaign health tracker, because if I as the GM ever lose a vote against the players...the campaign is probably toast.

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

I've never done it myself because I don't play any more, but I've often wondered what would happen at one of these tables if a player simply tapped the X-Card every time any form of homosexuality was hinted at.

I'm kidding, of course, he'd be thrown out in a heartbeat but it would demonstrate how hypocritical the whole bollocks is.

For extra points, fight back tears while talking about the "friendly uncle" that molested you as a child and that's why you can't handle the topic.  Watch them twist trying to decide who the bad guy is.

I've been playing for over 30 years. Where have these people who piss their pants at fictional spiders or water been for the first 25 years of it? Certainly not fucking playing at any table I've been at.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 29, 2024, 08:23:25 AM

Quote from: Llew ap Hywel on January 29, 2024, 08:05:25 AMYou try and x-card my game mid session though and you can take your idiot ass to play my little pony.

I was thinking about the difference between playing the X-card and simply raising a hand to say "whoa, hang on, can we talk about this a second?" to a GM, and suddenly it struck me:

The thing with the X-card is that it is designed to give the complainer formal authority. Like Robert's Rules of Order, it's an attempt to formally bind the group to an agreement that obliges them to recognize a complaint and act to alleviate it; it's about putting power in the hands of the complainer rather than in the hands of the group, and whenever power is formally allocated to an individual over a group, the tendency is for individuals to come along who will start abusing that power. What starts as a way for rare players with genuine trauma to express objections without having to defend or justify themselves is always exploited by people simply looking for leverage over how to run a group.

Having accumulated enough observational data by now to know that trigger warnings don't in fact help people endure disturbing content any more than coming upon it "cold" would -- that they really only work as help deciding whether to engage at all, a choice which isn't always practical -- the notion of "enforcing" them only rings like another example of the same process.

I was in a game back in the mid 90s that was going heavy handed with the whole grimdark derp derp thing that was popular at the time.  I wasn't enjoying it.  In the last session of that particular campaign I was in, the GM was going into graphic detail about a murder scene the party discovered.

I just told the table the game wasn't to my taste and excused myself.  Later, I talked to two of the players because they were worried about the status of our relationship.  I let them know that I'm not really into the sex and gore the game was.  We parted on good terms and I even played other games with some of those guys latter.

The difference is, I understood that I, the player, could only determine my own behavior.  I did not use my personal take on the material as an excuse for telling other people how to behave.  Even now, I reserve the right as both a player and a GM that I can withdraw from a game that takes on something I don't want to deal with.  (Of course, as a GM, that means the game ends but I don't just end a game without talking it out.)

Quote from: pawsplay on January 29, 2024, 03:23:43 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 29, 2024, 03:20:47 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
Greetings!

What are your thoughts on trigger warnings?

They are a way for abusive people to manipulate others.

I can't say I've ever been abused by a trigger warning.

That's because you buy into the woke bullshit they're spewing, so it doesn't affect you. YOU are part of the problem.
This is why I believe most of the woke suffer from mental disorders.

To the OP: you were right in getting out of that insanity. Plead your case any more and they would start yelling "Shame! SHAME!!!"
(which is ironic, because it's was the bad guys in GoT who who shouted that...but i digress...)
Hey I'm always looking for players. I'll PM you if you're interested in getting into a campaign that is 100% the opposite of woke garbage. We just started a few month ago, so you can jump in rather easy.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 29, 2024, 03:23:43 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 29, 2024, 03:20:47 AM
They are a way for abusive people to manipulate others.

I can't say I've ever been abused by a trigger warning.

That's not what he said.  You're being disingenuous as usual.

I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned the M-Card (https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/rpg-m-card-roleplaying-outside-safe-spaces/ (https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/rpg-m-card-roleplaying-outside-safe-spaces/)) yet.

Quote from: Llew ap Hywel on January 29, 2024, 08:05:25 AM
You try and x-card my game mid session though and you can take your idiot ass to play my little pony.

My MLP games have fillynapper pony-trafficing gansters, unethical experiments on live ponies, racist griffons planning genocides, and soulsucking nightmare demons from the moon. I don't want those people either.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 29, 2024, 10:24:23 AM
I've been playing for over 30 years. Where have these people who piss their pants at fictional spiders or water been for the first 25 years of it? Certainly not fucking playing at any table I've been at.

I might have worded it strongly with "panic" but his discomfort was visible and you could tell he was immediately yanked out of the game when a spider-like creature appeared. And he is one of the last people in the group you would expect to have that kind of phobia. The guy with the drowning fear might have pre-reacted to it and may not even have problem if it happened ingame. But my player had trauma from a bomb exploding in her vicinity, and thats a shit you'll never experience unless you live in a third world country, something the safety tool grifters would never do. (She is doing better if anyone asks)

GM at the start of a game:  OK, you set out into the wilderness.  It's going to be about a 3-day journey to the Dungeons of Doom, so...

Player 1:  NO!  *taps X card*  I'm agoraphobic!  *Starts shaking; tears well up*  Don't mention the outdoors!

GM:  OK, sorry.  We'll just say you're at the dungeon already.  The entrance is narrow, and steep steps lead down into pitch black darkness.  You can...

Player 2:  NOOOO!  I'm claustrophobic.  I'm not going in there.  I'll wait outside.

GM:  Alright, you can wait outside under the trees.  Meanwhile -

Player 3:  "TREES?  You didn't say anything about trees being in this game!  I'm dendrophobic.  No trees!"

GM:  *sigh*  Fine.  You're on the open steppe then, and -

Player 1:  You mean there's nothing but open sky above us?  Well that doesn't help me!  I'm agoraphobic, remember!

GM:  OK, let me rethink this.... Right then, you're all aboard ship, sailing for the, uh, Place of Doom.  You claustrophobes can stay on deck, and you agoraphobes can stay below deck.  There's no trees anywhere in sight."

Player 4:  *pounds X card furiously*  I'm thalassophobic!  I'm not gonna play unless you swear not to mention large bodies of water!"

GM:  You know, maybe I should just scrap this adventure and we'll play something else.  I have this one I found on the internet, set in a sort of a fantasy Starbuck's called "No Tears Over Spilled Coffee."  How does that sound"

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 29, 2024, 11:28:09 AM
I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned the M-Card (https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/rpg-m-card-roleplaying-outside-safe-spaces/ (https://postmortemstudios.wordpress.com/2018/06/26/rpg-m-card-roleplaying-outside-safe-spaces/)) yet.

That's brilliant. The analogies are apt as well.

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 29, 2024, 11:25:45 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 29, 2024, 03:23:43 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 29, 2024, 03:20:47 AM
They are a way for abusive people to manipulate others.

I can't say I've ever been abused by a trigger warning.

That's not what he said.  You're being disingenuous as usual.

OF course he's being disingenuous. If all manipulation doesn't equate to abuse, it doesn't fit the woke narrative.
But those of us who are intelligent and sane know this.

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 29, 2024, 09:55:16 AM
I've never done it myself because I don't play any more, but I've often wondered what would happen at one of these tables if a player simply tapped the X-Card every time any form of homosexuality was hinted at.

I'm kidding, of course, he'd be thrown out in a heartbeat but it would demonstrate how hypocritical the whole bollocks is.

No joking: I would be willing to be thrown out of a group using the X- Card in such a way.  And, I would ask that the players respect my religious beliefs.

Trigger warnings seem like a great marketing gimmick to make your game seem edgy and cool.  Just like the Parental Avisory stickers on heavy metal and rap albums in the '80's.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 29, 2024, 07:27:55 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 07:12:01 PM
I am just that desperate. I don't even like D&D anymore, but agreed because at least that table was looking for players to run a heroic game, instead of a morally grey our outright villainous campaign.

Let's refocus the conversation for a moment to fix the underlying problem.  Which do you think is the easier lift:

1. Run a game yourself for some friends/acquaintances who you already know to be normal people, though not experienced gamers.
2. Find a way to have a fun game with the stark raving loons who already know the rules.

In the first option, you have to run the game. It's more work but also rewarding.  You need to teach new players that you already enjoy being around how to play.  Which means that the game might not be exactly what you want at first, because learning to play is a skill just like any other.  New players fall of the bike a few times before they get their balance.  You'll have some that aren't interested.  Some will drop out.  If you stick with it, eventually you'll find enough that enjoy it to keep going, and then build from there.  In other words, all you need from other people is the willingness to try it.

In the second option, you either have to adjust your thinking to accommodate things you already know are wrong, or you have to change a whole group of other people by getting them to examine their entire view of the world--which will touch on their deepest insecurities, assuming they are not blatantly lying in order to manipulate others.   The chances of success are negligible, and every step of the way will be frustrating to the Nth degree even if you did get some minor success. Assuming they don't toss you out first.

I would run a game, for sure!

The problem is, none of my friends IRL are playing TTRPGs anymore. And, as I said in another post, the local scene where I am is pretty dead. Only like a couple of stores have a local scene and their tables are filled with the "tumblr" crowd. I already tried that approach but it ended very very badly, as I described in a previous post in this thread.

This is why I had to turn online. But, the places where I see the most traffic online in terms of LFG always have specific requirements that I don't meet, like "must have LGBT representation" or "Must acommodate romance and interparty sexual expression".

This group, at least, said they wanted a vanilla enough type of game. Playing the 'Good Guys', no sexual stuff, no racism, no bullying and no bigotry.

When I said "I am that desperate to play" I meant it literally. To play. Either run the game or be a Player.

I already tried running the game online with the "we require queer representation" crowd and it went terribly. It was like being back at that store with the tumblr crowd.

And its always, always D&D 5e. So I took the time to prep and run a game I didn't like and still got shit on for not having enough diversity and queerness in the NPCs the party was meeting.

That was like three years ago. I just stopped altogether. But, I've been wanting to get back into the hobby for a while. This is my jam. My favorite hobby out of all. I really, really like it.

The problem is that you need a group. And finding people online seems to be a needle in a haystack ordeal.

I guess I'll just have to keep my head up and try again until I find a group that is at least not as crazy about demands or trigger warnings to play. Even if its just going to be 5e always, all the time.

But, thanks for your reply. I know you meant well and I do appreciate you taking the time to provide a perspective that would help me solving the problem.

Maybe 5e is the problem. I live in one of the most left-leaning cities in North America and I've never had the problems you're describing. I only run old school games so it does take a bit to get a group together.

Quote from: Lythel Phany on January 29, 2024, 11:32:19 AM
But my player had trauma from a bomb exploding in her vicinity, and thats a shit you'll never experience unless you live in a third world country

Hey! I grew up in Belfast! I resent that remark!  ;D

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 29, 2024, 02:08:36 PM
Maybe 5e is the problem. I live in one of the most left-leaning cities in North America and I've never had the problems you're describing. I only run old school games so it does take a bit to get a group together.

D&D went kinda mainstream. Great for WotC:s bank account, less so for the traditional fans of the game and those of us that never really liked it and want to play other systems.

I actually managed to find a sane group online for WFRP one-shot that we are likely making into a campaign or at least more sessions, but looking for games online today is a bit like shopping for a struggle session with all the [5E] and [LGBTQIA+] tags 😂 .

It's all going to hell I tell ya'.

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 01:59:01 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 29, 2024, 07:27:55 AM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 07:12:01 PM
I am just that desperate. I don't even like D&D anymore, but agreed because at least that table was looking for players to run a heroic game, instead of a morally grey our outright villainous campaign.

Let's refocus the conversation for a moment to fix the underlying problem.  Which do you think is the easier lift:

1. Run a game yourself for some friends/acquaintances who you already know to be normal people, though not experienced gamers.
2. Find a way to have a fun game with the stark raving loons who already know the rules.

In the first option, you have to run the game. It's more work but also rewarding.  You need to teach new players that you already enjoy being around how to play.  Which means that the game might not be exactly what you want at first, because learning to play is a skill just like any other.  New players fall of the bike a few times before they get their balance.  You'll have some that aren't interested.  Some will drop out.  If you stick with it, eventually you'll find enough that enjoy it to keep going, and then build from there.  In other words, all you need from other people is the willingness to try it.

In the second option, you either have to adjust your thinking to accommodate things you already know are wrong, or you have to change a whole group of other people by getting them to examine their entire view of the world--which will touch on their deepest insecurities, assuming they are not blatantly lying in order to manipulate others.   The chances of success are negligible, and every step of the way will be frustrating to the Nth degree even if you did get some minor success. Assuming they don't toss you out first.

I would run a game, for sure!

The problem is, none of my friends IRL are playing TTRPGs anymore. And, as I said in another post, the local scene where I am is pretty dead. Only like a couple of stores have a local scene and their tables are filled with the "tumblr" crowd. I already tried that approach but it ended very very badly, as I described in a previous post in this thread.

This is why I had to turn online. But, the places where I see the most traffic online in terms of LFG always have specific requirements that I don't meet, like "must have LGBT representation" or "Must acommodate romance and interparty sexual expression".

This group, at least, said they wanted a vanilla enough type of game. Playing the 'Good Guys', no sexual stuff, no racism, no bullying and no bigotry.

When I said "I am that desperate to play" I meant it literally. To play. Either run the game or be a Player.

I already tried running the game online with the "we require queer representation" crowd and it went terribly. It was like being back at that store with the tumblr crowd.

And its always, always D&D 5e. So I took the time to prep and run a game I didn't like and still got shit on for not having enough diversity and queerness in the NPCs the party was meeting.

That was like three years ago. I just stopped altogether. But, I've been wanting to get back into the hobby for a while. This is my jam. My favorite hobby out of all. I really, really like it.

The problem is that you need a group. And finding people online seems to be a needle in a haystack ordeal.

I guess I'll just have to keep my head up and try again until I find a group that is at least not as crazy about demands or trigger warnings to play. Even if its just going to be 5e always, all the time.

But, thanks for your reply. I know you meant well and I do appreciate you taking the time to provide a perspective that would help me solving the problem.

I run games on Roll20 and I've not really had a problem. Indeed when I did have a campaign crash due to special snowflake wokery type stuff, it was an online game but the lead instigators were IRL recruits. That they were actors may be significant.

Roll20 has a ton of people desperate to play an RPG. It's not hard to filter, eg my latest game is a Basic Rules 5e D&D game, which excluded the min-maxers, and I don't seem to have got any dangerhairs either. I guess the Hungarian girl is far left by Hungarian standards, ie normal by Anglo standards.  ;D

Quote from: daft on January 29, 2024, 02:33:48 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 29, 2024, 02:08:36 PM
Maybe 5e is the problem. I live in one of the most left-leaning cities in North America and I've never had the problems you're describing. I only run old school games so it does take a bit to get a group together.

D&D went kinda mainstream. Great for WotC:s bank account, less so for the traditional fans of the game and those of us that never really liked it and want to play other systems.

I actually managed to find a sane group online for WFRP one-shot that we are likely making into a campaign or at least more sessions, but looking for games online today is a bit like shopping for a struggle session with all the [5E] and [LGBTQIA+] tags 😂 .

It's all going to hell I tell ya'.

Another one that worked well for me on Roll20 was running Mini Six. I think anything except 5e D&D and niche SJW games is probably safe enough. Honestly though I've not really seen SJWs even in my 5e Roll20 recruitment, it's more the maladjusted munchkin types you need to look out for.

Quote from: S'mon on January 29, 2024, 02:37:31 PM

Quote from: daft on January 29, 2024, 02:33:48 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 29, 2024, 02:08:36 PM
Maybe 5e is the problem. I live in one of the most left-leaning cities in North America and I've never had the problems you're describing. I only run old school games so it does take a bit to get a group together.

D&D went kinda mainstream. Great for WotC:s bank account, less so for the traditional fans of the game and those of us that never really liked it and want to play other systems.

I actually managed to find a sane group online for WFRP one-shot that we are likely making into a campaign or at least more sessions, but looking for games online today is a bit like shopping for a struggle session with all the [5E] and [LGBTQIA+] tags 😂 .

It's all going to hell I tell ya'.

Another one that worked well for me on Roll20 was running Mini Six. I think anything except 5e D&D and niche SJW games is probably safe enough. Honestly though I've not really seen SJWs even in my 5e Roll20 recruitment, it's more the maladjusted munchkin types you need to look out for.

I jumped the Roll20 ship years ago. Prefer not to use it, but beggars can't be choosers I suppose.

Quote from: BadApple on January 29, 2024, 10:56:32 AM
I was in a game back in the mid 90s that was going heavy handed with the whole grimdark derp derp thing that was popular at the time.  I wasn't enjoying it.  In the last session of that particular campaign I was in, the GM was going into graphic detail about a murder scene the party discovered.

I just told the table the game wasn't to my taste and excused myself.  Later, I talked to two of the players because they were worried about the status of our relationship.  I let them know that I'm not really into the sex and gore the game was.  We parted on good terms and I even played other games with some of those guys latter.

The difference is, I understood that I, the player, could only determine my own behavior.  I did not use my personal take on the material as an excuse for telling other people how to behave.

I think it's worth communicating "This part makes the game not fun for me." Through discussion, the answer could be "we can find a way to game where we all enjoy it" versus "everyone else really enjoys that part, so we should game separately". When I'm at a game, I want to know if someone else isn't having fun because of how I'm playing. Maybe I can accommodate them, maybe not, but if they don't say anything, I can't help them.

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

I'm sure that abuse has happened - but I've played in maybe 20 or so games - mostly at Bay Area conventions - where the X-card was introduced. In practice, no one ever touched it - and this includes in horror games with sexual content. It came across like pointing out the fire extinguisher. Maybe someone was reassured by it being there, but it wasn't something invoked. The one time I saw it invoked was at a home game where a friend of mine was GMing, and they (the GM) touched it and reined in a player's behavior.

I'm sure there are players who would abuse the X-card, but they seem rare even in conventions in the most liberal area of the country.

I'm not convinced about the benefits of it, but it's not like it instantly turns any game into My Little Pony or players constantly abuse it.

Quote from: I on January 29, 2024, 11:44:09 AM
GM at the start of a game:  OK, you set out into the wilderness.  It's going to be about a 3-day journey to the Dungeons of Doom, so...

Player 1:  NO!  *taps X card*  I'm agoraphobic!  *Starts shaking; tears well up*  Don't mention the outdoors!

GM:  OK, sorry.  We'll just say you're at the dungeon already.  The entrance is narrow, and steep steps lead down into pitch black darkness.  You can...

Player 2:  NOOOO!  I'm claustrophobic.  I'm not going in there.  I'll wait outside.

GM:  Alright, you can wait outside under the trees.  Meanwhile -

Player 3:  "TREES?  You didn't say anything about trees being in this game!  I'm dendrophobic.  No trees!"

GM:  *sigh*  Fine.  You're on the open steppe then, and -

Player 1:  You mean there's nothing but open sky above us?  Well that doesn't help me!  I'm agoraphobic, remember!

GM:  OK, let me rethink this.... Right then, you're all aboard ship, sailing for the, uh, Place of Doom.  You claustrophobes can stay on deck, and you agoraphobes can stay below deck.  There's no trees anywhere in sight."

Player 4:  *pounds X card furiously*  I'm thalassophobic!  I'm not gonna play unless you swear not to mention large bodies of water!"

GM:  You know, maybe I should just scrap this adventure and we'll play something else.  I have this one I found on the internet, set in a sort of a fantasy Starbuck's called "No Tears Over Spilled Coffee."  How does that sound"

This almost made me spill my coffee!

Indeed. I see it now as a very slippery slope. When does the line end? I understand this was hyperbolic for comedic effect but it does point out the problem. How much is too much? I like that your example uses different trigger warnings voiced by different players. As unlikely as this 'perfect storm' could be, its still a situation where the creativity of the game as a medium is being shackled by the idea of making sure no one gets triggered.

After reading the comments on this thread, I am leaning more and more towards thinking there is more harm than good and that, even though some people do find content warnings in game books useful, it seems trigger warnings never provide value to a game and have too many downsides to justify their existence, inclusion and usage.

Quote from: daft on January 29, 2024, 02:33:48 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 29, 2024, 02:08:36 PM
Maybe 5e is the problem. I live in one of the most left-leaning cities in North America and I've never had the problems you're describing. I only run old school games so it does take a bit to get a group together.

D&D went kinda mainstream. Great for WotC:s bank account, less so for the traditional fans of the game and those of us that never really liked it and want to play other systems.

I actually managed to find a sane group online for WFRP one-shot that we are likely making into a campaign or at least more sessions, but looking for games online today is a bit like shopping for a struggle session with all the [5E] and [LGBTQIA+] tags 😂 .


It's all going to hell I tell ya'.

Indeed! Sadly, this has been my experience.

Unlike the literally shaking rn twitterati, I have real PTSD and real triggers thanks to an unhappy youth.  It's doors.  Specifically doors opening or closing with force, because if a door was opening fast or slamming shut, there was an angry person twice my size in the immediate vicinity.  And I can safely say that never once in my entire life has a description of a door in an RPG caused me a single jot of an issue, because real triggers aren't based off of the intellectual concept of a thing, they're based off of tangibles.  The sound a door makes when tugged open, the feel of the air pressure in the room changing, the weird little sticky noise of walls and ceiling flexing in the wake of it, those make my spine clench and my heart skip a beat and I find it distinctly uncomfortable.  But you can't replicate that by describing it.  I also don't become an incoherent sobbing mess who has to post about it on twitter, but that's maybe another thing entirely.

The theory behind a trigger warning is a polite one, and I can accept it for some media; someone who saw their parent gunned down in front of them may very fairly be unhappy if they're watching some otherwise-happy show and suddenly a character is gorily riddled with bullets onscreen with no warning that the episode would involve brutal murder.  But in that instance, the visual media can replicate the initial trauma.  For RPGs?  I can't conceive of how a written word or a verbal description of something is capable of simulating life well enough to actually hit a triggering stimulus.

Quote from: Lythel Phany on January 29, 2024, 04:29:04 AM
I had a player who was literally triggered by unexpected sudden loud noises with involuntary reaction. She would become unresponsive for a minute as she tried to regain control. We would roll the dice more slowly and be careful not to drop anything. Everyone in the group knew about her condition and tried not to get too heated during RP to not smack the table as a reaction.

One of my friends has arachnophobia. Its not something that comes up as often, but when a giant spider or something like bebilith became an encounter, he would panic so his GM would replace the encounter on the spot. And this was a very "anti-consent sheet" grognard group.

Another friend was going to start a game with underwater exploration. One player realy wanted to play a game for the first time, but he had some kind of accident as a kid and had fear of drowning so he was going to leave the group. GM did the unthinkable and vaporized the whole lake and changed the adventure into "why has it been vaporized" mystery.

None if these people had a session long discussions on what they want or dont want in a game. They just stated their real life fears and triggers to the party/gm. GMs tried their best to accomidate them so they wouldnt feel like coming to an hours long torture session. But when something slipped past our control they never blamed others. And we never spent more than 5 minutes on the issue after apologizing.

IMO, if someone is demanding no sexism/racism/slavery/etc. at all, they are not suited to have a meaningful conversation in or out game at all. You can ask the GM to not shove one in all the time but even the most kid friendly heartwarming game is going to have that "girls cant play/boys are icky" children who the party is going to prove wrong. The general expectation of kid friendly/pg13/18+ is useful to determine what is going to happen in game but even pg13 cartoons have their dark moments.

Also by their standards, rest of that oarty is bigoted against beast. Giant spiders have int score too and being a "beast" creature you can use speak with animals spells to talk with it, something far more accessable than a level 9 spell. Maybe they are innocent and forced to attack you due to that vampire spawn. Of course they never think of that angle.

Quote from: Valatar on January 29, 2024, 04:27:37 PM
Unlike the literally shaking rn twitterati, I have real PTSD and real triggers thanks to an unhappy youth.  It's doors.  Specifically doors opening or closing with force, because if a door was opening fast or slamming shut, there was an angry person twice my size in the immediate vicinity.  And I can safely say that never once in my entire life has a description of a door in an RPG caused me a single jot of an issue, because real triggers aren't based off of the intellectual concept of a thing, they're based off of tangibles.  The sound a door makes when tugged open, the feel of the air pressure in the room changing, the weird little sticky noise of walls and ceiling flexing in the wake of it, those make my spine clench and my heart skip a beat and I find it distinctly uncomfortable.  But you can't replicate that by describing it.  I also don't become an incoherent sobbing mess who has to post about it on twitter, but that's maybe another thing entirely.

The theory behind a trigger warning is a polite one, and I can accept it for some media; someone who saw their parent gunned down in front of them may very fairly be unhappy if they're watching some otherwise-happy show and suddenly a character is gorily riddled with bullets onscreen with no warning that the episode would involve brutal murder.  But in that instance, the visual media can replicate the initial trauma.  For RPGs?  I can't conceive of how a written word or a verbal description of something is capable of simulating life well enough to actually hit a triggering stimulus.

^^Facts^^

This is what real PTSD is like when triggered.  Not that stupid temper tantrum white girls and tiktok trans do when they are trying to make people behave the way they want.

I do not like trigger warnings and have had a poor experience with players who have "triggers".

I started running 5e games at my local games store a few years ago because I was asked. I ran my games with the express idea that my games were P-13, ie LotR/Harry Potter. In both campaigns that I ran, I had players who out of the blue let me know that they were triggered by certain topics almost a year into the campaigns both times.

The first was "explosions". As in I could not have any explosions in the game. The reasoning was the Boston Marathon bombing. This was in 2023, ten years after the bombing, and the player was not even 21. No additional explanation was given, and I was expected to just accept it. Do you have any idea how hard DnD type rpg's are to run with "no explosions"?

The second was a man in his 70s who got angry that I questioned how often his character could cast "Magic Daggers", what he always referred to the magic missile spell as, and informed I me should just let him have his way rather because it was how he had fun rather than enforce the rules. This player also would routinely instigate combat and then have their character run away to leave the rest of the party to deal with. Resulting in multiple character deaths and then would have a toddler's tantrum if his character was negatively impacted in any way. Again I was expected to just accept it as it was "his fun". To hell with everyone else at the table and myself.

I no longer run or participate in long-term games with people I do not know. It is just not worth it. I will do a single session here and there to find people I am willing to reach out to. But there are way too many "gatekeepers" in the "hobby" these days who feel that every game needs to fit their exact preferences without compromise.

Sorry for a bit of a rant.

There are some good communities online where you can find like-minded people to game with without subjecting yourself to randos on the internet. My two recommendations are:

Dungeon Crawlers (DCC centric): https://discord.gg/GqccgBPh
Troll Lord Games (Castles & Crusades centric): https://discord.gg/trolllordgames

Quote from: S'mon on January 29, 2024, 02:37:31 PM

Quote from: daft on January 29, 2024, 02:33:48 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 29, 2024, 02:08:36 PM
Maybe 5e is the problem. I live in one of the most left-leaning cities in North America and I've never had the problems you're describing. I only run old school games so it does take a bit to get a group together.

D&D went kinda mainstream. Great for WotC:s bank account, less so for the traditional fans of the game and those of us that never really liked it and want to play other systems.

I actually managed to find a sane group online for WFRP one-shot that we are likely making into a campaign or at least more sessions, but looking for games online today is a bit like shopping for a struggle session with all the [5E] and [LGBTQIA+] tags 😂 .

It's all going to hell I tell ya'.

Another one that worked well for me on Roll20 was running Mini Six. I think anything except 5e D&D and niche SJW games is probably safe enough. Honestly though I've not really seen SJWs even in my 5e Roll20 recruitment, it's more the maladjusted munchkin types you need to look out for.

Yup. I've been playing on Roll 20 and Foundry for almost 3 years now, and have not had a single bit of SJW related trouble. All you have to do is avoid the most mainstream games (5e, Pathfinder 2, PBTA and WOD for the most part), and exercise a little common sense and reading between the lines before you join a game.

My pet theory about why the 5e player base is so bad is that a lot of the problem trickles down from bad DMs. From buzz around the internet I get the impression that the average caliber of the DMs who started with 5e is substantially lower than for any previous edition. This, I suspect, is down to several causes. Part of it is the ole RPG Pundit "They taught you to play D&D wrong on purpose", but I also think it's caused by the sudden glut of players in the 5e years. That means more groups of entirely new players, where in earlier years, most new players learned the game from a veteran. And then there's just the fact that zoomers are, on the whole, extraordinarily poorly socialized as a generation.

For better or worse, DMs have a leadership role at the RPG table, so if a scene is dominated by bad DMs, that changes the player base. I think 5e players are...well I won't say "traumatized", but let's say "made paranoid". As a generation, they've had proportionally more experience with bad DMs (and players), combine that with the generally sensitive nature of zoomer culture, and they're on a hair-trigger. They're expecting abuses of power at the table, and so they act out pre-emptively, making them the same kind of problem players they're probably afraid of. New Schoolers will talk constantly about the RPG Social Contract, but they ironically have zero faith in their fellow hobbyists.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on January 29, 2024, 01:47:40 PM
Trigger warnings seem like a great marketing gimmick to make your game seem edgy and cool.  Just like the Parental Avisory stickers on heavy metal and rap albums in the '80's.

It's more of a 90s thing to me.  Those labels were out really late in the 80s, but really took prominence through the 90s.

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 03:33:35 PM

Quote from: I on January 29, 2024, 11:44:09 AM
GM at the start of a game:  OK, you set out into the wilderness.  It's going to be about a 3-day journey to the Dungeons of Doom, so...

Player 1:  NO!  *taps X card*  I'm agoraphobic!  *Starts shaking; tears well up*  Don't mention the outdoors!

GM:  OK, sorry.  We'll just say you're at the dungeon already.  The entrance is narrow, and steep steps lead down into pitch black darkness.  You can...

Player 2:  NOOOO!  I'm claustrophobic.  I'm not going in there.  I'll wait outside.

GM:  Alright, you can wait outside under the trees.  Meanwhile -

Player 3:  "TREES?  You didn't say anything about trees being in this game!  I'm dendrophobic.  No trees!"

GM:  *sigh*  Fine.  You're on the open steppe then, and -

Player 1:  You mean there's nothing but open sky above us?  Well that doesn't help me!  I'm agoraphobic, remember!

GM:  OK, let me rethink this.... Right then, you're all aboard ship, sailing for the, uh, Place of Doom.  You claustrophobes can stay on deck, and you agoraphobes can stay below deck.  There's no trees anywhere in sight."

Player 4:  *pounds X card furiously*  I'm thalassophobic!  I'm not gonna play unless you swear not to mention large bodies of water!"

GM:  You know, maybe I should just scrap this adventure and we'll play something else.  I have this one I found on the internet, set in a sort of a fantasy Starbuck's called "No Tears Over Spilled Coffee."  How does that sound"

This almost made me spill my coffee!

Indeed. I see it now as a very slippery slope. When does the line end? I understand this was hyperbolic for comedic effect but it does point out the problem. How much is too much? I like that your example uses different trigger warnings voiced by different players. As unlikely as this 'perfect storm' could be, its still a situation where the creativity of the game as a medium is being shackled by the idea of making sure no one gets triggered.

After reading the comments on this thread, I am leaning more and more towards thinking there is more harm than good and that, even though some people do find content warnings in game books useful, it seems trigger warnings never provide value to a game and have too many downsides to justify their existence, inclusion and usage.

I thought this is amusing, because in my RPG system, you can assign various phobias to your characters, including many of the ones in this post: thallasophobia, claustrophobia, acrophobia, etc.!
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/890643086848430180/1201709877119156224/image.png)

Quote from: jhkim on January 29, 2024, 02:50:34 PM
I'm sure that abuse has happened - but I've played in maybe 20 or so games - mostly at Bay Area conventions - where the X-card was introduced. In practice, no one ever touched it - and this includes in horror games with sexual content. It came across like pointing out the fire extinguisher. Maybe someone was reassured by it being there, but it wasn't something invoked. The one time I saw it invoked was at a home game where a friend of mine was GMing, and they (the GM) touched it and reined in a player's behavior.

I'm sure there are players who would abuse the X-card, but they seem rare even in conventions in the most liberal area of the country.

I'm not convinced about the benefits of it, but it's not like it instantly turns any game into My Little Pony or players constantly abuse it.

Summary of argument:

• disagree with ancillary statement (x-cards in a thread about triggers)
• uses personal anecdotes as if they preclude the general statement from being true
• ends with a rejection of dichotomy (it's not this or that; it's both!)

Who let the jhkim AIbot in the thread?

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 29, 2024, 10:24:23 AM
I've been playing for over 30 years. Where have these people who piss their pants at fictional spiders or water been for the first 25 years of it? Certainly not fucking playing at any table I've been at.

Correct.  We've gone from "Sticks and stones..." to "Words are violence!"  It's cultural.  The idea that words are harmful is ridiculous on its face.  Words can affect your emotions (they can make you sad, angry, disappointed, etc.).  They can affect your relationship with others.  They cannot hurt you.  Ever.  No one has ever bled out from words.  PTSD and triggers don't work like these self-diagnosed mentally "ill" people say they do.

This all stems from immature soyboys and dangerhairs whose personal internal self-image is centered around their sense that they are victims, and that they do not have to hear anything that attacks their world-view.  And for them not to hear it, you must be prevented from saying it.  Hence trigger warnings and "safety" tools...

@Cipher
Sorry to hear about your bad experience.  The bright side is that you found out what jackasses those guys are just a few sessions into the game.  It probably would've been much worse to invest half a year than have this experience.  Perhaps the lesson to learn is to push a bit from the git-go, and if folks freak out you know not to waste any more time with them

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 29, 2024, 09:41:52 PM

• uses personal anecdotes as if they preclude the general statement from being true

There's a tendency among the emotionally immature to treat every statement evar as if it's an absolute universal, and therefore even a single counter-example serves to completely destroy the statement.  Grown-ups recognize that in the real world there are no absolutes and everything is about greater or lesser probabilities, and black swan events or local clusters don't really mean anything.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
My pet theory about why the 5e player base is so bad is that a lot of the problem trickles down from bad DMs. From buzz around the internet I get the impression that the average caliber of the DMs who started with 5e is substantially lower than for any previous edition.

Man, TTRPGs have been the haven of malsocialized, conflict-phobic, passive-aggressive wankers since day one.

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 29, 2024, 10:14:19 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
My pet theory about why the 5e player base is so bad is that a lot of the problem trickles down from bad DMs. From buzz around the internet I get the impression that the average caliber of the DMs who started with 5e is substantially lower than for any previous edition.

Man, TTRPGs have been the haven of malsocialized, conflict-phobic, passive-aggressive wankers since day one.

True. If you imagine a bell-curve of maladjustedness, RPGs have always attracted the top standard deviation. The impression that I get is that with the zoomer/5e generation of gamers, the entire bell curve is shifted farther towards the maladjusted end of the scale. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
My pet theory about why the 5e player base is so bad is that a lot of the problem trickles down from bad DMs. From buzz around the internet I get the impression that the average caliber of the DMs who started with 5e is substantially lower than for any previous edition. This, I suspect, is down to several causes. Part of it is the ole RPG Pundit "They taught you to play D&D wrong on purpose", but I also think it's caused by the sudden glut of players in the 5e years. That means more groups of entirely new players, where in earlier years, most new players learned the game from a veteran. And then there's just the fact that zoomers are, on the whole, extraordinarily poorly socialized as a generation.

For better or worse, DMs have a leadership role at the RPG table, so if a scene is dominated by bad DMs, that changes the player base. I think 5e players are...well I won't say "traumatized", but let's say "made paranoid". As a generation, they've had proportionally more experience with bad DMs (and players), combine that with the generally sensitive nature of zoomer culture, and they're on a hair-trigger. They're expecting abuses of power at the table, and so they act out pre-emptively, making them the same kind of problem players they're probably afraid of. New Schoolers will talk constantly about the RPG Social Contract, but they ironically have zero faith in their fellow hobbyists.

I think you've got an interesting idea here. To that point, something I noticed reading the AD&D DM's guide was that it specifically noted how as the Dungeon Master you're expected to have a keen understanding of the rules a good base of experience to work off of. Sure, you could pick up the guide and start DMing from there, but it's pretty much implied that you have played at least a little bit before picking up the DM mantle.

However, like you mentioned, I think it comes from being taught how the game runs wrong. A lot of newer DMs are picking up the mantle with the mindset that the game is a thespian's game with grandiose stories. Most of them are mediocre story tellers, and when you combine that with little experience running the game you get a high school creative writer's take on Lord of the Rings.

It's like wanting to learn how to draw anime characters, and not learning the basics first: you end up skipping a lot of important drawing fundamentals to jump ahead and it ends up stunting your abilities in the long run. Then consider most will go on to teach others what they know and you get crappier results as that knowledge base propagates.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on January 29, 2024, 10:42:18 PM

However, like you mentioned, I think it comes from being taught how the game runs wrong. A lot of newer DMs are picking up the mantle with the mindset that the game is a thespian's game with grandiose stories. Most of them are mediocre story tellers, and when you combine that with little experience running the game you get a high school creative writer's take on Lord of the Rings Flies.

Fixed it for you, except it's the cartoon version, with none of the participants the least bit aware of the irony.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:02:31 PM

Quote from: S'mon on January 29, 2024, 02:37:31 PM

Quote from: daft on January 29, 2024, 02:33:48 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 29, 2024, 02:08:36 PM
Maybe 5e is the problem. I live in one of the most left-leaning cities in North America and I've never had the problems you're describing. I only run old school games so it does take a bit to get a group together.

D&D went kinda mainstream. Great for WotC:s bank account, less so for the traditional fans of the game and those of us that never really liked it and want to play other systems.

I actually managed to find a sane group online for WFRP one-shot that we are likely making into a campaign or at least more sessions, but looking for games online today is a bit like shopping for a struggle session with all the [5E] and [LGBTQIA+] tags 😂 .

It's all going to hell I tell ya'.

Another one that worked well for me on Roll20 was running Mini Six. I think anything except 5e D&D and niche SJW games is probably safe enough. Honestly though I've not really seen SJWs even in my 5e Roll20 recruitment, it's more the maladjusted munchkin types you need to look out for.

Yup. I've been playing on Roll 20 and Foundry for almost 3 years now, and have not had a single bit of SJW related trouble. All you have to do is avoid the most mainstream games (5e, Pathfinder 2, PBTA and WOD for the most part), and exercise a little common sense and reading between the lines before you join a game.

I followed this advise and found a GURPs game and a Mutants and Masterminds game. Well see of those pan out but, I am going to keep my hopes up. Thanks for the suggestions.

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
the entire bell curve is shifted farther towards the maladjusted end of the scale.

I can believe that.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on January 29, 2024, 10:42:18 PM
A lot of newer DMs are picking up the mantle with the mindset that the game is a thespian's game with grandiose stories. Most of them are mediocre story tellers, and when you combine that with little experience running the game you get a high school creative writer's take on Lord of the Rings.

My experience with the local zoomers is that's much more likely to be a high school creative's take on My Hero Academia, One Piece, or That Time I Ran an RPG In A Dungeon[1].

Much as the Powered by the Apocalypse family of games gets flack around here, its Principles for the players and the MC are straight up Old School in terms of refuting that whole "DM as author of grand fantasy epic" nonsense.

Quote
Most of them are mediocre story tellers

A zoomer friend tried to get me to watch Critical Role, and I made it through about fifteen minutes of S02E01 before punching out.  Between the "Welcome to the continent of Generica" opener and the awkward, halting improv, I remember thinking "Shouldn't they be better at this?"

[1] Not a real anime

Quote from: Mishihari on January 29, 2024, 10:11:22 PM
@Cipher
Sorry to hear about your bad experience.  The bright side is that you found out what jackasses those guys are just a few sessions into the game.  It probably would've been much worse to invest half a year than have this experience.  Perhaps the lesson to learn is to push a bit from the git-go, and if folks freak out you know not to waste any more time with them

Indeed, Mishihari!

I think there is wisdom in your words. Perhaps the learning experience here is to push the envelop a little so as to find out sooner, rather than later, what type of strangers I am playing with online.

I'll keep this in mind next time. Thank you so much!

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on January 29, 2024, 10:42:18 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
My pet theory about why the 5e player base is so bad is that a lot of the problem trickles down from bad DMs. From buzz around the internet I get the impression that the average caliber of the DMs who started with 5e is substantially lower than for any previous edition. This, I suspect, is down to several causes. Part of it is the ole RPG Pundit "They taught you to play D&D wrong on purpose", but I also think it's caused by the sudden glut of players in the 5e years. That means more groups of entirely new players, where in earlier years, most new players learned the game from a veteran. And then there's just the fact that zoomers are, on the whole, extraordinarily poorly socialized as a generation.

For better or worse, DMs have a leadership role at the RPG table, so if a scene is dominated by bad DMs, that changes the player base. I think 5e players are...well I won't say "traumatized", but let's say "made paranoid". As a generation, they've had proportionally more experience with bad DMs (and players), combine that with the generally sensitive nature of zoomer culture, and they're on a hair-trigger. They're expecting abuses of power at the table, and so they act out pre-emptively, making them the same kind of problem players they're probably afraid of. New Schoolers will talk constantly about the RPG Social Contract, but they ironically have zero faith in their fellow hobbyists.

I think you've got an interesting idea here. To that point, something I noticed reading the AD&D DM's guide was that it specifically noted how as the Dungeon Master you're expected to have a keen understanding of the rules a good base of experience to work off of. Sure, you could pick up the guide and start DMing from there, but it's pretty much implied that you have played at least a little bit before picking up the DM mantle.

However, like you mentioned, I think it comes from being taught how the game runs wrong. A lot of newer DMs are picking up the mantle with the mindset that the game is a thespian's game with grandiose stories. Most of them are mediocre story tellers, and when you combine that with little experience running the game you get a high school creative writer's take on Lord of the Rings.

It's like wanting to learn how to draw anime characters, and not learning the basics first: you end up skipping a lot of important drawing fundamentals to jump ahead and it ends up stunting your abilities in the long run. Then consider most will go on to teach others what they know and you get crappier results as that knowledge base propagates.

I believe the "thespian's game" idea is what is called the "Critical Role effect". They forget critical role is a show. Its produced to the gills to create those moments, much like so called "reality tv". It is not truly representative of how a gaming session will go down.

Although, I would also believe such ideas are juvenile naivete. I remember when I was 14 and I wanted to create a great plot for my Players and they did praise the "story" of our AD&D campaign as something that would make me rich if I wrote it and sold it as a book series. "The Next Tolkien!" they called me.

As I got older, I understood that the medium is at its best when the GM creates situations, not plots. Seeds and hooks, not stories. Create movers and shakers and a setting. Then, let the Players run wild. As a GM now I find much more enjoyment in being an audience. I want to be surprised by their actions. If they get themselves on a jam, I won't save them. I want to see how they get themselves out of that jam or perish.

And people told me how much better the games were then without realizing that its because I grew out of the idea of "creating the greatest story never told!" and started to play to the strengths of the medium.

I believe, as you said, so many of those DMs want to be writers or become rich with "the next Critical Role" show and so they focus on that instead on what makes roleplaying game adventures memorable.

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

I was told once on BGG deadly serious, that "Dwarves liking beer was racist." There is no limit on how stupid these nuts can get. NO LIMIT. That exploring Africa in a board game was "Promoting Genocide." and the poor guys game got cancelled. Someone else claiming they would not play any game that had leather in it because they were vegans. NO LIMIT.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 29, 2024, 09:48:52 PMThe idea that words are harmful is ridiculous on its face.

Well, that's not entirely true, as cyberbullying victims can attest. But like everything else about the issue, it's taking a contextual reality and twisting it into an absolute precept that can then be used as a club to morally browbeat anybody who says something one merely dislikes.

Words and speech can inflict real and significant psychological damage, but it takes time, repetition, and personalized malice, usually combined with a prisoning environment which the target is unable to escape for whatever reason. Simple political disagreement or careless personal offence in the context of a casual game almost never meets this threshold; it may evoke pre-existing damage for someone sufficiently fragile, but someone that fragile owes it to themselves and their friends to make the group aware of that before the game, not to simply hope nobody will stumble over their issues during it.

Quote from: Omega on January 30, 2024, 12:20:13 AM

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

I was told once on BGG deadly serious, that "Dwarves liking beer was racist." There is no limit on how stupid these nuts can get. NO LIMIT. That exploring Africa in a board game was "Promoting Genocide." and the poor guys game got cancelled. Someone else claiming they would not play any game that had leather in it because they were vegans. NO LIMIT.

Wow... and I thought I had it bad.

I am not sure which one baffles me the most.

Either "Dwarves liking beer = racist" or "no leather because vegan".

Quote from: Omega on January 30, 2024, 12:20:13 AM

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

I was told once on BGG deadly serious, that "Dwarves liking beer was racist." There is no limit on how stupid these nuts can get. NO LIMIT. That exploring Africa in a board game was "Promoting Genocide." and the poor guys game got cancelled. Someone else claiming they would not play any game that had leather in it because they were vegans. NO LIMIT.

You're right about the no limit thing.  They think being on time for work, drinking milk, and math are all indicators of a white supremacist mindset.  They LOOK for shit to complain about.  I mean, check this crap out:

https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-robots-white-213336 (https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-robots-white-213336)

Yes, plastic white robots trigger them too.  But if we made them black or red or yellow or brown, they'd claim that was racist because the robots are servants of a sort and therefore we'd be projecting our racist ideas of servitude.  It's like the "words are violence" thing, but also "silence = violence."  There's no way to win with these people.  Which is kind of the point:  they revel in being victims, and complaining is their main joy in life. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
My pet theory about why the 5e player base is so bad is that a lot of the problem trickles down from bad DMs. From buzz around the internet I get the impression that the average caliber of the DMs who started with 5e is substantially lower than for any previous edition.

One thing about 5e D&D is that the 5e DMG is really bad at instructing new GMs how to GM D&D. It's basically indecipherable to them, and gets ignored. Instead they look to Youtube examples like Matt Mercer, and to the WoTC-published hardback adventures. I recall Justin Alexander pointing this out. The 5e authors, Mearls & Crawford I guess, didn't understand the 'cultural information' they needed to transmit, basic* stuff like starting small, keying a dungeon (including stuff like monster & treasure placement), building your setting out from an initial kernel of dungeon + starter town. The Starter Set & (much moreso) the Essentials Kit are better in giving examples of a basic campaign setup, but there are no real instructions on how to do it. And WoTC seem deathly afraid of simply telling people what to do. And it has of course gotten much worse over time.

*Mentzer Red Box Basic D&D from 1983 still seems the best guide to actually getting started GMing. Mentzer's tone can be patronising, but better that than being afraid to give functional instructions.

Quote from: I on January 30, 2024, 01:32:28 AM

Quote from: Omega on January 30, 2024, 12:20:13 AM

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

I was told once on BGG deadly serious, that "Dwarves liking beer was racist." There is no limit on how stupid these nuts can get. NO LIMIT. That exploring Africa in a board game was "Promoting Genocide." and the poor guys game got cancelled. Someone else claiming they would not play any game that had leather in it because they were vegans. NO LIMIT.

You're right about the no limit thing.  They think being on time for work, drinking milk, and math are all indicators of a white supremacist mindset.  They LOOK for shit to complain about.  I mean, check this crap out:

https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-robots-white-213336 (https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-robots-white-213336)

Quote from: S'mon on January 30, 2024, 02:30:24 AM
One thing about 5e D&D is that the 5e DMG is really bad at instructing new GMs how to GM D&D. It's basically indecipherable to them, and gets ignored. Instead they look to Youtube examples like Matt Mercer, and to the WoTC-published hardback adventures. I recall Justin Alexander pointing this out. The 5e authors, Mearls & Crawford I guess, didn't understand the 'cultural information' they needed to transmit, basic* stuff like starting small, keying a dungeon (including stuff like monster & treasure placement), building your setting out from an initial kernel of dungeon + starter town. The Starter Set & (much moreso) the Essentials Kit are better in giving examples of a basic campaign setup, but there are no real instructions on how to do it. And WoTC seem deathly afraid of simply telling people what to do. And it has of course gotten much worse over time.

*Mentzer Red Box Basic D&D from 1983 still seems the best guide to actually getting started GMing. Mentzer's tone can be patronising, but better that than being afraid to give functional instructions.

There are instructions in the DMG. But they are buried under pages of useless gibbering half the time. As I keep saying. They spend alot of time saying very little.

You have to dig through to get the useful bits and it is not helped that platforms like Reddit keep telling DMs they do not need the DMG. Or bad advice on how to DM. Especially Matt Colville whom I stopped following as it became very apparent alot of his DMing advice is really bad. Railroading is good. Storygaming is good. Cheating is good. and on and on.

My vampires are always gonna be 30 Days of Nights bloodthirsty savages who rip and tear demihuman flesh in a gory revel of feasting.

Your paladin would be welcome at my table. It is right to destroy creatures of darkness.

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

This is probably the most fundamental principle of RPG.  You are portraying someone else.  It's like the movie poster for Forrest Gump that says, "Tom Hanks IS Forrest Gump".  That poster is a lie.  He's playing a role.  Ralph Waite played a slave trader in Roots.  That does not mean he's a racist.  Before the era of wokeness, no one was so dumb that we had to explain this to anyone.  Keifer Sutherland is not really a government agent who tortures people to get information out of them.  We role-play characters that do things we never would in real life, because we're CHARACTER ACTING in a FICTICIOUS SETTING.  Why don't these people let us game, and go cancel all the people who played the part of Hollywood villains for all the atrocities they've committed.

I said this in another thread and I'll say it here. Trigger warnings, X Cards, and consent forms all exist to police the people who came up with them or think it's a good idea. They have no emotional intelligence or control. They are bad people with childish attitudes who think other people are like them. They need to be TOLD not to be sexually inappropriate, told not to make rape jokes, told to be empathetic. Because they might actually do all those bad things unless they are told not to by an authority figure. They can not understand that other people might be smarter and more mature than them to the point of not needing to be told how to behave. Intuitively understanding the social contract so those bad things you shouldn't do go without saying.  These people never grew up and frankly they feel they can get away with the things they tell us not to do when they think no one is looking. Or even worse see those things as perfectly fine for them to do but not others because they're morally right. As we saw with Adam Koebol. 

That's exactly what I'm seeing from the stories posted in this thread. Do not game with those people. Let them have their little DnD. Just by virtue of playing ANY OTHER GAME (including earlier editions of DnD) you're going to repel those people. Because they were TOLD 5e was the most heckin valid game. And weren't TOLD anything about any other game so those are scary.

Quote from: Omega on January 30, 2024, 07:02:31 AM

Quote from: S'mon on January 30, 2024, 02:30:24 AM
One thing about 5e D&D is that the 5e DMG is really bad at instructing new GMs how to GM D&D. It's basically indecipherable to them, and gets ignored. Instead they look to Youtube examples like Matt Mercer, and to the WoTC-published hardback adventures. I recall Justin Alexander pointing this out. The 5e authors, Mearls & Crawford I guess, didn't understand the 'cultural information' they needed to transmit, basic* stuff like starting small, keying a dungeon (including stuff like monster & treasure placement), building your setting out from an initial kernel of dungeon + starter town. The Starter Set & (much moreso) the Essentials Kit are better in giving examples of a basic campaign setup, but there are no real instructions on how to do it. And WoTC seem deathly afraid of simply telling people what to do. And it has of course gotten much worse over time.

*Mentzer Red Box Basic D&D from 1983 still seems the best guide to actually getting started GMing. Mentzer's tone can be patronising, but better that than being afraid to give functional instructions.

There are instructions in the DMG. But they are buried under pages of useless gibbering half the time. As I keep saying. They spend alot of time saying very little.

You have to dig through to get the useful bits and it is not helped that platforms like Reddit keep telling DMs they do not need the DMG. Or bad advice on how to DM. Especially Matt Colville whom I stopped following as it became very apparent alot of his DMing advice is really bad. Railroading is good. Storygaming is good. Cheating is good. and on and on.

I still think the AD&D 1e DMG is the absolute best guide to being a dungeon master. Clear instructions in plain English that demystify so much. And it's applicable to any other game. Including 5e. One of the kids from the group I GM has really gotten into the old school mentality so I gave him my Dad's well loved and well worn 1e DMG to have a read through. And only a week later  he ran a game that I would say was better than anything a 5E GM could come up. I'm very proud of this kid and I think he's going to be a better GM for having read the 1e DMG. Which speaks to the power of that book. And how utterly shit the 5E DMG is.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 29, 2024, 09:41:52 PM
Summary of argument:

• disagree with ancillary statement (x-cards in a thread about triggers)
• uses personal anecdotes as if they preclude the general statement from being true
• ends with a rejection of dichotomy (it's not this or that; it's both!)

Who let the jhkim AIbot in the thread?

I always just thought he was a sycophant, but now that you're pointing it out, it is fucking ridiculously suspicious he just ALWAYS has a specific anecdote that disputes a general point. Like always. Say most of the trans people you've met are mentally ill? Welp, jhkim plays with two of them who are paragons of society and have PhDs in particle physics, hardly mentally ill!

Quote from: Brad on January 30, 2024, 08:50:56 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 29, 2024, 09:41:52 PM
Summary of argument:

• disagree with ancillary statement (x-cards in a thread about triggers)
• uses personal anecdotes as if they preclude the general statement from being true
• ends with a rejection of dichotomy (it's not this or that; it's both!)

Who let the jhkim AIbot in the thread?

I always just thought he was a sycophant, but now that you're pointing it out, it is fucking ridiculously suspicious he just ALWAYS has a specific anecdote that disputes a general point. Like always. Say most of the trans people you've met are mentally ill? Welp, jhkim plays with two of them who are paragons of society and have PhDs in particle physics, hardly mentally ill!

He doesn't have a single actual argument and everything he says boils down to the most anemic "both sides" fence sitting bullshit. It contributes nothing to any forum discussion. It just takes up space.

Also anyone who defends mentally ill people not getting the help they need to make themselves feel more moral are not the good people they think they are. And they always get pissed off when you point this out because they're more concerned with looking good than being good.

Quote from: S'mon on January 30, 2024, 02:30:24 AM
And WoTC seem deathly afraid of simply telling people what to do. And it has of course gotten much worse over time.

I think you're confusing "deathly afraid" with "intentionally keeping its customers dependent on an endless flow of published adventures".

Quote from: Cipher on January 29, 2024, 11:45:49 PM

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on January 29, 2024, 10:42:18 PM
I think you've got an interesting idea here. To that point, something I noticed reading the AD&D DM's guide was that it specifically noted how as the Dungeon Master you're expected to have a keen understanding of the rules a good base of experience to work off of. Sure, you could pick up the guide and start DMing from there, but it's pretty much implied that you have played at least a little bit before picking up the DM mantle.

However, like you mentioned, I think it comes from being taught how the game runs wrong. A lot of newer DMs are picking up the mantle with the mindset that the game is a thespian's game with grandiose stories. Most of them are mediocre story tellers, and when you combine that with little experience running the game you get a high school creative writer's take on Lord of the Rings.

It's like wanting to learn how to draw anime characters, and not learning the basics first: you end up skipping a lot of important drawing fundamentals to jump ahead and it ends up stunting your abilities in the long run. Then consider most will go on to teach others what they know and you get crappier results as that knowledge base propagates.

I believe the "thespian's game" idea is what is called the "Critical Role effect". They forget critical role is a show. Its produced to the gills to create those moments, much like so called "reality tv". It is not truly representative of how a gaming session will go down.

Although, I would also believe such ideas are juvenile naivete. I remember when I was 14 and I wanted to create a great plot for my Players and they did praise the "story" of our AD&D campaign as something that would make me rich if I wrote it and sold it as a book series. "The Next Tolkien!" they called me.

As I got older, I understood that the medium is at its best when the GM creates situations, not plots. Seeds and hooks, not stories. Create movers and shakers and a setting. Then, let the Players run wild. As a GM now I find much more enjoyment in being an audience. I want to be surprised by their actions. If they get themselves on a jam, I won't save them. I want to see how they get themselves out of that jam or perish.

And people told me how much better the games were then without realizing that its because I grew out of the idea of "creating the greatest story never told!" and started to play to the strengths of the medium.

I believe, as you said, so many of those DMs want to be writers or become rich with "the next Critical Role" show and so they focus on that instead on what makes roleplaying game adventures memorable.

Exactly! It's as if as DM you're pretty much just there to run the game and see what happens. When I first started running games like that, I found that it was a lot more exciting for me since I didn't have to plot and plan a bunch of contingencies. The players liked it because they had the freedom to do whatever they want without being tied to a plot. D&D, at its core, is all about adventure and the ordeals and ambitions that come with it. The moment you strip that away, the game gets weaker.

I had a similar train of thought when I started running games around the same age. I tried to come up with basic plotted stories and played around with those ideas, but when I ran Temple of Elemental Evil I found that the players enjoyed that style of game a lot more. They had all the choice in the world in where to go in the dungeon, how they wanted to tackle problems, and when they wanted to do just about anything. All I had to do was read the rooms and logically think how monsters would behave. It was really fun for both parties and I haven't turned back since.

Like you said, the Critical Role effect has had influence on how games are run. I also think part of it comes from the official modules too. Until recently, the modules that WotC have published are these massive level 1-15 or 1-10 mega-modules that have a vast overarching plot. A lot of newer DMs utilize these modules to learn how to make their own, and I think most new DMs feel pressured to match the plotlines and story presented in those large modules. That's not to say that older editions like AD&D or BECMI didn't have those story modules, but usually, as you mentioned, it's more of a scenario than a story.

Back in the 1990s, I had a friend who became a vegan.  He had always been kind of annoying, but after he became a vegan, he was insufferable.  If someone invited him over to eat, not only did he bring his fussy dietary restriction, but he would ask whether the food was cooked in a pan that had been used for meat, stuff like that.  One time, we went to the diner, and he ran the waitress ragged.  He had her go back to ask the cook all these questions about how and where the food was prepared. 

Watching him, I realized that the veganism wasn't actually the point.  The point was that he could use it to exert control over other people, and I realized that he had been trending in that direction the entire time I'd known him.  By which I mean he had always been bossy and fussy, but people mostly brushed him off or teased him about it.  But he discovered in veganism a way to make well-meaning people jump through hoops for him.  Not only that, but he could feel good about it, because it was all in the name of kindness.  (I stopped going out to eat with him, and people gradually stopped inviting him places.)

Trigger warnings, x-cards, and the like are, for the most part, ways for the same type of people to exert control over other well-meaning people, all in the name of kindness and empathy.

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 30, 2024, 09:15:38 AM

Quote from: S'mon on January 30, 2024, 02:30:24 AM
And WoTC seem deathly afraid of simply telling people what to do. And it has of course gotten much worse over time.

I think you're confusing "deathly afraid" with "intentionally keeping its customers dependent on an endless flow of published adventures".

I don't think they even make much money off those crappy adventures. I think they had PTSD from the 4e disaster. 4e took a strong stance on how to play, 5e wanted to be all things to everybody.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 30, 2024, 12:36:48 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 29, 2024, 09:48:52 PMThe idea that words are harmful is ridiculous on its face.

Well, that's not entirely true, as cyberbullying victims can attest. But like everything else about the issue, it's taking a contextual reality and twisting it into an absolute precept that can then be used as a club to morally browbeat anybody who says something one merely dislikes.

Words and speech can inflict real and significant psychological damage, but it takes time, repetition, and personalized malice, usually combined with a prisoning environment which the target is unable to escape for whatever reason.

Bullshit. You have a choice: either you let it or you don't. Simple as that. You choose to be a victim of verbal abuse or you don't.
I know this from personal experience, for me and others I know.

Those who CHOOSE to let it WANT to play the victim because of their narcissism.

Those who don't choose to let it get to them either put it behind them and move on OR they ask for help.

I'm sorry, but I can't abide by the "oh poor is me!" narrative.

It's all about choice.

Quote from: I on January 30, 2024, 01:32:28 AM

Quote from: Omega on January 30, 2024, 12:20:13 AM

Quote from: Brad on January 28, 2024, 08:13:30 PM
A paladin wanting to kill a vampire is now a bigot?

What the fuck...

Also NOT the PALADIN, the PLAYER. The PLAYER is a bigot because his paladin PC wants to kill a fucking vampire. Sounds like these clowns need a lobotomy.

I was told once on BGG deadly serious, that "Dwarves liking beer was racist." There is no limit on how stupid these nuts can get. NO LIMIT. That exploring Africa in a board game was "Promoting Genocide." and the poor guys game got cancelled. Someone else claiming they would not play any game that had leather in it because they were vegans. NO LIMIT.

You're right about the no limit thing.  They think being on time for work, drinking milk, and math are all indicators of a white supremacist mindset.  They LOOK for shit to complain about.  I mean, check this crap out:

https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-robots-white-213336 (https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-robots-white-213336)

Yes, plastic white robots trigger them too.  But if we made them black or red or yellow or brown, they'd claim that was racist because the robots are servants of a sort and therefore we'd be projecting our racist ideas of servitude.  It's like the "words are violence" thing, but also "silence = violence."  There's no way to win with these people.  Which is kind of the point:  they revel in being victims, and complaining is their main joy in life.

That's hilarious, because I'm sure the REAL reason is that when it comes to plastics, the vast majority of them when adding a pigment, the cheapest and most accessible is white. I know this because I've worked in the electronics industry on and off for 20 years. Otherwise, injected molded plastics are either grey or.....black.

Quote from: King Tyranno on January 30, 2024, 08:57:49 AM

Quote from: Brad on January 30, 2024, 08:50:56 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 29, 2024, 09:41:52 PM
Summary of argument:

• disagree with ancillary statement (x-cards in a thread about triggers)
• uses personal anecdotes as if they preclude the general statement from being true
• ends with a rejection of dichotomy (it's not this or that; it's both!)

Who let the jhkim AIbot in the thread?

I always just thought he was a sycophant, but now that you're pointing it out, it is fucking ridiculously suspicious he just ALWAYS has a specific anecdote that disputes a general point. Like always. Say most of the trans people you've met are mentally ill? Welp, jhkim plays with two of them who are paragons of society and have PhDs in particle physics, hardly mentally ill!

He doesn't have a single actual argument and everything he says boils down to the most anemic "both sides" fence sitting bullshit. It contributes nothing to any forum discussion. It just takes up space.

HOLY SHIT! Thank God I'm not the only one who thought this!

Quote from: Quasquetonian on January 30, 2024, 10:33:40 AM
Back in the 1990s, I had a friend who became a vegan.  He had always been kind of annoying, but after he became a vegan, he was insufferable.  If someone invited him over to eat, not only did he bring his fussy dietary restriction, but he would ask whether the food was cooked in a pan that had been used for meat, stuff like that.  One time, we went to the diner, and he ran the waitress ragged.  He had her go back to ask the cook all these questions about how and where the food was prepared. 

Watching him, I realized that the veganism wasn't actually the point.  The point was that he could use it to exert control over other people, and I realized that he had been trending in that direction the entire time I'd known him.  By which I mean he had always been bossy and fussy, but people mostly brushed him off or teased him about it.  But he discovered in veganism a way to make well-meaning people jump through hoops for him.  Not only that, but he could feel good about it, because it was all in the name of kindness.  (I stopped going out to eat with him, and people gradually stopped inviting him places.)

Trigger warnings, x-cards, and the like are, for the most part, ways for the same type of people to exert control over other well-meaning people, all in the name of kindness and empathy.

Q: How do you know a vegan is in the room?
A: They told you 57 different times and ways as soon as they walked in the door.

Hell that's a running theme for a lot of the garbage that comes out of the left-wing intelligentsia. Doing something unkind for the sake of kindness. Such as, "of course we want diverse backgrounds and ideas, unless they contradict our own."

QuoteIt's possible to be a vegan and shut the fuck up about it.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on January 30, 2024, 08:38:14 AMBefore the era of wokeness, no one was so dumb that we had to explain this to anyone.  Keifer Sutherland is not really a government agent who tortures people to get information out of them.

While I 100% agree with the rejection of nonsense like "dwarves drinking is racist" or "drow are metaphors for black people, so racist", your examples are flawed.  Soap opera actors and wrestlers were -famous- for being recognized and treated as villains/heels out in public.  TTRPG players aren't the only ones who confuse fantasy with reality.

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on January 30, 2024, 12:35:11 PM
wrestlers were -famous- for being recognized and treated as villains/heels out in public.

Before retards on the internet destroyed kayfabe, the notion that pro wrestling was real was pretty pervasive, if not believed by 95% of the people who watched it.

Quote from: blackstone on January 30, 2024, 12:12:31 PM
Q: How do you know a vegan is in the room?
A: They told you 57 different times and ways as soon as they walked in the door.

That's true!

However, other vegans I've known have been nowhere near as insufferable as this guy was.  It really was on another level, and it really seemed to be about forcing people to cater to his whims. 

He was already pretty invested in political correctness and would constantly attempt to police people's speech, except that he was just a friend among equals, and because he lacked authority, people would just blow him off or tease him.  With veganism, he discovered something that people were less likely to push back on, since hosts want to accommodate their houseguests and waitresses want tips, and he really went overboard.  Most vegans are simply annoying, but this guy was uncomfortable to be around.

Quote from: Quasquetonian on January 30, 2024, 12:54:47 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 30, 2024, 12:12:31 PM
Q: How do you know a vegan is in the room?
A: They told you 57 different times and ways as soon as they walked in the door.

That's true!

However, other vegans I've known have been nowhere near as insufferable as this guy was.  It really was on another level, and it really seemed to be about forcing people to cater to his whims. 

He was already pretty invested in political correctness and would constantly attempt to police people's speech, except that he was just a friend among equals, and because he lacked authority, people would just blow him off or tease him.  With veganism, he discovered something that people were less likely to push back on, since hosts want to accommodate their houseguests and waitresses want tips, and he really went overboard.  Most vegans are simply annoying, but this guy was uncomfortable to be around.

Storytime:

When I met the woman I'd eventually marry, she was a divorcee. Her former husband was the type of guy who couldn't pass a polished surface without checking his looks. Very insecure. Anywho, they still remained friends, for the divorce was amicable.

He was also a vegetarian.

He noticed that he was getting nose bleeds more often when even doing the least strenuous tasks. He was lethargic, tired all of time.

and pale. (notice how an incredibly large amount of vegetarians are pale?)

He goes see the doctor and does some blood work. Doc comes back to him and says his blood iron is low.

Dangerously low. Like becoming anemic.

Ex comes back and says he has been taking iron supplements.

Apparently it wasn't enough. The doc says he must immediately get on a diet of high protein, especially red meat.

When I heard that, I couldn't stop laughing.

Quote from: I on January 30, 2024, 01:32:28 AM
Yes, plastic white robots trigger them too.  But if we made them black or red or yellow or brown, they'd claim that was racist because the robots are servants of a sort and therefore we'd be projecting our racist ideas of servitude.  It's like the "words are violence" thing, but also "silence = violence."  There's no way to win with these people.  Which is kind of the point:  they revel in being victims, and complaining is their main joy in life.

This is right on the money, as far as I'm concerned. The actual topic at hand (dwarves drinking ale, paladins killing scum undead) is merely a tool for their gratification as a victim or as an "ally" to victims. This is baffling to regular people because we consider the topic on its own merits. But for these people, the topic is merely a tool to get what they really want, which is of course dishonest and self-centered behavior that should be brought to light and mocked whenever encountered.

Quote from: BadApple on January 30, 2024, 12:19:24 PM

QuoteIt's possible to be a vegan and shut the fuck up about it.

[citation needed]

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
For better or worse, DMs have a leadership role at the RPG table.

This is what was missing from the original post. The DM told the OP through a text they were wrong after the fact instead of ending the argument with their opinion. They could have just stated that in their Forgotten Realms campaign the god in question believes Vampire Minions are sad victims that should not be called names or killed outright. I think the DM was weak in this situation.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2024, 06:52:46 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
For better or worse, DMs have a leadership role at the RPG table.

This is what was missing from the original post. The DM told the OP through a text they were wrong after the fact instead of ending the argument with their opinion. They could have just stated that in their Forgotten Realms campaign the god in question believes Vampire Minions are sad victims that should not be called names or killed outright. I think the DM was weak in this situation.

If the DM is going to go with "this is my own version of Forgotten Realms," he needs to tell people before char gen.

If the player made a Pally with the concept of righteous undead smasher, the DM suddenly saying "my version of your god is caring and understanding when it comes to undead" is a rug pull.

Quote from: Corolinth on January 30, 2024, 04:36:56 PM

Quote from: BadApple on January 30, 2024, 12:19:24 PM

QuoteIt's possible to be a vegan and shut the fuck up about it.

[citation needed]

This made snort tea.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 30, 2024, 07:25:28 PM
If the DM is going to go with "this is my own version of Forgotten Realms," he needs to tell people before char gen.

If the player made a Pally with the concept of righteous undead smasher, the DM suddenly saying "my version of your god is caring and understanding when it comes to undead" is a rug pull.

I play paladins all the time, and I'd be pretty miffed if I got this pulled on me into an established game. I mean Turning Undead is one of the bigger paladin abilities unlocked later on and you if you take it away there's gotta be some catch. Maybe allow the paladin to control undead instead even though they're good?

Quote from: Quasquetonian on January 30, 2024, 12:54:47 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 30, 2024, 12:12:31 PM
Q: How do you know a vegan is in the room?
A: They told you 57 different times and ways as soon as they walked in the door.

That's true!

However, other vegans I've known have been nowhere near as insufferable as this guy was.  It really was on another level, and it really seemed to be about forcing people to cater to his whims. 

He was already pretty invested in political correctness and would constantly attempt to police people's speech, except that he was just a friend among equals, and because he lacked authority, people would just blow him off or tease him.  With veganism, he discovered something that people were less likely to push back on, since hosts want to accommodate their houseguests and waitresses want tips, and he really went overboard. 

Working a deli for a few years, I took dietary requests seriously. I couldn't know if it was because of allergies or religious practices or moral principles, so I erred on the side of caution. (I didn't care about my employer,'s liability, they were morons)
I really despise that someone would take advantage of people trying to be contientious in order to extert social pressure on them, like your example there.

Quote from: Corolinth on January 30, 2024, 04:36:56 PM

Quote from: BadApple on January 30, 2024, 12:19:24 PM

QuoteIt's possible to be a vegan and shut the fuck up about it.

[citation needed]

Classic paradox: anybody who cites themselves as an example disqualifies themselves in the act.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 30, 2024, 07:25:28 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2024, 06:52:46 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
For better or worse, DMs have a leadership role at the RPG table.

This is what was missing from the original post. The DM told the OP through a text they were wrong after the fact instead of ending the argument with their opinion. They could have just stated that in their Forgotten Realms campaign the god in question believes Vampire Minions are sad victims that should not be called names or killed outright. I think the DM was weak in this situation.

If the DM is going to go with "this is my own version of Forgotten Realms," he needs to tell people before char gen.

If the player made a Pally with the concept of righteous undead smasher, the DM suddenly saying "my version of your god is caring and understanding when it comes to undead" is a rug pull.

This is what I felt when the cleric pointed out to me that "Lathander would disapprove of merciless acts of unprovoked violence".

Quote from: Cipher on January 30, 2024, 08:21:25 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 30, 2024, 07:25:28 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2024, 06:52:46 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on January 29, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
For better or worse, DMs have a leadership role at the RPG table.

This is what was missing from the original post. The DM told the OP through a text they were wrong after the fact instead of ending the argument with their opinion. They could have just stated that in their Forgotten Realms campaign the god in question believes Vampire Minions are sad victims that should not be called names or killed outright. I think the DM was weak in this situation.

If the DM is going to go with "this is my own version of Forgotten Realms," he needs to tell people before char gen.

If the player made a Pally with the concept of righteous undead smasher, the DM suddenly saying "my version of your god is caring and understanding when it comes to undead" is a rug pull.

This is what I felt when the cleric pointed out to me that "Lathander would disapprove of merciless acts of unprovoked violence".

"Gruumsh is the god of charity, and a friend of the Elves."

I've seen in other discussions about the whole #twatgate thing that progressive people have a fundamental blind spot in clinging to a belief that individual bad actors don't exist, but are created by flaws in the system, leading to their desire to control all the systems of governance and society and therefore, in their eyes, lead to a perfected humanity.  That's why you see them coming out of the woodwork if some homeless drug addict knifes an old woman to death, because by their worldview it isn't the man's fault; he is a co-victim of a failure in the system that made him into a murderer.

That's why the people with the trigger warnings and X-cards and consent sheets and whatnot seem insanely naive to anyone who isn't part of their club: They cannot conceive of a person being a petty little bitch who'll abuse those tools to stomp on other people just to satisfy a whim for control.  It falls outside of their vision of the world. 

Quote from: Valatar on January 30, 2024, 09:34:24 PMThey cannot conceive of a person being a petty little bitch who'll abuse those tools to stomp on other people just to satisfy a whim for control.

I think that's overthinking it.  My experience is that these people (in the gaming hobby) are simply insecure and pathologically conflict-avoidant.  These RPG "safety tools" serve to help them avoid having to say directly to another human being "dude, knock that shit off."

I remembered reading this article awhile back that makes the case that trigger warnings don't help in any meaningful way, and may actually cause some harm.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/parenting-translator/202307/do-trigger-warnings-do-more-harm-than-good

QuoteAnother risk? Trigger warnings may increase trauma survivors' tendency to see their trauma as central to their identity, which has been linked to increased PTSD symptoms. Trigger warnings also rely on the principle that avoiding upsetting content helps reduce anxiety, but in fact, research consistently finds that avoiding upsetting content can worsen symptoms of PTSD and anxiety over time.

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 30, 2024, 10:26:12 PM

Quote from: Valatar on January 30, 2024, 09:34:24 PMThey cannot conceive of a person being a petty little bitch who'll abuse those tools to stomp on other people just to satisfy a whim for control.

I think that's overthinking it.  My experience is that these people (in the gaming hobby) are simply insecure and pathologically conflict-avoidant.  These RPG "safety tools" serve to help them avoid having to say directly to another human being "dude, knock that shit off."

There is certainly room for both types of actor.

Quote from: Grognard GM on January 30, 2024, 07:25:28 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 30, 2024, 06:52:46 PM
This is what was missing from the original post. The DM told the OP through a text they were wrong after the fact instead of ending the argument with their opinion. They could have just stated that in their Forgotten Realms campaign the god in question believes Vampire Minions are sad victims that should not be called names or killed outright. I think the DM was weak in this situation.

If the DM is going to go with "this is my own version of Forgotten Realms," he needs to tell people before char gen.

If the player made a Pally with the concept of righteous undead smasher, the DM suddenly saying "my version of your god is caring and understanding when it comes to undead" is a rug pull.

Yup. I agree it's a matter of communication between DM and players.

I don't know the specifics of what was communicated. Maybe the DM had it in for Cipher the whole time, and the DM secretly told the other players about background and deliberately didn't give the info to Cipher. Or maybe the DM intended to communicate to everyone, but the message didn't reach Cipher for some reason. I don't know.

It sounds like the others thought that the the merchant was a victim like Lucy Westenra in Dracula, or many other examples in vampire fiction of an innocent turned and controlled by a master vampire. That's not always the case with vampires, but it's a common trope since early in vampire fiction. I had an adventure in my D&D campaign last year where the PCs had a mission to rescue the governor's son, and they found that he had been turned into a vampire spawn. They did kill him, but they did so reluctantly after concluding that there was no way to bring him back.

I think an innocent like Lucy turned vampire is a similar case to goblin babies. It's an open question at the table about how to handle them.

---

Looking back, my note about the vampire spawn in my campaign might be suspicious to Brad:

Quote from: Brad on January 30, 2024, 08:50:56 AM
I always just thought he was a sycophant, but now that you're pointing it out, it is fucking ridiculously suspicious he just ALWAYS has a specific anecdote that disputes a general point. Like always. Say most of the trans people you've met are mentally ill? Welp, jhkim plays with two of them who are paragons of society and have PhDs in particle physics, hardly mentally ill!

That's because I tend to talk about what I have actual experience with, instead of white-room theorizing. And I'll specify my experience rather than trying to claim it as a generality which must be true for everyone.

So about vampires -- below is the campaign log for my current campaign. Dealing with the vampire spawn was in "The Dragon Lord's Son". I also ran that adventure as a convention game in Oct 2022.

http://solar-empire.wikidot.com/events

https://admin.bigbadcon.com/events/the-dragon-lord-s-missing-daughter/

Quote from: Brad on January 30, 2024, 08:50:56 AM

I always just thought he was a sycophant, but now that you're pointing it out, it is fucking ridiculously suspicious he just ALWAYS has a specific anecdote that disputes a general point. Like always. Say most of the trans people you've met are mentally ill? Welp, jhkim plays with two of them who are paragons of society and have PhDs in particle physics, hardly mentally ill!

The woke seem to do that alot.

I was telling one of my players about the whole fake "battle against racism in gaming" and he countered that one of his friends was black and had encountered racism and so yes everyone has to be policed.

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 30, 2024, 09:15:38 AM

Quote from: S'mon on January 30, 2024, 02:30:24 AM
And WoTC seem deathly afraid of simply telling people what to do. And it has of course gotten much worse over time.

I think you're confusing "deathly afraid" with "intentionally keeping its customers dependent on an endless flow of published adventures".

That would be a great argument. If it werent completely false. WotC's 5e adventure flow has been anemic and people have been complaining about it since year 2.

Since release they have put out only 2 modules a year. (And 2 Starter box sets and 1 Essentials box.) And at least 3 were 2nd party created. (Kobold Press, Sasquatch, and Green Ronin)

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

A chair can be abused. Someone could decide, in the middle of a session, that they don't like what's happening in the game, become triggered, and pick up their chair and hit you with it.

If someone is abusing the X-card, or their needs are such that they simply can't be reasonably accommodated in the planned game, wouldn't you just un-invite them?

Do you need an X-X-card, to play when someone's use of the X-card is affecting your experience?

Quote from: Omega on January 31, 2024, 02:20:20 PM
That would be a great argument. If it werent completely false.

The 5E adventures are fifty-buck full-colour hardbacks that span ten or more levels.  They're not 32 page monochrome folios any more.  You're comparing apples to oranges.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 31, 2024, 02:30:32 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

A chair can be abused. Someone could decide, in the middle of a session, that they don't like what's happening in the game, become triggered, and pick up their chair and hit you with it.

If someone is abusing the X-card, or their needs are such that they simply can't be reasonably accommodated in the planned game, wouldn't you just un-invite them?

Do you need an X-X-card, to play when someone's use of the X-card is affecting your experience?

Your undermine your own counterpoint with your own example. If I see the chair coming I can reasonably block or dodge it.

Once an X-card is played and because the creator of the card is too stubbornly stupid to fix the main flaw of it. Unless I kick the player out of the game there is no countering the card. If played nether the GM or the players or both either privately or publicly are not allowed to ask the player why they played the card.  Neither does the player who used the card need to volunteer any information. Which can cause games to come to a crashing halt. The fact that you and many of the woke are purposefully blind to that flaw is on you.

Which you equally stubbornly stupidly woke always choose to ignore. As it goes against your carefully constructed personal narrative on the subject

Quote from: Abraxus on January 31, 2024, 10:06:55 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 31, 2024, 02:30:32 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

A chair can be abused. Someone could decide, in the middle of a session, that they don't like what's happening in the game, become triggered, and pick up their chair and hit you with it.

If someone is abusing the X-card, or their needs are such that they simply can't be reasonably accommodated in the planned game, wouldn't you just un-invite them?

Do you need an X-X-card, to play when someone's use of the X-card is affecting your experience?

Your undermine your own counterpoint with your own example. If I see the chair coming I can reasonably block or dodge it.

Once an X-card is played and because the creator of the card is too stubbornly stupid to fix the main flaw of it. Unless I kick the player out of the game there is no countering the card. If played nether the GM or the players or both either privately or publicly are not allowed to ask the player why they played the card.  Neither does the player who used the card need to volunteer any information. Which can cause games to come to a crashing halt. The fact that you and many of the woke are purposefully blind to that flaw is on you.

Which you equally stubbornly stupidly woke always choose to ignore. As it goes against your carefully constructed personal narrative on the subject

Hey man the X card is for trogs like you and me, not for our emotionally and intellectually superiors. Grunt.

Seriously though, it's ironic that most people who advocate for the X card don't know how it was designed to be used.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 31, 2024, 02:30:32 PM
Do you need an X-X-card, to play when someone's use of the X-card is affecting your experience?

Best suggestion I've seen regarding X cards!

Quote from: BadApple on January 30, 2024, 07:35:43 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on January 30, 2024, 04:36:56 PM

Quote from: BadApple on January 30, 2024, 12:19:24 PM

QuoteIt's possible to be a vegan and shut the fuck up about it.

[citation needed]

This made snort tea.

Success!

Quote from: Abraxus on January 31, 2024, 10:06:55 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 31, 2024, 02:30:32 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

A chair can be abused. Someone could decide, in the middle of a session, that they don't like what's happening in the game, become triggered, and pick up their chair and hit you with it.

If someone is abusing the X-card, or their needs are such that they simply can't be reasonably accommodated in the planned game, wouldn't you just un-invite them?

Do you need an X-X-card, to play when someone's use of the X-card is affecting your experience?

Your undermine your own counterpoint with your own example. If I see the chair coming I can reasonably block or dodge it.

I think at that point the gaming session is over. It's just a big ol' improvised weapon X-card.

Quote from: Abraxus on January 31, 2024, 10:06:55 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 31, 2024, 02:30:32 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

A chair can be abused. Someone could decide, in the middle of a session, that they don't like what's happening in the game, become triggered, and pick up their chair and hit you with it.

If someone is abusing the X-card, or their needs are such that they simply can't be reasonably accommodated in the planned game, wouldn't you just un-invite them?

Do you need an X-X-card, to play when someone's use of the X-card is affecting your experience?

Your undermine your own counterpoint with your own example. If I see the chair coming I can reasonably block or dodge it.

Once an X-card is played and because the creator of the card is too stubbornly stupid to fix the main flaw of it. Unless I kick the player out of the game there is no countering the card. If played nether the GM or the players or both either privately or publicly are not allowed to ask the player why they played the card.  Neither does the player who used the card need to volunteer any information. Which can cause games to come to a crashing halt. The fact that you and many of the woke are purposefully blind to that flaw is on you.

Which you equally stubbornly stupidly woke always choose to ignore. As it goes against your carefully constructed personal narrative on the subject

I read a little about X-cards and Safety Tools after this experience and from what I could gather, at any point during a session a player can play the X-Card and the GM has to stop the narration and just move on, "no questions asked".

I do not agree with this approach, if the information that I saw online is true. This seems to me an extremely juvenile action. As I said in my original post, back in the day this kind of stuff would be talked outside of the game as adults.

Even if, using the example above, its something a Player really doesn't want to even imagine, people just ask for a break and mention that they need to discuss something with the GM. We would talk things out and come to an agreement.

If X-cards are really expected to be used "no questions asked" its honestly a terrible way to play make believe and rife with potential for abuse by the more selfish and attention seeking crowd. Not a fan at all and I think if the next game that I join has trigger warnings, x-cards or safety tools I'll rather just bounce and not waste my time.

We are all adults with real life responsibilities that love the hobby enough to make time to schedule a handful of hours to have fun and roleplay. Trying to wrestle control of that time in a selfish manner seems disrespectful to the rest of the people in the game.

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 31, 2024, 10:25:29 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on January 31, 2024, 10:06:55 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 31, 2024, 02:30:32 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

A chair can be abused. Someone could decide, in the middle of a session, that they don't like what's happening in the game, become triggered, and pick up their chair and hit you with it.

If someone is abusing the X-card, or their needs are such that they simply can't be reasonably accommodated in the planned game, wouldn't you just un-invite them?

Do you need an X-X-card, to play when someone's use of the X-card is affecting your experience?

Your undermine your own counterpoint with your own example. If I see the chair coming I can reasonably block or dodge it.

Once an X-card is played and because the creator of the card is too stubbornly stupid to fix the main flaw of it. Unless I kick the player out of the game there is no countering the card. If played nether the GM or the players or both either privately or publicly are not allowed to ask the player why they played the card.  Neither does the player who used the card need to volunteer any information. Which can cause games to come to a crashing halt. The fact that you and many of the woke are purposefully blind to that flaw is on you.

Which you equally stubbornly stupidly woke always choose to ignore. As it goes against your carefully constructed personal narrative on the subject

Hey man the X card is for trogs like you and me, not for our emotionally and intellectually superiors. Grunt.

Seriously though, it's ironic that most people who advocate for the X card don't know how it was designed to be used.

Since I have been out of the hobby for the past 6 or so years I didn't even knew about all this stuff until recently. You speak in jest but it really feels like this is the intent, specially taking into account some stuff that you can see online about the "proper" usage of these "safety tools" and why they are so important.

Greetings!

All of the people that support "Trigger Warnings", "Safety Tools", and "X-Cards" are fucking pathetic, and weak. I would never have anything to do with any of these BS Marxist degenerate terms and practices. I also would not allow any such person to play at my table.

Yes, I am a Right Wing Tyrant. It is MY GAME, and MY TABLE. I wear the fucking Viking Helmet, I'm the DM, and everything going on is by MY RULES. All of these degenerate morons that don't like it can go and REEE. I rejoice in their salty tears. *Laughing* I am the God-Emperor. I make the rules, I determine how they are interpreted. I decide just about everything that goes on in the game world, and also at my game table. Yes, that's right. MY game table. My hame. My fucking house. I'm the host, and I am in charge. Not some whiny fucking snot-nosed wanna-be adult that is still trapped at the age of 15, even though they are 25 or 30.

Fuck all that. DM's need to be OLD SCHOOL, and in control. At all times. Players learn to respect you, respect the game world, and respect YOU, as a person. Insist on it. Expect it. This really isn't being insufferably demanding or harsh--it is how people that are actually friends and adults interact with each other. Basic comprehension of the rules. Basic manners, and adult temperament and maturity.

Not trying to pull some BS power-ass grab stunt with this BS and seek to fuck the DM, and impose their own whims on the game world, the game itself, and also, everyone else at the table.

All of this is so wild to me. What the fuck are you people playing with drooling idiots for? All of these drama-queens and feminized troglodytes. Just so sad.

I don't have players that act like degenerate, ill-mannered morons at my table. If someone even came at me with any of this--yeah, I'd stop the game, and throw their ass out, promptly. Goodbye. You are not playing, you are dismissed, and you won't be invited back. It really is that simple. I'm being more theoretical, because as I mentioned, all of my players are mature, well-mannered adults. I can't imagine anyone even talking to me like these idiots. It is mind boggling! *Laughing*

Ahh, well. Be strong, and keep a FIRM PIMP HAND AT ALL TIMES!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Abraxus on January 31, 2024, 10:06:55 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 31, 2024, 02:30:32 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

A chair can be abused. Someone could decide, in the middle of a session, that they don't like what's happening in the game, become triggered, and pick up their chair and hit you with it.

If someone is abusing the X-card, or their needs are such that they simply can't be reasonably accommodated in the planned game, wouldn't you just un-invite them?

Do you need an X-X-card, to play when someone's use of the X-card is affecting your experience?

Your undermine your own counterpoint with your own example. If I see the chair coming I can reasonably block or dodge it.

It's a retarted example. No one consents to hitting people over the head with a chair when playing D&D for any reason. The point of the X-Card is that everyone agrees to use it, and in the manner intended, can be used for abuse.

Well at *my table* - I've already pre-screened my players for needing such tip-toeing upon the eggshell dancefloor of their sensibilities. I run high-adventure with mature and adult content. Full stop. So you're either on board with what that *might* entail and trust me that I'm going to attempt to deliver, in good faith, a great experience, or you're not going to play. /shrug.

In a public event - like a Con, I tend to go PG generally, depending on the game I'm running. My CP2020 games were pretty much solid R-rated. Granted I haven't run at a Con for years, largely because of the elements that started the weirdness that would produce X-cards and Safe Spaces and shit like that. IF I were to run at a Con these days (and I'm planning on doing that in the near future to support my project) I wouldn't use an X-cards for one reason: I don't believe in the good faith of random people in the gaming "community" today.

If that becomes an issue with the Convention itself, I'll run my own ad-hoc games for people that want to play them in the Free Gaming area or I'll get a room specifically for the game I'm showcasing. I'm fine with discussing the rating (R for violence, mild adult themes blah blah) but I wouldn't go into details, and obviously i'd adjust things for the age of my players. But adults? I tend to treat adults like ADULTS. If you happen to be an adult that has the sensibilities of a child, I can't help you. Nor do I want to.

Quote from: daniel_ream on January 31, 2024, 06:21:22 PM

Quote from: Omega on January 31, 2024, 02:20:20 PM
That would be a great argument. If it werent completely false.

The 5E adventures are fifty-buck full-colour hardbacks that span ten or more levels.  They're not 32 page monochrome folios any more.  You're comparing apples to oranges.

Except more than a few of those hardbacks actually do not have as much content as they seem. As usual WotC spends alot of time saying very little. And then leaving out stuff they SHOULD have written.

Quote from: rytrasmi on January 31, 2024, 10:25:29 PM

Seriously though, it's ironic that most people who advocate for the X card don't know how it was designed to be used.

Because it was being abused practically right out the gate.

Quote from: Cipher on February 01, 2024, 12:18:24 AM
I read a little about X-cards and Safety Tools after this experience and from what I could gather, at any point during a session a player can play the X-Card and the GM has to stop the narration and just move on, "no questions asked".

I do not agree with this approach, if the information that I saw online is true. This seems to me an extremely juvenile action. As I said in my original post, back in the day this kind of stuff would be talked outside of the game as adults.

Its true and its practically designed to be abused. Its also why so many oppose it.

Quote from: Omega on February 02, 2024, 04:54:32 AM

Quote from: Cipher on February 01, 2024, 12:18:24 AM
I read a little about X-cards and Safety Tools after this experience and from what I could gather, at any point during a session a player can play the X-Card and the GM has to stop the narration and just move on, "no questions asked".

I do not agree with this approach, if the information that I saw online is true. This seems to me an extremely juvenile action. As I said in my original post, back in the day this kind of stuff would be talked outside of the game as adults.

Its true and its practically designed to be abused. Its also why so many oppose it.

Then it is, indeed, a terrible idea and I understand and also agree with the people opposing its usage.

Not to mention as I said previously the creator the card is aware of the main flaw and is stupidly stubbornly against fixing it let alone even addressing it.

It's it funny when the advocates are either ignorant or purposefully ignorant of the flaw then " can't " understand why others in the community think it may be an issue.


What gets me is the apologists who claim abuse never happens or anything can be abused.   See above truly stupid, ignorant, disingenuous example that a chair can also be abused because you can hit people with it.

Quote from: Abraxus on February 02, 2024, 08:22:57 AM
Not to mention as I said previously the creator the card is aware of the main flaw and is stupidly stubbornly against fixing it let alone even addressing it.

This is the main reason why I suspect that what I would call abuse of trigger warnings or the X-card is actually these things working as intended.  This is actually what these things are designed to do.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 02, 2024, 10:53:26 AM
This is the main reason why I suspect that what I would call abuse of trigger warnings or the X-card is actually these things working as intended.  This is actually what these things are designed to do.

Maybe they should rename the X-card to something like, "I'm an absolutely insufferable narcissistic faggot".

It's never a good idea to give emotionally unstable people a whole lot of say and power in dictating the behaviour and speech of others.

If you have such special needs, you have to do your own work to find that group of players that suits those needs while you keep working those issues so as to not impose yourself on others. If you find a group that imused cards or whatever the fuck else needed to pander to your broken soul, and enjoy doing so, fine. Go right ahead. Don't impose it on every group you come across in vague and fuzzy ways. That's just a way to emotionally entrap others and basking in some weird glory by lecturing to them or tossing them out of the game.

This is a coping mechanism, not a solution.

Do vegans murder nits so they don't get lice? 
Or do they let their body fauna flourish?  If so, that's a damn good reason to disinvite a player.

The fact that this thread exists is somewhat amazing, other sites would have shut this down and banned people for speaking the truth or having an opinion.

So I joined.  Thanks.

QuoteThis is a coping mechanism, not a solution.

I've noted in the past that much of the indie storygame community can be summed up as "You should be hyper-cautious of every player's tiniest neuroses, now here's a bunch of games about staggeringly damaged and dysfunctional people fucking"

There's not a lot of daylight between people who were severely sexually abused becoming hypersexual and engaging in self-destructive sex, and these people.  Probably because a mind-boggling number of indie designers are quite open about their own history of sex abuse.

What's even more disturbing to me is the rise of products that attempt to explicitly turn RPGs into therapy.  I can't think of much worse for a damaged, dysfunctional person than playing elfgames with other damaged, dysfunctional people to begin with; adding in the white-coat effect of the whole experience being a "therapeutic tool" is a crisis event waiting to happen.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 01, 2024, 02:32:09 AM

It's a retarted example. No one consents to hitting people over the head with a chair when playing D&D for any reason. The point of the X-Card is that everyone agrees to use it, and in the manner intended, can be used for abuse.

Everyone agreed to use chairs. They didn't agree to misuse chairs. Everyone can agree to use the X-card and still not welcome people to misuse it.

In fact, I am not aware of any game being played anywhere where the X-card has been used like some people seem to think it is, like some kind of red-light-green-light sub-game. If that ever happened, that game would be over pretty quickly. It's an oops button. It means, dump the warp core.

I'm not very comfortable with it for exactly that reason, but it's not malicious, and with a group of reasonable quality human beings, it would probably almost never get used. OTOH, I do wonder if, in all my years in gaming, someone wanted to say something and didn't have the words or the personal force, and if they had an X-card I would have found out something about how they are feeling that I didn't know. I would regret it if I re-traumatized someone.

I'm more of a lines-and-evils, or state the movie rating kind of person. But if someone stood up in the middle of a session and said, "I know we don't have an X-card, but after what Freddie Jo said, I can't continue to play unless we retcon this shit," I would take that seriously.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 02, 2024, 01:50:09 PM
Everyone agreed to use chairs. They didn't agree to misuse chairs. Everyone can agree to use the X-card and still not welcome people to misuse it.

You're still going with this retarded example...the X-card is nothing more than an emotional support iguana for alleged PTSD caused by someone's mom yelling at them for spilling paint on the floor when they were 5, and this trauma was just uncovered by a 3rd year psychology graduate student. You can insert any ridiculous animal you want instead of iguana, of course. The end result is if you ask this person to kindly leave their iguana at home when you game, they will throw a fucking fit and claim you're "gatekeeping" and some sort of bigot, and also don't take mental health seriously. It's nothing more than a physical manifestation of their horseshit self-diagnosis. These sorts of people are what we used to call "fucking weirdos" and yes, they were not allowed to game with us. It's funny how when I was a kid the nerds and jocks and popular kids and whoever else ALL HAD FRIENDS. Yes, the nerds' friends were fellow nerds, but they were friends nonetheless. Still, there was a group of fucking weirdos who no one liked, not even by extremely marginalized people on the fringes of society. When I was in junior high, our lunch gaming group was mostly nerds, one football player who liked D&D, and an actual retarded kid named Chris who was self-aware and cool. Oh, and a degenerate who went to juvie and alternative school on and off because he had no compunction about beating the fuck out of anyone who he didn't like, nor robbing convenience stores. He talked about prison sometimes and how his uncle (an ex-con) described how the pecking order worked, just in case he needed the info.

Yes, personal anecdote. Guess the fuck what? Our motley band refused to associate with the smelly kid who wore the same Slayer shirt every day and who couldn't say hi without going into a diatribe about some fucked up nonsense like eating babies. I don't even remember the sort of crap this kid spewed, but it wasn't even jokes, it was just disturbing. He had no friends because he was just a socially inept outcast. Yes, it was sad. No, we didn't care because we were 12. I am sure that kid would be using an X-card in every game he played because he was a FUCKING WEIRDO. He would put his emotional support pangolin right in the middle of the table while complaining about someone else eating cheese puffs because he is allergic to the dye used and by God you best not ignore THIS use of the X-card! How dare you talk about the merchant's mother! Not everyone has a mother!

I don't even know where I was going with his other than only fucking weirdos need X-cards, and they're the ones who will abuse them every time.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 02, 2024, 10:53:26 AM

Quote from: Abraxus on February 02, 2024, 08:22:57 AM
Not to mention as I said previously the creator the card is aware of the main flaw and is stupidly stubbornly against fixing it let alone even addressing it.

This is the main reason why I suspect that what I would call abuse of trigger warnings or the X-card is actually these things working as intended.  This is actually what these things are designed to do.

The more I learn about it, the more I agree with your suspicion.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 28, 2024, 06:05:33 PM
I tend to think of role-playing as an inherently "dangerous" activity in the sense that it involves inter-personal interaction, violence, various historical contexts, and so forth. Often the format allows people to act in ways that would be unacceptable in real life. That said, I think it's thoughtful and helpful to give people a heads up if you are going to be introducing some potentially thorny issues. It's pretty easy to guess what might be triggering to a lot of people. Other times, it's not as obvious, and you will have to navigate with the fallout as best you can.

In the US, just saying PG-13 or something like that does set some pretty good overall expectations.

Could it be due to the circles you travel in? You know the "tolerant, progressive and inclusive people"?

IME the people asking for trigger warnings, X cards, etc are the only ones likely to be the type of pest that might make the imberciles playing with them feel like the "safety" tools are needed.

That and the inherent amount of mental illness among leftard circles.

Edited to add:

To Cipher and SilverBlade, I have 3+ years playing online EVERY Saturday, one of our players is clearly left leaning but we all manage to leave personal politics off the virtual table.

If you're capable of doing so and are interested I can ask the DM to invite you, the campaign is about to end but you could still play a few months with us and see if you like it.

Quote from: Brad on February 02, 2024, 02:26:02 PM
I don't even know where I was going with his other than only fucking weirdos need X-cards, and they're the ones who will abuse them every time.

It's the manifestation of the fetishization of mental illness. Mostly, I suspect, self-diagnosed (IE bullshit) or endorsed by a "mental health professional" who also goes along with that bullshit.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 28, 2024, 06:05:33 PM
I tend to think of role-playing as an inherently "dangerous" activity in the sense that it involves inter-personal interaction, violence, various historical contexts, and so forth. Often the format allows people to act in ways that would be unacceptable in real life. That said, I think it's thoughtful and helpful to give people a heads up if you are going to be introducing some potentially thorny issues. It's pretty easy to guess what might be triggering to a lot of people. Other times, it's not as obvious, and you will have to navigate with the fallout as best you can.

In the US, just saying PG-13 or something like that does set some pretty good overall expectations.

I need a better knowledge of how you define "dangerous."
This logic seems adjacent to the sort that results in things like "videogames cause violence" at a glance.

Quote from: WERDNA on February 02, 2024, 07:36:58 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 28, 2024, 06:05:33 PM
I tend to think of role-playing as an inherently "dangerous" activity in the sense that it involves inter-personal interaction, violence, various historical contexts, and so forth. Often the format allows people to act in ways that would be unacceptable in real life. That said, I think it's thoughtful and helpful to give people a heads up if you are going to be introducing some potentially thorny issues. It's pretty easy to guess what might be triggering to a lot of people. Other times, it's not as obvious, and you will have to navigate with the fallout as best you can.

In the US, just saying PG-13 or something like that does set some pretty good overall expectations.

I need a better knowledge of how you define "dangerous."
This logic seems adjacent to the sort that results in things like "videogames cause violence" at a glance.

Brought to you by the people who think words are violence, and silence is also violence.

Quote from: WERDNA on February 02, 2024, 07:36:58 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on January 28, 2024, 06:05:33 PM
I tend to think of role-playing as an inherently "dangerous" activity in the sense that it involves inter-personal interaction, violence, various historical contexts, and so forth. Often the format allows people to act in ways that would be unacceptable in real life. That said, I think it's thoughtful and helpful to give people a heads up if you are going to be introducing some potentially thorny issues. It's pretty easy to guess what might be triggering to a lot of people. Other times, it's not as obvious, and you will have to navigate with the fallout as best you can.

In the US, just saying PG-13 or something like that does set some pretty good overall expectations.

I need a better knowledge of how you define "dangerous."

Try reading the part that starts with "in that sense that..."

Quote
This logic seems adjacent to the sort that results in things like "videogames cause violence" at a glance.

Can you elaborate on your thesis? I'm not sure I follow this so-called "logic."

Quote from: pawsplay on January 31, 2024, 02:30:32 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on January 29, 2024, 09:16:12 AM
The difference is that the X-card is an unquestionable veto that can be invoked at any time for any reason with no need for justification or explanation and no questioning or discussion allowed.  It's so easy to abuse that part of me suspects that it was designed to be abused.  You would have to be a fool to not anticipate that such an easy to abuse tool will be abused.  If something can be abused, it will be and these tools are very, very easy to abuse.

A chair can be abused. Someone could decide, in the middle of a session, that they don't like what's happening in the game, become triggered, and pick up their chair and hit you with it.

If someone is abusing the X-card, or their needs are such that they simply can't be reasonably accommodated in the planned game, wouldn't you just un-invite them?

Do you need an X-X-card, to play when someone's use of the X-card is affecting your experience?

  Somebody at a game table hits me with a chair they are ambulance bound very shortly thereafter.   What sort of people do you play with where this enters your mind as a point to make an example with? 

   Regarding X cards and such...I would never sit at a table where they made an appearance.   I play mostly with family and friends.  If I sat down and got any sort of speech about X cards/trigger warnings I would wonder 2 things...am I about to be in a game with a Gm and players who are going to get into their grotesque kinks at the table, or am I at a table with people too weak to talk about hitting things with an axe.  Either way I am out.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 02, 2024, 09:21:43 PM

Try reading the part that starts with "in that sense that..."

Can you elaborate on your thesis? I'm not sure I follow this so-called "logic."

I asked you to elaborate for a reason. In what "sense" is it dangerous to deal in fictional violence, take inspiration from history, engage in human interaction, etc ?

It's not a thesis. It's an observation that what you're saying sounded similar to the manner of things that come out of the mouths of politicians when they blame violent crimes on whatever video games with violence are in vogue. What does it matter if a party acts like bandits or if someone plays Grand Theft Auto?

Quote from: WERDNA on February 02, 2024, 09:38:19 PM

I asked you to elaborate for a reason. In what "sense" is it dangerous to deal in fictional violence, take inspiration from history, engage in human interaction, etc ?

"In the sense that it involves inter-personal interaction, violence, various historical contexts, and so forth." That is the sense of "dangerous" I was using. I stated the parameters which make it "dangerous" and I am not relying on other definitions.

Quote
It's not a thesis. It's an observation that what you're saying sounded similar to the manner of things that come out of the mouths of politicians when they blame violent crimes on whatever video games with violence are in vogue. What does it matter if a party acts like bandits or if someone plays Grand Theft Auto?

What the fuck are you talking about? I don't care if you play Grand Theft Auto 8: Skull-fuck Your Granny.

Quote from: oggsmash on February 02, 2024, 09:30:57 PM
   Regarding X cards and such...I would never sit at a table where they made an appearance.   I play mostly with family and friends.  If I sat down and got any sort of speech about X cards/trigger warnings I would wonder 2 things...am I about to be in a game with a Gm and players who are going to get into their grotesque kinks at the table, or am I at a table with people too weak to talk about hitting things with an axe.  Either way I am out.

I play my regular games with family and friends, but I also go to about 4 or 5 local game conventions a year when I often play with strangers. Mostly from these, I've played in somewhere around 15-20 games that have used the X-card. I also have one friend who has used it in some of their home games, and I've sometimes GMed _Bluebeard's Bride_ where the X-card is written into the rules, so I've used it when I GMed that game in conventions.

Thus far, I haven't encountered either of these extremes in games with the X-card. In general, people have treated it like safety instructions in case of airplane crash. They'll shrug and go on with playing the game.

I did once encounter a player in a convention horror game where I didn't have an X-card, who freaked out and stopped the game over a seemingly minor issue. I've also encountered some players who make the game awkward by bringing their kinks to the table. So I see the concern. Maybe I'd encounter those a little more frequently if I more regularly had X-card games, but it seems rare in either case.

---

Quote from: WERDNA on February 02, 2024, 09:38:19 PM
It's an observation that what you're saying sounded similar to the manner of things that come out of the mouths of politicians when they blame violent crimes on whatever video games with violence are in vogue. What does it matter if a party acts like bandits or if someone plays Grand Theft Auto?

Basically everyone has their lines about what is out-of-bounds in a game. For example, oggsmash suggests "players getting into their grotesque kinks at the table" as going too far, but in practice, people have a different line about what constitutes unacceptable behavior.

I don't like referring to this as "harm" because it seems really fuzzy to me the line between what is uncomfortable versus harmful. That presumably takes a degree of psychological expertise. On the other hand, it also doesn't seem significant. I want all the players to have fun, not be made uncomfortable by grotesque kinks or the like.

I'm not convinced that the X-card is a superior way to get that, but I do think there should is acceptable and unacceptable in-game behavior, and people's lines about that vary from person to person and game to game.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2024, 02:54:48 AM
I'm not convinced that the X-card is a superior way to get that, but I do think there should is acceptable and unacceptable in-game behavior, and people's lines about that vary from person to person and game to game.

And in any case, the players can talk it out like adults instead of antisocial fuckwits.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2024, 02:54:48 AM...and I've sometimes GMed _Bluebeard's Bride...

(https://c.tenor.com/t58KdOTq724AAAAC/tenor.gif)

Quote from: pawsplay on February 02, 2024, 09:44:23 PM

Quote from: WERDNA on February 02, 2024, 09:38:19 PM

I asked you to elaborate for a reason. In what "sense" is it dangerous to deal in fictional violence, take inspiration from history, engage in human interaction, etc ?

"In the sense that it involves inter-personal interaction (words), (fictional) violence, various historical contexts (in a fictional world), and so forth." That is the sense of "dangerous" I was using. I stated the parameters which make it "dangerous" and I am not relying on other definitions.

Quote
It's not a thesis. It's an observation that what you're saying sounded similar to the manner of things that come out of the mouths of politicians when they blame violent crimes on whatever video games with violence are in vogue. What does it matter if a party acts like bandits or if someone plays Grand Theft Auto?

What the fuck are you talking about? I don't care if you play Grand Theft Auto 8: Skull-fuck Your Granny.

Bolding is stuff I wrote.

You're either mentally ill and can't differentiate between fiction and reality (which is my bet), or a disingenuous fucktard (which is also a strong possibility) or both (highly likely).

If you feel that sitting at a table to play pretend in a fictional world with fictional characters exerting fictional violence against other fictional creatures is "dangerous" you don't need "safety" tools, what you need is a padded room and a straight jacket.

They are not really needed, surely?
Like a movie, you tell the players that this game has mature themes. But specific 'trigger' warnings are for mental babies of the more modern era.

I too have an as....er opinion on this matter. X-cards were just another method the left used to gatekeep rpg's. And then they bullied and mocked you if you didn't. Anecdotally, they've never been needed in my games cause I'm, you know, like a respectful person, and don't want to ruin the fun for anyone.

The only "trigger" word I need to associate with is if my trigger control is good when shooting firearms.....LOL

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 03, 2024, 08:10:49 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2024, 02:54:48 AM
I'm not convinced that the X-card is a superior way to get that, but I do think there should is acceptable and unacceptable in-game behavior, and people's lines about that vary from person to person and game to game.

And in any case, the players can talk it out like adults instead of antisocial fuckwits.

Sure. Still, I think it's pretty normal to have social anxiety over saying "I have a problem with how you're playing". So there's a genuine problem that is at issue here. I'm not saying that the X-card is the best solution, but knowing and having played with some people who use it, it is basically for dealing with incidents like what BadApple described earlier in the thread:

Quote from: BadApple on January 29, 2024, 10:56:32 AM
I was in a game back in the mid 90s that was going heavy handed with the whole grimdark derp derp thing that was popular at the time.  I wasn't enjoying it.  In the last session of that particular campaign I was in, the GM was going into graphic detail about a murder scene the party discovered.

I just told the table the game wasn't to my taste and excused myself.  Later, I talked to two of the players because they were worried about the status of our relationship.  I let them know that I'm not really into the sex and gore the game was.  We parted on good terms and I even played other games with some of those guys latter.

This worked out fine - but I could also see some people who would prefer to wait, but don't want to drive people away with it. So they play with "We'll have some grimdark, but if it's too much for you, we'll tone it down."

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2024, 02:13:22 PM
So they play with "We'll have some grimdark, but if it's too much for you, we'll tone it down."

Not that I play splatter punk sex gore games.

But if a game is too much for a player, then they can always find another game to suit their taste. A GM or player can always leave. Personally I don't like the idea of having to 'tone down' a game or change it because someone has a fear of spiders.

okay, I might do that for a very good friend of mine but not for some bod on the internet. Basically it's best to start off with the right people.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 03, 2024, 12:45:55 PM
You're either mentally ill and can't differentiate between fiction and reality (which is my bet), or a disingenuous fucktard (which is also a strong possibility) or both (highly likely).

If you feel that sitting at a table to play pretend in a fictional world with fictional characters exerting fictional violence against other fictional creatures is "dangerous" you don't need "safety" tools, what you need is a padded room and a straight jacket.

Do you think people have one set of real feelings, in the real world, and then a different set of imaginary feelings, which only exist in imaginary worlds? There's nothing mentally ill about, you know, having feelings, and if that's a problem for you, maybe you should talk to a counselor.

I don't know how you can go off on tangents like this and then have the gall to call someone else disingenuous.

With my story particularly, we were a bunch of guys in out late teens and early 20s feeling out what our limits were.  I didn't know, they didn't know.  When I hit that limit, then I knew and I bowed out as graciously as I could.  I wasn't trying to ruin anyone else's time, I just came to a point where I realized that this form of game play wasn't for me. 

We were a bunch of geeks in the early 90s so of course there was some socially awkwardness to it all.  That said, we were all friends and all had enough maturity to accept this and talk out anything important.  With a few uncomfortable conversations and a few board game parties we all came to terms with it.

What I didn't say (because I thought it was irrelevant to the point) was that the campaign in question fell apart a few sessions later with the guys telling me that they had come to a communal understanding that the game really had gone too far into being explicit to be much fun.  We continued to experiment with difficult and mature content at the table until we found a balance that seemed to work and I carry that with me now as to where I draw my own lines today.  Hell, the GM felt ashamed about it until we kind of messily worked out with him that we thought he was doing a good job over all. 

There was no x-card or consent-in-gaming contract needed.  Even as a bunch of barely legal adults, we had enough maturity and humanity to treat each other with respect outside of our usual juvenile humor and social takes.  Honestly, if someone is too damaged to just talk to people as friends and equals rather than with passive-aggressive tools and talking down to people from a bullshit moral position, then they shouldn't be playing make believe in a TTRPG to begin with. 

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 02:40:54 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 03, 2024, 12:45:55 PM
You're either mentally ill and can't differentiate between fiction and reality (which is my bet), or a disingenuous fucktard (which is also a strong possibility) or both (highly likely).

If you feel that sitting at a table to play pretend in a fictional world with fictional characters exerting fictional violence against other fictional creatures is "dangerous" you don't need "safety" tools, what you need is a padded room and a straight jacket.

Do you think people have one set of real feelings, in the real world, and then a different set of imaginary feelings, which only exist in imaginary worlds? There's nothing mentally ill about, you know, having feelings, and if that's a problem for you, maybe you should talk to a counselor.

I don't know how you can go off on tangents like this and then have the gall to call someone else disingenuous.

Well, if people are getting 'triggered' over a fictional game then there is something wrong on their side. So perhaps RPGing isn't a hobby for therm. that or they could just stick to 'cosy' rpgs instead.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 02:40:54 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 03, 2024, 12:45:55 PM
You're either mentally ill and can't differentiate between fiction and reality (which is my bet), or a disingenuous fucktard (which is also a strong possibility) or both (highly likely).

If you feel that sitting at a table to play pretend in a fictional world with fictional characters exerting fictional violence against other fictional creatures is "dangerous" you don't need "safety" tools, what you need is a padded room and a straight jacket.

Do you think people have one set of real feelings, in the real world, and then a different set of imaginary feelings, which only exist in imaginary worlds? There's nothing mentally ill about, you know, having feelings, and if that's a problem for you, maybe you should talk to a counselor.

I don't know how you can go off on tangents like this and then have the gall to call someone else disingenuous.

Wrongo bongo, some feelings can be sure sign of mental illnes:

You feel there's a secret cabal intent on genociding you and people like you despite no evidence of such genocide much less of the cabal being real.

You feel that playing pretend is "dangerous".

You feel that you're Napoleon.

You feel demons talking to you...

Now, if by "dangerous" you mean it might hurt your fee fees, then you're an idiot that can't explain himself and an emotional child.

BUT, if you really believe that playing pretend while sitting at a table, rolling dice and speaking IS dangerous then yes, you need a padded room and a straight jacket.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 02:46:38 PM
Well, if people are getting 'triggered' over a fictional game then there is something wrong on their side. So perhaps RPGing isn't a hobby for therm. that or they could just stick to 'cosy' rpgs instead.

"Having something wrong" is neither a personal failing, nor rare. People on this board get triggered by shit all the time. I've been role-playing for nearly four decades. Your estimation of who should be playing role-playing games strikes me as remarkably unworldly.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 02:52:28 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 02:46:38 PM
Well, if people are getting 'triggered' over a fictional game then there is something wrong on their side. So perhaps RPGing isn't a hobby for therm. that or they could just stick to 'cosy' rpgs instead.

"Having something wrong" is neither a personal failing, nor rare. People on this board get triggered by shit all the time. I've been role-playing for nearly four decades. Your estimation of who should be playing role-playing games strikes me as remarkably unworldly.

Now your changing the scope of the argument. We are talking about playing 'imaginary elf-games' and the zero damage they can do - unless someone is mentally ill or damaged. And if that's the case they should do another activity.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 02:52:28 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 02:46:38 PM
Well, if people are getting 'triggered' over a fictional game then there is something wrong on their side. So perhaps RPGing isn't a hobby for therm. that or they could just stick to 'cosy' rpgs instead.

"Having something wrong" is neither a personal failing, nor rare. People on this board get triggered by shit all the time. I've been role-playing for nearly four decades. Your estimation of who should be playing role-playing games strikes me as remarkably unworldly.

Trigger warnings are to prevent further damage to people that have deep trauma.  If you need trigger warnings for things might bring up in conversation then you are not in the mental health place to engage in normal social activities, let alone to play in TTRPGs. 

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 03:03:50 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 02:52:28 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 02:46:38 PM
Well, if people are getting 'triggered' over a fictional game then there is something wrong on their side. So perhaps RPGing isn't a hobby for therm. that or they could just stick to 'cosy' rpgs instead.

"Having something wrong" is neither a personal failing, nor rare. People on this board get triggered by shit all the time. I've been role-playing for nearly four decades. Your estimation of who should be playing role-playing games strikes me as remarkably unworldly.

Now your changing the scope of the argument. We are talking about playing 'imaginary elf-games' and the zero damage they can do - unless someone is mentally ill or damaged. And if that's the case they should do another activity.

So what do you mean by mentally ill or damaged?

Quote from: BadApple on February 03, 2024, 03:07:29 PM
Trigger warnings are to prevent further damage to people that have deep trauma.  If you need trigger warnings for things might bring up in conversation then you are not in the mental health place to engage in normal social activities, let alone to play in TTRPGs.

Ah, yes, the classic "you should live in a basement with no social interaction" approach to improving mental health.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:09:20 PMAh, yes, the classic "you should live in a basement with no social interaction" approach to improving mental health.

You're right, 1 damaged person's desires trump 5-6 other people's desire to not have their game trashed and lives upended with BS.

Quote from: BadApple on February 03, 2024, 03:07:29 PM
Trigger warnings are to prevent further damage to people that have deep trauma.  If you need trigger warnings for things might bring up in conversation then you are not in the mental health place to engage in normal social activities, let alone to play in TTRPGs.

This is a disingenuous answer.  Indeed, a straw man attack.  Most people using the "trigger warning" meme are using as a form of social control.  You know this and are engaging in open dishonesty.

A person suffering from residual psychological trauma, PTSD, so bad that conversations would trigger them do need hospitalization and isolation from the general populous.  This is an acute medical emergency level problem and needs to be treated as such.  PTSD is a treatable condition that doesn't permanently debilitate someone.  Also, we've already had the conversation about what my credentials are on this topic.

A person that simply doesn't like the material being used for game play, no matter how extreme, doesn't need a trigger warning and can simply get up and walk away. 

 I think I need a clear, concise definition as to exactly what triggered means...because it looks like the goal posts are moving around so much that anytime you make a remark of disagreement you were "triggered"?   Thing I hate about marxists is their constant and consistent manipulation of language to always try to have a word or two than can be a "catch all".

Quote from: oggsmash on February 03, 2024, 03:29:15 PM
I think I need a clear, concise definition as to exactly what triggered means...because it looks like the goal posts are moving around so much that anytime you make a remark of disagreement you were "triggered"?   Thing I hate about marxists is their constant and consistent manipulation of language to always try to have a word or two than can be a "catch all".

Being triggered means that the individual in question suffers from PTSD and has had a flashback to the trauma event "triggered" by some form of stimuli.  This stimuli can be noises, smells, or a series of small events they are witnessing that seem to mirror the events leading up to the trauma.  Sometimes flashbacks can be triggered by visuals but this is kind of rare.

It's generally accepted that PTSD is caused when an event happens that puts a person on a high response level fight or flight reaction with no apparent options and then internalizes the experience.  This in turn can lead to depression, paranoia, and exacerbating other mental health issues.

Treating PTSD effectively is done with two things.  First, teaching the person how to actually respond to the type of event that caused the PTSD.  The second is walking the person through the events over and over until they process things and become desensitized to the stimuli.  (For God's sake, don't do this at home.  Seek a professional.)

The nutjobs that use the term "trigger warning" are generally aware of PTSD and it's effects and are using it as social leverage. 

There are plenty of healthy, capable people out there, who, nonetheless, when encountering certain material in a role-playing context, can go from "this is a fun activity I find personally enriching" to "this is an upsetting situation where I am no longer having the fun I wanted to, and continuing to deal with this situation is going to evoke real-world re-traumatizations, instead of the fun experience of an imaginary set of experiences." This is not a failure to distinguish reality from fantasy; this is an acknowledgement that role-playing games are supposed to be a fun experience, shared by engaged and self-determined adults, and not a situation where someone is distracted by harm and distress they have suffered or been threatened with in the real world.

It's like if you are having a snowball fight, and someone starts throwing snowballs full of ice. You get upset, and you don't want to play any more. You are not seriously, permanently injured. You will be more or less fine. But you aren't having fun. That doesn't mean you don't like snowball fights, or you can't handle being in a snowball fight. Being hit with hard ice isn't an assumed or accepted part of a snowball fight to most people. The experience sucks, and you want it to end. So you stand up and say, "Hey, guys. No more throwing ice or I'm out." So then it comes down to this: do the iceball throwers let you leave, or do you leave? Or are they the sort of people who keep throwing ice anyway, and laugh about it?

I don't think most of the posters here would assume r*pe is a normal part of the D&D experience. Nor do I think most of you would continue if, during an RPG session where someone starting describing r*pe or attempted r*pe, someone else said, "Hey, I'm a victim, I don't want to talk about that stuff during the game, ever." Most of you would recognize the topic could be over the line for a lot of people. Most of you would be willing to acknowledge legitimate trauma. It might seem to you this kind of behavior is unusual. But I have seen it. And I've heard about it plenty of times. I think it's worth noting that, sooner or later, a lot of end up being traumatized. Rates of sexual assault are disturbingly, staggeringly high. Many of us will get physically attacked. A lot of us will end up getting cancer. Half of us will be "mentally ill" in our lifetimes; about 20% of us will get mental health treatment this year.

So without squelching just anything bad that could happen in a game, I think it's worth having some consciousness that bad, real life things can intrude on an imaginary game, sometimes surprisingly. Sometimes, we should know better. Other times, it's like it's out of nowhere, and that's why communication is important.

I mean, I've been in plenty of games that have had kidnapping slavery. But let's say I was running a game, and something like that happened, and the player said, "Hey, look, I'm Somalian, and my cousin was kidnapped by pirates, and died escaping, could we not do human trafficking in this game?" I would do everything I could to accommodate them. I've met people who have fled violent genocide. It's important to remember that just because something is outside your experience, because it might be comparatively rare among people you know, doesn't mean it's not 100% real for the people who go through it. So before you say, "Well, no one at my table has those experiences," the odds are at least one person has had suffering beyond what they have ever told you. And they may have just bit their lip and said nothing to your face, while you dragged them through memories of the bad old days. Because they wanted to be considerate toward you. But that doesn't have to just happen.

There is flexibility for different people to have the different experiences they want. And there should be some way for someone to tell the group, "oh, hell no." Maybe not the X-card, for your group. But something. Time-out gesture, whatever. An opportunity to course-correct before the fun elf-game turns into a crisis call to their counselor.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
There are plenty of healthy, capable people out there, who, nonetheless, when encountering certain material in a role-playing context, can go from "this is a fun activity I find personally enriching" to "this is an upsetting situation where I am no longer having the fun I wanted to, and continuing to deal with this situation is going to evoke real-world re-traumatizations, instead of the fun experience of an imaginary set of experiences."

Yeah, and they either say something about it, or don't play with that group anymore. No "healthy, capable people" need an X-card, it's a crutch for the mentally deficient who should probably be spending their time doing something more valuable with their time like getting counseling.

Quote from: Brad on February 03, 2024, 04:12:28 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
There are plenty of healthy, capable people out there, who, nonetheless, when encountering certain material in a role-playing context, can go from "this is a fun activity I find personally enriching" to "this is an upsetting situation where I am no longer having the fun I wanted to, and continuing to deal with this situation is going to evoke real-world re-traumatizations, instead of the fun experience of an imaginary set of experiences."

Yeah, and they either say something about it, or don't play with that group anymore. No "healthy, capable people" need an X-card, it's a crutch for the mentally deficient who should probably be spending their time doing something more valuable with their time like getting counseling.

I just hope, if you're ever in a bad place, someone is kind to you.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
There are plenty of healthy, capable people out there, who, nonetheless, when encountering certain material in a role-playing context, can go from "this is a fun activity I find personally enriching" to "this is an upsetting situation where I am no longer having the fun I wanted to, and continuing to deal with this situation is going to evoke real-world re-traumatizations, instead of the fun experience of an imaginary set of experiences." This is not a failure to distinguish reality from fantasy; this is an acknowledgement that role-playing games are supposed to be a fun experience, shared by engaged and self-determined adults, and not a situation where someone is distracted by harm and distress they have suffered or been threatened with in the real world.

It's like if you are having a snowball fight, and someone starts throwing snowballs full of ice. You get upset, and you don't want to play any more. You are not seriously, permanently injured. You will be more or less fine. But you aren't having fun. That doesn't mean you don't like snowball fights, or you can't handle being in a snowball fight. Being hit with hard ice isn't an assumed or accepted part of a snowball fight to most people. The experience sucks, and you want it to end. So you stand up and say, "Hey, guys. No more throwing ice or I'm out." So then it comes down to this: do the iceball throwers let you leave, or do you leave? Or are they the sort of people who keep throwing ice anyway, and laugh about it?

I don't think most of the posters here would assume r*pe is a normal part of the D&D experience. Nor do I think most of you would continue if, during an RPG session where someone starting describing r*pe or attempted r*pe, someone else said, "Hey, I'm a victim, I don't want to talk about that stuff during the game, ever." Most of you would recognize the topic could be over the line for a lot of people. Most of you would be willing to acknowledge legitimate trauma. It might seem to you this kind of behavior is unusual. But I have seen it. And I've heard about it plenty of times. I think it's worth noting that, sooner or later, a lot of end up being traumatized. Rates of sexual assault are disturbingly, staggeringly high. Many of us will get physically attacked. A lot of us will end up getting cancer. Half of us will be "mentally ill" in our lifetimes; about 20% of us will get mental health treatment this year.

So without squelching just anything bad that could happen in a game, I think it's worth having some consciousness that bad, real life things can intrude on an imaginary game, sometimes surprisingly. Sometimes, we should know better. Other times, it's like it's out of nowhere, and that's why communication is important.

I mean, I've been in plenty of games that have had kidnapping slavery. But let's say I was running a game, and something like that happened, and the player said, "Hey, look, I'm Somalian, and my cousin was kidnapped by pirates, and died escaping, could we not do human trafficking in this game?" I would do everything I could to accommodate them. I've met people who have fled violent genocide. It's important to remember that just because something is outside your experience, because it might be comparatively rare among people you know, doesn't mean it's not 100% real for the people who go through it. So before you say, "Well, no one at my table has those experiences," the odds are at least one person has had suffering beyond what they have ever told you. And they may have just bit their lip and said nothing to your face, while you dragged them through memories of the bad old days. Because they wanted to be considerate toward you. But that doesn't have to just happen.

There is flexibility for different people to have the different experiences they want. And there should be some way for someone to tell the group, "oh, hell no." Maybe not the X-card, for your group. But something. Time-out gesture, whatever. An opportunity to course-correct before the fun elf-game turns into a crisis call to their counselor.

So we're talking about mentally ill people who you want to redefine as normal.

Plus you're also pushing the idea that everybody should have "safety" tools in their table...

Counterpoints:

If playing pretend elfgames puts your mental/emotional wellbeing at risk you shouldn't be playing elfgames.

If someone feels my table isn't for them there's the original way for someone to tell the group, "oh, hell no."... You get up and fuck off.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
Blah, blah, blah...  I make up my own world and you better follow it's rules or else.

Shut up and go home.

Quote from: BadApple on February 03, 2024, 05:02:48 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
Blah, blah, blah...  I make up my own world and you better follow it's rules or else.

Shut up and go home.

Did you just X-card me?

(https://gifdb.com/images/high/gasp-ryan-reynolds-deadpool-dey874h9uilg5gpw.gif)

As a GM and a creator you've no obligation to sanitize your table for anyone's fee fees. It's not as if you are holding a gun to their heads and saying 'you got to play my game'.

Bottom line is don't play with people who can't handle a mature game. It's really that simple.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 06:46:22 PM
As a GM and a creator you've no obligation to sanitize your table for anyone's fee fees. It's not as if you are holding a gun to their heads and saying 'you got to play my game'.

Bottom line is don't play with people who can't handle a mature game. It's really that simple.

Exactly.  I may not like your game but I can get up and walk away.  I'm also mature enough, and was at 19, to ask about the content. 

Any human that can't do this needs to grow or heal until he or she can or wave off games completely.

Quote from: BadApple on February 03, 2024, 07:09:21 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 06:46:22 PM
As a GM and a creator you've no obligation to sanitize your table for anyone's fee fees. It's not as if you are holding a gun to their heads and saying 'you got to play my game'.

Bottom line is don't play with people who can't handle a mature game. It's really that simple.

Exactly.  I may not like your game but I can get up and walk away.  I'm also mature enough, and was at 19, to ask about the content. 

Any human that can't do this needs to grow or heal until he or she can or wave off games completely.

This is it, mate. And a bit of communication beforehand goes a long way to see if a player (or GM) is the right fit.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 04:14:18 PM
I just hope, if you're ever in a bad place, someone is kind to you.

Imagine thinking I've never been in a "bad place". Just imagine that. Never used an X-card, though, so at least I have my dignity!

I have but one trigger warning to offer: "No one gives a damn what triggers you--nor should they."

This is straight-up nonsense. Dealing with your personal issues (and I have plenty myself) are your responsibility and no one else's. This is just people trying to insert their ideology into the hobby through a back door, disguising their authoritarianism as manners. This and "Safety Tools" should be met with nothing but scorn and mockery.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
I don't think most of the posters here would assume r*pe is a normal part of the D&D experience. Nor do I think most of you would continue if, during an RPG session where someone starting describing r*pe or attempted r*pe, someone else said, "Hey, I'm a victim, I don't want to talk about that stuff during the game, ever."

On the contrary! Rope is very much a normal part of a D&D experience. It is an essential element of every adventurer's gear, and woe to those who forget to pack a coil of rope! We've used it in our games to scale and descend sheer surfaces, to navigate labyrinths, and to lash together logs to make signal towers in the wilderness, among other things.

Describing rope happens often in our games. We've had lengthy discussions about the virtues, qualities, and care of different types of rope, be it hemp, linen, cotton, coir, jute, straw, or sisal. But anyone who dares to bring up synthetic fibers in our group-- polypropylene, nylon, polyesters, polyethylene, or God-forbid the "acrylics" that Storygamers love so much-- we show them the door. We had an incident last week when Dave threw down his card and said "Acrylic rope is an anachronism that triggers mah sense a-disbelief and ruins mah immershun!" (Dave's characters often sound like Foghorn Leghorn.)

Here's the Use Rope skill form 3.5 edition, in case you forgot:

QuoteSecure a Grappling Hook: Securing a grappling hook requires a Use Rope check (DC 10, +2 for every 10 feet of distance the grappling hook is thrown, to a maximum DC of 20 at 50 feet). Failure by 4 or less indicates that the hook fails to catch and falls, allowing you to try again. Failure by 5 or more indicates that the grappling hook initially holds, but comes loose after 1d4 rounds of supporting weight. This check is made secretly, so that you don't know whether the rope will hold your weight.

Bind a Character: When you bind another character with a rope, any Escape Artist check that the bound character makes is opposed by your Use Rope check.

Quote from: Aglondir on February 03, 2024, 11:06:09 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
I don't think most of the posters here would assume r*pe is a normal part of the D&D experience. Nor do I think most of you would continue if, during an RPG session where someone starting describing r*pe or attempted r*pe, someone else said, "Hey, I'm a victim, I don't want to talk about that stuff during the game, ever."

On the contrary! Rope is very much a normal part of a D&D experience. It is an essential element of every adventurer's gear, and woe to those who forget to pack a coil of rope! We've used it in our games to scale and descend sheer surfaces, to navigate labyrinths, and to lash together logs to make signal towers in the wilderness, among other things.

Describing rope happens often in our games. We've had lengthy discussions about the virtues, qualities, and care of different types of rope, be it hemp, linen, cotton, coir, jute, straw, or sisal. But anyone who dares to bring up synthetic fibers in our group-- polypropylene, nylon, polyesters, polyethylene, or God-forbid the "acrylics" that Storygamers love so much-- we show them the door. We had an incident last week when Dave threw down his card and said "Acrylic rope is an anachronism that triggers mah sense a-disbelief and ruins mah immershun!" (Dave's characters often sound like Foghorn Leghorn.)

Here's the Use Rope skill form 3.5 edition, in case you forgot:

QuoteSecure a Grappling Hook: Securing a grappling hook requires a Use Rope check (DC 10, +2 for every 10 feet of distance the grappling hook is thrown, to a maximum DC of 20 at 50 feet). Failure by 4 or less indicates that the hook fails to catch and falls, allowing you to try again. Failure by 5 or more indicates that the grappling hook initially holds, but comes loose after 1d4 rounds of supporting weight. This check is made secretly, so that you don't know whether the rope will hold your weight.

Bind a Character: When you bind another character with a rope, any Escape Artist check that the bound character makes is opposed by your Use Rope check.

Indeed, Aglondir!

Rope is a very handy item that should be in every Adventurer's backpack that its worth its salt. Extremely sound advice!

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 04:14:18 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 03, 2024, 04:12:28 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
There are plenty of healthy, capable people out there, who, nonetheless, when encountering certain material in a role-playing context, can go from "this is a fun activity I find personally enriching" to "this is an upsetting situation where I am no longer having the fun I wanted to, and continuing to deal with this situation is going to evoke real-world re-traumatizations, instead of the fun experience of an imaginary set of experiences."

Yeah, and they either say something about it, or don't play with that group anymore. No "healthy, capable people" need an X-card, it's a crutch for the mentally deficient who should probably be spending their time doing something more valuable with their time like getting counseling.

I just hope, if you're ever in a bad place, someone is kind to you.

If they are, it certainly won't be you or your ilk. The people that spend all day pontificating about inclusivity and kindness are the most spiteful, damaged creatures it is one's misfortune to encounter.

Quote from: Aglondir on February 03, 2024, 11:06:09 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
I don't think most of the posters here would assume r*pe is a normal part of the D&D experience. Nor do I think most of you would continue if, during an RPG session where someone starting describing r*pe or attempted r*pe, someone else said, "Hey, I'm a victim, I don't want to talk about that stuff during the game, ever."

On the contrary! Rope is very much a normal part of a D&D experience. It is an essential element of every adventurer's gear, and woe to those who forget to pack a coil of rope! We've used it in our games to scale and descend sheer surfaces, to navigate labyrinths, and to lash together logs to make signal towers in the wilderness, among other things.

Describing rope happens often in our games. We've had lengthy discussions about the virtues, qualities, and care of different types of rope, be it hemp, linen, cotton, coir, jute, straw, or sisal. But anyone who dares to bring up synthetic fibers in our group-- polypropylene, nylon, polyesters, polyethylene, or God-forbid the "acrylics" that Storygamers love so much-- we show them the door. We had an incident last week when Dave threw down his card and said "Acrylic rope is an anachronism that triggers mah sense a-disbelief and ruins mah immershun!" (Dave's characters often sound like Foghorn Leghorn.)

Here's the Use Rope skill form 3.5 edition, in case you forgot:

QuoteSecure a Grappling Hook: Securing a grappling hook requires a Use Rope check (DC 10, +2 for every 10 feet of distance the grappling hook is thrown, to a maximum DC of 20 at 50 feet). Failure by 4 or less indicates that the hook fails to catch and falls, allowing you to try again. Failure by 5 or more indicates that the grappling hook initially holds, but comes loose after 1d4 rounds of supporting weight. This check is made secretly, so that you don't know whether the rope will hold your weight.

Bind a Character: When you bind another character with a rope, any Escape Artist check that the bound character makes is opposed by your Use Rope check.

And don't forget that rope can also be used to tie up a potential victim for...  well, let's not get into THAT.

Wait, did I post that, or just think it?

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM


I don't think most of the posters here would assume r*pe is a normal part of the D&D experience. Nor do I think most of you would continue if, during an RPG session where someone starting describing r*pe or attempted r*pe, someone else said, "Hey, I'm a victim, I don't want to talk about that stuff during the game, ever." Most of you would recognize the topic could be over the line for a lot of people. Most of you would be willing to acknowledge legitimate trauma. It might seem to you this kind of behavior is unusual. But I have seen it. And I've heard about it plenty of times. I think it's worth noting that, sooner or later, a lot of end up being traumatized. Rates of sexual assault are disturbingly, staggeringly high. Many of us will get physically attacked. A lot of us will end up getting cancer. Half of us will be "mentally ill" in our lifetimes; about 20% of us will get mental health treatment this year.

We KNOW, it's pretty common among the circles YOU travel with, the woke are sex pests. The more they claim "safety" tools are needed the more I'm convinced other wokeists need them to protect them from the one saying it's a must.

But it's pretty rare among normal non-leftard people, we don't like to play in degenerate games or with degenerates.

So we don't see it nor do we ever hear about it EXCEPT when yet another wokist is outed as a sex pest caught in video during a live play stream.

It's funny how this things work.

So, given how much you insist everybody needs "safety" tools, my educated guess is that YOU are the sex pest.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 02, 2024, 01:50:09 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 01, 2024, 02:32:09 AM

It's a retarted example. No one consents to hitting people over the head with a chair when playing D&D for any reason. The point of the X-Card is that everyone agrees to use it, and in the manner intended, can be used for abuse.

In fact, I am not aware of any game being played anywhere where the X-card has been used like some people seem to think it is, like some kind of red-light-green-light sub-game. If that ever happened, that game would be over pretty quickly. It's an oops button. It means, dump the warp core.

This has been my sole experience using X-Cards every bloody time.  What's worst is that sometimes the people using it don't even mean to be dickwads and genuinely just don't like what's going on in the game because it's not living up to their expectations.  Thus, becoming a tool to ensure the game doesn't enter areas they dislike. Functionally,  this kills the game.

In other cases I've seen it maliciously abused, several cons in my area that used it and a few larger one's outside my area as well. What's funny about it, is it kinda relates to someone's story about a vegan friend being a control freak. When I first noticed X cards at some cons nothing really happened besides annoying trolls here and there and maybe one snowflake. But as the years went by, more and more snowflakes would abuse these cards and worsr, some people would basically hold games hostage and shame GMs and other players if they dared to question them. Using the X-Cards.  This only worked at cons that bought into all the hate speech and other woke dog whistles which on paper where meant to prevent people from being turbo dicks. Instead, they protected the turbo dicks and basically killed the gaming scene whenever they showed up to "play".

I've even been seeing this behavior in my local game stores. But the worst of it is online, where all it takes is ome bad actor to abuse these "saftey tools". A long time ago, I thought they where harmless and would make that one in a million shy, anxious and unsocical person more comfortable. But after way to many bad experiences, I disagree with them. Its to the point where I'm starting to believe the rhetoric where saftey tools where always about control with how often theu are used to exert control, either subtley or maliciously.

Wouldn't a paladin who DOES NOT kill an undead be an oath breaker?
As far as "trigger warnings" go, only thing I say is no unnecessary violence towards children or animals.

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on February 04, 2024, 01:19:49 AM
Wouldn't a paladin who DOES NOT kill an undead be an oath breaker?
As far as "trigger warnings" go, only thing I say is no unnecessary violence towards children or animals.

I assure you, whenever I have the PCs watch starving children fight ravenous dogs, it's necessary for them to make GP with betting.

In regards to the topic of trigger warnings. Not a fan of what they are now, they are a social crutch and disrupt the game in my experience. Doing a scene, pausing to establish a trigger warning then carrying on just kills it for me. Content warnings for the game so people know what to expext? That's all fine and dandy as its presenting what the game is so people can avoid it as needed.

Now, something I'm on the fence about are those "content sheets" which cover all the stuff a player dislike or is okay with. A part of me likes them because information is good, but the part of me that's been burned to many times or put into annoying positions because of them dislikes them. So I'm on the fence about them.

Personally, I prefer to just say "this game has x themes" and move on. If something during the game mqkes someone really uncomfortable they can message me discreetly and I'll fade to black, move along or switch focus. But i expect an explanation because this might be a deal breaker or it might allow me to ensure the situation doesn't crop up again. Since I now run for a heavily curated group of players, this hasn't happened in a hot minute. Unfortunately, when I'm a player, I'm not nearly as lucky.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 04, 2024, 01:32:41 AM

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on February 04, 2024, 01:19:49 AM
Wouldn't a paladin who DOES NOT kill an undead be an oath breaker?
As far as "trigger warnings" go, only thing I say is no unnecessary violence towards children or animals.

I assure you, whenever I have the PCs watch starving children fight ravenous dogs, it's necessary for them to make GP with betting.

I said no unnecessary ;) If my players were to portray the above with a good reason, I might allow that.

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on February 04, 2024, 01:19:49 AM
Wouldn't a paladin who DOES NOT kill an undead be an oath breaker?

That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The reasoning was that the vampire spawn is a person, since they have intelligence, feel emotions, cannot go against their Master's orders and suffer if slain. I maintained that they are undead monsters. A mockery of life and that it was actually a mercy to release this poor soul of its grotesque existence.

When it was ruled that if I went through it I would lose my powers as a Paladin of Lathander, I decided to leave the game.

I still maintain that I acted 100% in line with my character's alignment, backstory and religion.

Honestly, after reading some responses here, I am very happy I actually left that game before wasting more of my time. It seems that kind of crowd was not going to be a fun time sooner or later.

Quote from: Kahoona on February 04, 2024, 01:47:53 AM
In regards to the topic of trigger warnings. Not a fan of what they are now, they are a social crutch and disrupt the game in my experience. Doing a scene, pausing to establish a trigger warning then carrying on just kills it for me. Content warnings for the game so people know what to expext? That's all fine and dandy as its presenting what the game is so people can avoid it as needed.

Now, something I'm on the fence about are those "content sheets" which cover all the stuff a player dislike or is okay with. A part of me likes them because information is good, but the part of me that's been burned to many times or put into annoying positions because of them dislikes them. So I'm on the fence about them.

Personally, I prefer to just say "this game has x themes" and move on. If something during the game mqkes someone really uncomfortable they can message me discreetly and I'll fade to black, move along or switch focus. But i expect an explanation because this might be a deal breaker or it might allow me to ensure the situation doesn't crop up again. Since I now run for a heavily curated group of players, this hasn't happened in a hot minute. Unfortunately, when I'm a player, I'm not nearly as lucky.

We did have those, but I turned mine blank with the comment of "I have no trigger warnings. Everything is fair game for me". Then, on Session 0 we discussed the trigger warnings for the group, and as far as I can understand, the agreement was: "No sexual stuff. No racism. No bullying. No bigotry."

Then, it somehow turns out that calling the vampire spawn a "filthy bloodsucker" before drawing my sword was somehow some form of bigotry and/or bullying and thus, I was found to be in breach of the trigger warning agreement. This halted the game and lead to the lengthy discussion about the situation and eventually to the ruling about my character losing breaking his Paladin oath if I went through with the attack. Which ultimately lead to me leaving the game.


Before this experience, I was neutral to the idea of trigger warnings, safety tools or X-Cards, only actually being somewhat familiar with a very loose idea of the term "trigger warnings" and not with the other two. After this experience and the discussion on this thread, my mind has been changed and now I do believe its invention and enforcement is malicious and a net negative to the roleplaying experience.

Quote from: Kahoona on February 04, 2024, 01:13:21 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 02, 2024, 01:50:09 PM
In fact, I am not aware of any game being played anywhere where the X-card has been used like some people seem to think it is, like some kind of red-light-green-light sub-game. If that ever happened, that game would be over pretty quickly. It's an oops button. It means, dump the warp core.

This has been my sole experience using X-Cards every bloody time.  What's worst is that sometimes the people using it don't even mean to be dickwads and genuinely just don't like what's going on in the game because it's not living up to their expectations.  Thus, becoming a tool to ensure the game doesn't enter areas they dislike. Functionally,  this kills the game.

and then

Quote from: Kahoona on February 04, 2024, 01:13:21 AM
When I first noticed X cards at some cons nothing really happened besides annoying trolls here and there and maybe one snowflake. But as the years went by, more and more snowflakes would abuse these cards and worsr, some people would basically hold games hostage and shame GMs and other players if they dared to question them.

Kahoona - these two statements seem contradictory, as I note with my bolding. According to your latter statement, when X-cards first turned up, nothing really happened - and frequent abuse only came later. But your first statement is that they have been abused every time.

How many games do you think you've played with the X-card? I don't use it in games I run, with the rare exception of a game where it's written into the rules. So I've GMed with it available three times, and played in convention games that used it maybe ten times, and played in five or six home games where the GM used it.

Again, I can imagine the X-card being abused, but I've never seen it happen. Actually, I've almost never seen it used. The one time I saw it invoked was when a player was taking a bunch of called shots to the groin on enemies, and the GM invoked the X-card, then explained that it as too close to sexual violence (which we had previous said was out of bounds).

I can believe that there are communities where it is being abused, but it's also clearly possible for it to be used in a non-abusive way. Notably, I don't play online except occasionally with people I already know face-to-face, so I have no experience with online communities.

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 02:08:12 AM

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on February 04, 2024, 01:19:49 AM
Wouldn't a paladin who DOES NOT kill an undead be an oath breaker?

That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The reasoning was that the vampire spawn is a person, since they have intelligence, feel emotions, cannot go against their Master's orders and suffer if slain. I maintained that they are undead monsters. A mockery of life and that it was actually a mercy to release this poor soul of its grotesque existence.

It seems more like a difference in what the undead actually are, which can vary from GM to GM, campaign to campaign, and even creature to creature.

Something the players and GM should discuss when it comes up.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 04, 2024, 02:38:55 AM

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 02:08:12 AM

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on February 04, 2024, 01:19:49 AM
Wouldn't a paladin who DOES NOT kill an undead be an oath breaker?

That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The reasoning was that the vampire spawn is a person, since they have intelligence, feel emotions, cannot go against their Master's orders and suffer if slain. I maintained that they are undead monsters. A mockery of life and that it was actually a mercy to release this poor soul of its grotesque existence.

It seems more like a difference in what the undead actually are, which can vary from GM to GM, campaign to campaign, and even creature to creature.

Something the players and GM should discuss when it comes up.

Well, yes, but it seems to me like something that should be discussed before it comes up if it differs from the setting or genre the DM stated was to be used.  And of course discussed in a mature manner that doesn't begin with "You're a bigot!"

People also need to have some damn sense when it comes to these things.  If you sign up to play Kult, don't clutch your pearls when some horrific thing happens.  If you are running Magical Kitties Save the Day, maybe don't spring weird sex shit on players out of nowhere. 

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 04, 2024, 02:38:55 AM

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 02:08:12 AM

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on February 04, 2024, 01:19:49 AM
Wouldn't a paladin who DOES NOT kill an undead be an oath breaker?

That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The reasoning was that the vampire spawn is a person, since they have intelligence, feel emotions, cannot go against their Master's orders and suffer if slain. I maintained that they are undead monsters. A mockery of life and that it was actually a mercy to release this poor soul of its grotesque existence.

It seems more like a difference in what the undead actually are, which can vary from GM to GM, campaign to campaign, and even creature to creature.

Something the players and GM should discuss when it comes up.

I can see that argument, but this was a D&D 5e game in the Forgotten Realms setting.

Both the Forgotten Realms wiki and the D&D 5e SRD list the Vampire Spawn as a Medium Neutral Evil undead. Which, as far as I understand, means that vampires are always evil unless specified.

I am not privy to recent changes to the lore, but as far as I know, Lathander, the Morninglord hates undead. So, as far as my character as a Paladin of Lathander and me as a Player know, vampires/undead are irredeemable monsters.

I said before in this thread that all the arguments levied where directed at me as a Player, not at my characters. I would have been 100% fine with their characters trying to convince my Paladin in character. Maybe I am just an old fart that has a different definition or roleplaying and metagaming but, alas, such was the way I left the game.

After reading all the discussions in this thread, I firmly believe I made the right call and I don't think I will miss that game. It seems this wasn't a fluke or an isolated one time incident. Most likely, there was going to be another sort of situation in the future as even though we had a Session 0 to discuss the tone of the game and their "trigger warnings", it appears I understood what was discussed in a way that is incompatible to the way the rest of the table understood it.

I bear them no ill will. But, it is apparent to me at this point in time that the way they are playing is not for me.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 04, 2024, 04:40:46 AM
People also need to have some damn sense when it comes to these things.  If you sign up to play Kult, don't clutch your pearls when some horrific thing happens.  If you are running Magical Kitties Save the Day, maybe don't spring weird sex shit on players out of nowhere.

Indeed, Yosemitemike!

Even without a session 0 discussion, just a cursory knowledge about that game or even just perusing its pages and looking at the art gives a very strong idea on its themes and tone.

As far as I know, in D&D alignment is not just a word, there are planes of existence that embody the alignments, with a plane of Law for where the Inevitables come from. Same for Avernus and such. So being "Evil" or "Good" is not just how fuzzy you feel inside after helping the old lady cross the road. These are tangible forces.

Specially so in the Forgotten Realms, where the gods are very real and at different points in time walked across the land.

All of this tells me as a Player and as a Paladin of Lathander that undead are Evil. Not just "kicking your dog" evil but cursed foul creatures that are a mockery of life that feeds on the living. Someone else said in a previous comment, there is a reason why the "Turn Undead" and "Protection from Evil" powers and spells exist.

For me, the DM just suddenly saying "vampires are not always evil in my world" is metagaming. My character has absolutely no way to know this. As I said before, if the other Players had their characters make a case on why we should not attack on sight and perhaps apprehend/interrogate the vampire, I would have been absolutely fine.

Instead, the game stopped and we had an almost 2 hour Out of Character discussion that boiled down to: "You are a murderhobo and a bigot".

Quote from: Mishihari on February 04, 2024, 04:22:35 AM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 04, 2024, 02:38:55 AM

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 02:08:12 AM

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on February 04, 2024, 01:19:49 AM
Wouldn't a paladin who DOES NOT kill an undead be an oath breaker?

That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The reasoning was that the vampire spawn is a person, since they have intelligence, feel emotions, cannot go against their Master's orders and suffer if slain. I maintained that they are undead monsters. A mockery of life and that it was actually a mercy to release this poor soul of its grotesque existence.

It seems more like a difference in what the undead actually are, which can vary from GM to GM, campaign to campaign, and even creature to creature.

Something the players and GM should discuss when it comes up.

Well, yes, but it seems to me like something that should be discussed before it comes up if it differs from the setting or genre the DM stated was to be used.  And of course discussed in a mature manner that doesn't begin with "You're a bigot!"

Exactly.

There has always been a 'safety tool' in old school games - The GM using common sense.

And if you're playing with a dickhead GM then just leave. It's really not complicated.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 04, 2024, 06:23:08 AM
There has always been a 'safety tool' in old school games - The GM using common sense.

And if you're playing with a dickhead GM then just leave. It's really not complicated.

This!

Greetings!

You did the right thing, Cipher. Stay away from Woke people running games.

The whole meta idea though that "Vampires are not always evil!" or "Undead are not always evil.", seems nice and all, but for roleplaying, again, why would a *Character* that is a inhabitant of that world, why would they even believe such? Beyond that, to a *Character*, why would it even matter? KILL THEM ALL!

Somewhere out there, there *might* be a more or less benevolent Rattlesnake.

Most people are smart enough to not give a damn about even contemplating such ideas. If they see a Rattlesnake, the correct response is to either move away quickly--or attack and kill it.

Undead creatures are an abomination. Beyond any such theological ideas, they are animated corpses, whether Ghouls, Zombies, Skeletons, or Vampires. These Undead creatures all typically slaughter, terrorize, and EAT human beings, and humanoids.

That is the essence of what Undead are. Evil, human-eating monsters that live on blood, souls, and spreading darkness and terror. There is not really much ground or merit in making a bunch of Undead "Not Evil"--they would not by essence then, really be "Undead." If they are truly noble and good, then their state of Undeathness itself is inconsistent. Redeem them, and they die and depart the mortal world properly. Whatever. Undeath, as a state of being, at its very core, is unnatural, dark, and evil.

Righteous Paladins and Clerics need to hunt these monsters down ruthlessly!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 04, 2024, 04:40:46 AMIf you are running Magical Kitties Save the Day, maybe don't spring weird sex shit on players out of nowhere.

Why must you limit my creative solutions like this?

Sometimes only a good Cleveland Steamer can save Princess Germania.

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 02:08:12 AM

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on February 04, 2024, 01:19:49 AM
Wouldn't a paladin who DOES NOT kill an undead be an oath breaker?

That was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The reasoning was that the vampire spawn is a person, since they have intelligence, feel emotions, cannot go against their Master's orders and suffer if slain. I maintained that they are undead monsters. A mockery of life and that it was actually a mercy to release this poor soul of its grotesque existence.

When it was ruled that if I went through it I would lose my powers as a Paladin of Lathander, I decided to leave the game.

I still maintain that I acted 100% in line with my character's alignment, backstory and religion.

Honestly, after reading some responses here, I am very happy I actually left that game before wasting more of my time. It seems that kind of crowd was not going to be a fun time sooner or later.

I am a DM. At my table, you would have gotten inspiration, assuming the Cleric hasn't clobbered the spawn already.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 04:14:18 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 03, 2024, 04:12:28 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
There are plenty of healthy, capable people out there, who, nonetheless, when encountering certain material in a role-playing context, can go from "this is a fun activity I find personally enriching" to "this is an upsetting situation where I am no longer having the fun I wanted to, and continuing to deal with this situation is going to evoke real-world re-traumatizations, instead of the fun experience of an imaginary set of experiences."

Yeah, and they either say something about it, or don't play with that group anymore. No "healthy, capable people" need an X-card, it's a crutch for the mentally deficient who should probably be spending their time doing something more valuable with their time like getting counseling.

I just hope, if you're ever in a bad place, someone is kind to you.

Guess what? Life isn't like that all of the time.

Sometimes you have nobody to rely on but yourself...and yes I have personal experience.

Those are the times where you go deep inside, find the courage to say "fuck it" , and move past the adversity facing you.

That exact adversity builds character, makes you stronger emotionally, and gives you confidence.

Which are the things woke culture is against.

Sure, we'd like to have help from time to time, but it's not always the case.

You have to face adversity in your life. Otherwise, you'll never grow as a person.

You'll end up has someone who "Triggered" by everything and playing the x-card the rest of your life.

And there's a whole generation of them.

Quote from: blackstone on February 04, 2024, 08:20:23 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 04:14:18 PM
I just hope, if you're ever in a bad place, someone is kind to you.

Guess what? Life isn't like that all of the time.

Sometimes you have nobody to rely on but yourself...and yes I have personal experience.

Those are the times where you go deep inside, find the courage to say "fuck it" , and move past the adversity facing you.

That exact adversity builds character, makes you stronger emotionally, and gives you confidence.

Which are the things woke culture is against.

Sure, we'd like to have help from time to time, but it's not always the case.

You have to face adversity in your life. Otherwise, you'll never grow as a person.

You'll end up has someone who "Triggered" by everything and playing the x-card the rest of your life.

And there's a whole generation of them.

I just hope, if someone is ever in a bad place, you are kind to them.

Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2024, 02:19:17 AM

Quote from: Kahoona on February 04, 2024, 01:13:21 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 02, 2024, 01:50:09 PM
In fact, I am not aware of any game being played anywhere where the X-card has been used like some people seem to think it is, like some kind of red-light-green-light sub-game. If that ever happened, that game would be over pretty quickly. It's an oops button. It means, dump the warp core.

This has been my sole experience using X-Cards every bloody time.  What's worst is that sometimes the people using it don't even mean to be dickwads and genuinely just don't like what's going on in the game because it's not living up to their expectations.  Thus, becoming a tool to ensure the game doesn't enter areas they dislike. Functionally,  this kills the game.

and then

Quote from: Kahoona on February 04, 2024, 01:13:21 AM
When I first noticed X cards at some cons nothing really happened besides annoying trolls here and there and maybe one snowflake. But as the years went by, more and more snowflakes would abuse these cards and worsr, some people would basically hold games hostage and shame GMs and other players if they dared to question them.

Kahoona - these two statements seem contradictory, as I note with my bolding. According to your latter statement, when X-cards first turned up, nothing really happened - and frequent abuse only came later. But your first statement is that they have been abused every time.

How many games do you think you've played with the X-card? I don't use it in games I run, with the rare exception of a game where it's written into the rules. So I've GMed with it available three times, and played in convention games that used it maybe ten times, and played in five or six home games where the GM used it.

Again, I can imagine the X-card being abused, but I've never seen it happen. Actually, I've almost never seen it used. The one time I saw it invoked was when a player was taking a bunch of called shots to the groin on enemies, and the GM invoked the X-card, then explained that it as too close to sexual violence (which we had previous said was out of bounds).

I can believe that there are communities where it is being abused, but it's also clearly possible for it to be used in a non-abusive way. Notably, I don't play online except occasionally with people I already know face-to-face, so I have no experience with online communities.

I see what people mean by you nitpicking as I clarified my experiences rather then leaving just a hyperbolic comment. Anywho, to give a proper response.

Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2024, 02:19:17 AMHow many games do you think you've played with the X-card?

A weirdly worded question. Are you implying I don't know my own experiences? If so, that's a heck of a leap.

Assuming this is just a weirdly worded thought, I've played somewhere in the ball park of 60 In person games with X Cards, this is including One Shots and Multi Session games. I've also ran about 5 In person games with X Cards 4 of them one shots, one of them several sessions. Online I've been in somewhere around 20 games with X Cards and I've run 2 online games with them.

When they first came up, they where not called X cards. Instead they where called Safety Cards at the cons that that used them. But they functioned the same way. They got used for two or three years.  Then stopped being used before resurfacing as X Cards. At which point they felt problematic.

Quote from: jhkim on February 04, 2024, 02:19:17 AMI can believe that there are communities where it is being abused, but it's also clearly possible for it to be used in a non-abusive way.

Good to hear you've had a better track record then me with X Cards. But for me, I've been burned to many times by strangers and acquaintances to view X Cards as anything but negative. Especially in Online games where every single one of those online games resulted in abuse of the X-Card.

Additionally, I think it's prudent to mention that the fact your GM who used the Card and then explained themselves goes against the "Usage" of the X-Cards. In an scenario exactly like that, these tools function as a crutch for someone to say "Yo. This is getting out of hand" which Im sure most gamers have experience.

Unfortunately, I've noticed that the usage of X-Cards and other tools like them rarely get used in that reasonable manner. Instead they get wielded like a hammer to force something to stop. And boy, is this even worst in online games where there's no social pressure to make someone behave themselves. As what I keep on experiencing is people using the X cards to stop negative outcomes, to control player actions they dislike and to control the game.

It's to the point where I avoid games that advertise Safety Tools,  as I feel the people drawn to those sorts of games are not there to have a collaborative experience but instead their to have a power fantasy. And for me, I play ttrpgs for the collaborative story.

So yea. The vast majority of my experiences with X-Cards has been poor. Resulting in my stance that they hurt games. If people have a problem during play, they should instead say something like an adult and talk it out or wait till after the session to address it. Having a talking stick/panic button/danger whistle to stop everything without an explanation. Doesn't really help address anything and it opens the door for bad actors to take advantage of accommodating people.

So what I'm gathering is, if you're ever in a game where you encounter absolutely unacceptable material to you, you must not use the X-card, like a manipulative psychopath, but instead get up and leave the gaming group, never to return, like a completely normal person with mature interpersonal and communication skills.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 04, 2024, 10:11:41 PM
So what I'm gathering is, if you're ever in a game where you encounter absolutely unacceptable material to you, you must not use the X-card, like a manipulative psychopath, but instead get up and leave the gaming group, never to return, like a completely normal person with mature interpersonal and communication skills.

You're not great at constructing arguments.
'You don't like the X-card, therefore you must put up with all unacceptable behavior at a table'.

Makes sense LOL

Quote from: SHARK on February 04, 2024, 02:26:26 PM
Greetings!

You did the right thing, Cipher. Stay away from Woke people running games.

The whole meta idea though that "Vampires are not always evil!" or "Undead are not always evil.", seems nice and all, but for roleplaying, again, why would a *Character* that is a inhabitant of that world, why would they even believe such? Beyond that, to a *Character*, why would it even matter? KILL THEM ALL!

Somewhere out there, there *might* be a more or less benevolent Rattlesnake.

Most people are smart enough to not give a damn about even contemplating such ideas. If they see a Rattlesnake, the correct response is to either move away quickly--or attack and kill it.

Undead creatures are an abomination. Beyond any such theological ideas, they are animated corpses, whether Ghouls, Zombies, Skeletons, or Vampires. These Undead creatures all typically slaughter, terrorize, and EAT human beings, and humanoids.

That is the essence of what Undead are. Evil, human-eating monsters that live on blood, souls, and spreading darkness and terror. There is not really much ground or merit in making a bunch of Undead "Not Evil"--they would not by essence then, really be "Undead." If they are truly noble and good, then their state of Undeathness itself is inconsistent. Redeem them, and they die and depart the mortal world properly. Whatever. Undeath, as a state of being, at its very core, is unnatural, dark, and evil.

Righteous Paladins and Clerics need to hunt these monsters down ruthlessly!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Indeed, Shark!

This has always been my understanding of undead, specially in games like D&D where "Good" and "Evil" are not just words, but actual planes of existence.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 04, 2024, 10:11:41 PM
So what I'm gathering is, if you're ever in a game where you encounter absolutely unacceptable material to you, you must not use the X-card, like a manipulative psychopath, but instead get up and leave the gaming group, never to return, like a completely normal person with mature interpersonal and communication skills.

Thats certainly one way to handle it. Another is to be a reasonable person and address the issue in the moment by speaking up or after the session rather then say. Screaming, blowing a whistle, breaking a chair over someone's head, pressing a panic button or repeatedly smacking a card and then not explaining yourself. As the key feature of X Cards is no explanation required to create a safe space free of judgment.

I can't speak for others in this thread, but as a I've said in my last post and implied in my other posts. Halting the game to communicate discomfort isn't an issue for me. I'd like to know if my player's are enjoying themselves or not. What I dislike is a blanket "stop this now" button then not communicating. As theirs no communication occuring, no progress is made. Which then opens the door for bad actors.

Quote from: Kahoona on February 04, 2024, 10:20:13 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 04, 2024, 10:11:41 PM
So what I'm gathering is, if you're ever in a game where you encounter absolutely unacceptable material to you, you must not use the X-card, like a manipulative psychopath, but instead get up and leave the gaming group, never to return, like a completely normal person with mature interpersonal and communication skills.

Thats certainly one way to handle it. Another is to be a reasonable person and address the issue in the moment by speaking up or after the session rather then say. Screaming, blowing a whistle, breaking a chair over someone's head, pressing a panic button or repeatedly smacking a card and then not explaining yourself. As the key feature of X Cards is no explanation required to create a safe space free of judgment.

I can't speak for others in this thread, but as a I've said in my last post and implied in my other posts. Halting the game to communicate discomfort isn't an issue for me. I'd like to know if my player's are enjoying themselves or not. What I dislike is a blanket "stop this now" button then not communicating. As theirs no communication occuring, no progress is made. Which then opens the door for bad actors.

See, you're sounding very reasonable to me right here. Communication is key.

The X-card is an emergency tool, it's not a communication tool. I'm not completely sold on the X-card specifically, but whether you have one or not, the game session can blow up. The reason the X-card isn't supposed to invite questions is because it's because it's not very nice to put someone on the spot and confess the bad things that have happened in their life to justify not continuing down that road. In my mind, it's probably better, on balance, to have it and not need it, and then to need it, and not have it. But maybe it's not such a great idea to put the veto power in the hands of someone who may not appreciate it, especially in the presence of strangers.

But I'm also not that optimistic about having mature, sensitive, reasonable discussions with people who might be near-strangers, either.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 04, 2024, 10:25:10 PM

Quote from: Kahoona on February 04, 2024, 10:20:13 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 04, 2024, 10:11:41 PM
So what I'm gathering is, if you're ever in a game where you encounter absolutely unacceptable material to you, you must not use the X-card, like a manipulative psychopath, but instead get up and leave the gaming group, never to return, like a completely normal person with mature interpersonal and communication skills.

Thats certainly one way to handle it. Another is to be a reasonable person and address the issue in the moment by speaking up or after the session rather then say. Screaming, blowing a whistle, breaking a chair over someone's head, pressing a panic button or repeatedly smacking a card and then not explaining yourself. As the key feature of X Cards is no explanation required to create a safe space free of judgment.

I can't speak for others in this thread, but as a I've said in my last post and implied in my other posts. Halting the game to communicate discomfort isn't an issue for me. I'd like to know if my player's are enjoying themselves or not. What I dislike is a blanket "stop this now" button then not communicating. As theirs no communication occuring, no progress is made. Which then opens the door for bad actors.

See, you're sounding very reasonable to me right here. Communication is key.

The X-card is an emergency tool, it's not a communication tool. I'm not completely sold on the X-card specifically, but whether you have one or not, the game session can blow up. The reason the X-card isn't supposed to invite questions is because it's because it's not very nice to put someone on the spot and confess the bad things that have happened in their life to justify not continuing down that road. In my mind, it's probably better, on balance, to have it and not need it, and then to need it, and not have it. But maybe it's not such a great idea to put the veto power in the hands of someone who may not appreciate it, especially in the presence of strangers.

But I'm also not that optimistic about having mature, sensitive, reasonable discussions with people who might be near-strangers, either.

An "emergency tool" needed when a player encounters a woke sex pest (they all are) or when a player wants to disrupt the game.

Take it and shove it up your woke ass.

I love how the idea that when 5 people at a table are cool with the game, and 1 isn't, the 1 person calmly quitting is a human rights violation, but the 5 should suck it up and dance to the tune of the minority.

"Emergency tool," like the game is on fire, or sinking in water and you need to break the windshield.

I understand the theory behind X-cards but like most, if not all, woke concepts, it's the unintended consequences that ruin it.

I personally assume people are generally selfish and depraved, in varying degrees.  Most become well adjusted adults, and even though selfish at heart, they understand it is important to temper their base feelings for the betterment of the whole.  Then there are the woke, who revel in their selfishness and look forward to express their nature in every possible situation.  X-cards cannot work as long as there are people who will exploit its use.  And those few who do exploit it ruin it for the rest who might actually use the cards as intended.

But see, if everyone used the cards as intended, the irony is, you don't need X-cards.  Because everyone would be well adjusted stable individuals who are able to communicate in a rational manner so that everyone can have a good time at the table.  X-cards would be redundant.

And I agree that if you have severe trauma where certain roleplay can set off terrible thoughts and pain, then you should seek help resolving those issues before partaking in a hobby that can trigger it.  It's like the whole world needs to babysit and tippy toe around everyone who have issues.  I'd think it's more polite and courteous for said individual to treat the trauma than expect others to cater to your needs all the time.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 12:24:48 AM
I love how the idea that when 5 people at a table are cool with the game, and 1 isn't, the 1 person calmly quitting is a human rights violation, but the 5 should suck it up and dance to the tune of the minority.

"Emergency tool," like the game is on fire, or sinking in water and you need to break the windshield.

Agreed. I have no words for the contempt I feel for people who equate "comfort" with "safety."

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 04, 2024, 10:14:07 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 04, 2024, 10:11:41 PM
So what I'm gathering is, if you're ever in a game where you encounter absolutely unacceptable material to you, you must not use the X-card, like a manipulative psychopath, but instead get up and leave the gaming group, never to return, like a completely normal person with mature interpersonal and communication skills.

You're not great at constructing arguments.
'You don't like the X-card, therefore you must put up with all unacceptable behavior at a table'.

Makes sense LOL

Greetings!

*Laughing*! Ahh, Rob! So true, my friend!

Your observation had me rolling!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: blackstone on February 04, 2024, 08:20:23 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 04:14:18 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 03, 2024, 04:12:28 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 03:54:29 PM
There are plenty of healthy, capable people out there, who, nonetheless, when encountering certain material in a role-playing context, can go from "this is a fun activity I find personally enriching" to "this is an upsetting situation where I am no longer having the fun I wanted to, and continuing to deal with this situation is going to evoke real-world re-traumatizations, instead of the fun experience of an imaginary set of experiences."

Yeah, and they either say something about it, or don't play with that group anymore. No "healthy, capable people" need an X-card, it's a crutch for the mentally deficient who should probably be spending their time doing something more valuable with their time like getting counseling.

I just hope, if you're ever in a bad place, someone is kind to you.

Guess what? Life isn't like that all of the time.

Sometimes you have nobody to rely on but yourself...and yes I have personal experience.

Those are the times where you go deep inside, find the courage to say "fuck it" , and move past the adversity facing you.

That exact adversity builds character, makes you stronger emotionally, and gives you confidence.

Which are the things woke culture is against.

Sure, we'd like to have help from time to time, but it's not always the case.

You have to face adversity in your life. Otherwise, you'll never grow as a person.

You'll end up has someone who "Triggered" by everything and playing the x-card the rest of your life.

And there's a whole generation of them.

Greetings!

Damn right, my friend! Just like a strike by a flight of A-10 Warthogs, man.

All these whining kiddies yammering about being "Triggered" because someone said or described something that hurt their feelings, or reminded them of some self-diagnosed fear, really demonstrate how soft and weak they are.

I'm sorry, the whole "I got triggered!" shrieking by these people is just so much BS. Becoming an adult means that you have to become tough, resilient, and self-reliant. Many of life's problems and challenges can be very difficult, and as you said, lots of times you must face it all by yourself. Either no one is around and able to help you, or no one else gives a fuck. Either way, you have to overcome it by yourself, and emerge victorious.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 05:10:30 AM
All of this tells me as a Player and as a Paladin of Lathander that undead are Evil. Not just "kicking your dog" evil but cursed foul creatures that are a mockery of life that feeds on the living. Someone else said in a previous comment, there is a reason why the "Turn Undead" and "Protection from Evil" powers and spells exist.

For me, the DM just suddenly saying "vampires are not always evil in my world" is metagaming. My character has absolutely no way to know this. As I said before, if the other Players had their characters make a case on why we should not attack on sight and perhaps apprehend/interrogate the vampire, I would have been absolutely fine.

Instead, the game stopped and we had an almost 2 hour Out of Character discussion that boiled down to: "You are a murderhobo and a bigot".

There was a failure of communication which could well be the fault of the DM.

However, your demands about vampires is wrong. It is the DM's world, and he gets to decide about what the rules for undead are. If the DM says that heroic, good-aligned vampire exist like Blade (in Marvel) or Regis (in The Witcher), then that's the DM's ruling. From web search, there apparently are even canonical good vampires in Faerun - like Thibbledorf Pwent, who was eventually cured of his vampirism. From Pwent's bio:

QuoteIt was revealed that Pwent rose from his grave in Gauntlgrym. He was not dead, but nor was he alive. He had been turned into a vampire by Dor'crae. He hunted and fed off the blood of goblins and other monsters. However, he feared what he would become. After a brief talk with Drizzt in 1463 DR, Pwent decided to wait for the sun to rise in order to commit suicide. However, he never went through with the act. When Bruenor returned to Gauntlgrym to retrieve his axe, Pwent was discovered to have escaped back into the caves after his talk with Drizzt. He was now the leader of an undead band of drow. Bruenor vowed to return to free his friend from the curse of vampirism.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Thibbledorf_Pwent

It sounds like you and the DM disagreed about the true nature of undead in the game-world, as well as what a Paladin of Lathander would believe. That's not in-character discussion -- it's something that your character would know. But you're declaring here "The DM was wrong. I get to decide the nature of undead in the game-world."

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:04:47 AM
It sounds like you and the DM disagreed about the true nature of undead in the game-world, as well as what a Paladin of Lathander would believe. That's not in-character discussion -- it's something that your character would know. But you're declaring here "The DM was wrong. I get to decide the nature of undead in the game-world."

Lathander is pretty canonically zealously anti-undead, e.g. https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Lathander:

Quote
They were intolerant of evil, especially undead and inaction that caused evil to prosper.[28]

and

Quote
Though liked for his many positive qualities, Lathander also had a reputation for displaying the flaws common to the young, such as zealotry, vanity, and excess.[20] Though enthusiastically altruistic and only slightly vain, it was said by his critics that his aggressive do-gooder mentality often prevented him from taking more sensible courses of action. His headstrong conceit could blind him to the consequences of his actions as in his idealistic crusades he simply attacked directly and hoped for the best, ignoring the ramifications.[13]

If I were involved with anything approaching the canonical Forgotten Realms and wanted to change that, it's the sort of thing that the player of the Lathander-follower would need to know about in advance. The old scenario Murder in Baldur's Gate is full of racism, classism, etc...

Quote from: pawsplay on February 04, 2024, 09:34:12 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 04, 2024, 08:20:23 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 04:14:18 PM
I just hope, if you're ever in a bad place, someone is kind to you.

Guess what? Life isn't like that all of the time.

Sometimes you have nobody to rely on but yourself...and yes I have personal experience.

Those are the times where you go deep inside, find the courage to say "fuck it" , and move past the adversity facing you.

That exact adversity builds character, makes you stronger emotionally, and gives you confidence.

Which are the things woke culture is against.

Sure, we'd like to have help from time to time, but it's not always the case.

You have to face adversity in your life. Otherwise, you'll never grow as a person.

You'll end up has someone who "Triggered" by everything and playing the x-card the rest of your life.

And there's a whole generation of them.

I just hope, if someone is ever in a bad place, you are kind to them.

I of course I would and I have, but you completely missed the point:

sometimes, just sometimes, you have to get past life's obstacles on your own.

In those moments, you have to find the strength of character to move past them.

In doing so, you become a better person.

"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:04:47 AM

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 05:10:30 AM
All of this tells me as a Player and as a Paladin of Lathander that undead are Evil. Not just "kicking your dog" evil but cursed foul creatures that are a mockery of life that feeds on the living. Someone else said in a previous comment, there is a reason why the "Turn Undead" and "Protection from Evil" powers and spells exist.

For me, the DM just suddenly saying "vampires are not always evil in my world" is metagaming. My character has absolutely no way to know this. As I said before, if the other Players had their characters make a case on why we should not attack on sight and perhaps apprehend/interrogate the vampire, I would have been absolutely fine.

Instead, the game stopped and we had an almost 2 hour Out of Character discussion that boiled down to: "You are a murderhobo and a bigot".

There was a failure of communication which could well be the fault of the DM.

However, your demands about vampires is wrong. It is the DM's world, and he gets to decide about what the rules for undead are. If the DM says that heroic, good-aligned vampire exist like Blade (in Marvel) or Regis (in The Witcher), then that's the DM's ruling. From web search, there apparently are even canonical good vampires in Faerun - like Thibbledorf Pwent, who was eventually cured of his vampirism. From Pwent's bio:

QuoteIt was revealed that Pwent rose from his grave in Gauntlgrym. He was not dead, but nor was he alive. He had been turned into a vampire by Dor'crae. He hunted and fed off the blood of goblins and other monsters. However, he feared what he would become. After a brief talk with Drizzt in 1463 DR, Pwent decided to wait for the sun to rise in order to commit suicide. However, he never went through with the act. When Bruenor returned to Gauntlgrym to retrieve his axe, Pwent was discovered to have escaped back into the caves after his talk with Drizzt. He was now the leader of an undead band of drow. Bruenor vowed to return to free his friend from the curse of vampirism.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Thibbledorf_Pwent

It sounds like you and the DM disagreed about the true nature of undead in the game-world, as well as what a Paladin of Lathander would believe. That's not in-character discussion -- it's something that your character would know. But you're declaring here "The DM was wrong. I get to decide the nature of undead in the game-world."

Which BTW could have been avoided if the DM told the OP that Lathander in his version of FR was different.

AFAICT, he did nothing of the sort.

Fault is 100% on the DM.

Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 10:22:50 AM
Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

jhkim BOT: working as intended.  ;)

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 10:22:50 AM
Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but he keeps doubling down on his stance. It's like he's being a contrarian for contrarian-sake.

The funny thing about all this superfluous X-card safety bollocks is that no one would have even given a shit if these were proposed back in the day (although I doubt many folks would have actually used them, of course).

It's the timing that is the real issue. That is to say, in 'modern' gaming times, where we have childish ball bags attempting to control what you should or shouldn't do in your games that has completely exacerbated the whole issue.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 08:00:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:04:47 AM
There was a failure of communication which could well be the fault of the DM.

However, your demands about vampires is wrong. It is the DM's world, and he gets to decide about what the rules for undead are. If the DM says that heroic, good-aligned vampire exist like Blade (in Marvel) or Regis (in The Witcher), then that's the DM's ruling. From web search, there apparently are even canonical good vampires in Faerun - like Thibbledorf Pwent, who was eventually cured of his vampirism.

Which BTW could have been avoided if the DM told the OP that Lathander in his version of FR was different.

AFAICT, he did nothing of the sort.

Fault is 100% on the DM.

By Cipher's own account, all the other players understood this aspect of the world. Also by his own account, they stopped the game and had a lengthy out-of-character discussion about the facts of this.

As he put it,

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 05:10:30 AM
For me, the DM just suddenly saying "vampires are not always evil in my world" is metagaming. My character has absolutely no way to know this. As I said before, if the other Players had their characters make a case on why we should not attack on sight and perhaps apprehend/interrogate the vampire, I would have been absolutely fine.

If the DM says "vampires aren't always evil in this world" -- then that might be a failure of the DM, but if so, the correction should be for Cipher to say "OK, I didn't understand that" and be allowed to adjust his play accordingly.

Both as GM and as players, I've often had misunderstandings over some aspect of the game world. And the solution has been that the GM updates the player about what their character should know, and the player adjusts their play accordingly.

Here, it seems like Cipher is saying that the DM was wrong about their own game-world.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 12:52:40 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 08:00:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:04:47 AM
There was a failure of communication which could well be the fault of the DM.

However, your demands about vampires is wrong. It is the DM's world, and he gets to decide about what the rules for undead are. If the DM says that heroic, good-aligned vampire exist like Blade (in Marvel) or Regis (in The Witcher), then that's the DM's ruling. From web search, there apparently are even canonical good vampires in Faerun - like Thibbledorf Pwent, who was eventually cured of his vampirism.

Which BTW could have been avoided if the DM told the OP that Lathander in his version of FR was different.

AFAICT, he did nothing of the sort.

Fault is 100% on the DM.

By Cipher's own account, all the other players understood this aspect of the world. Also by his own account, they stopped the game and had a lengthy out-of-character discussion about the facts of this.

As he put it,

Quote from: Cipher on February 04, 2024, 05:10:30 AM
For me, the DM just suddenly saying "vampires are not always evil in my world" is metagaming. My character has absolutely no way to know this. As I said before, if the other Players had their characters make a case on why we should not attack on sight and perhaps apprehend/interrogate the vampire, I would have been absolutely fine.

If the DM says "vampires aren't always evil in this world" -- then that might be a failure of the DM, but if so, the correction should be for Cipher to say "OK, I didn't understand that" and be allowed to adjust his play accordingly.

Both as GM and as players, I've often had misunderstandings over some aspect of the game world. And the solution has been that the GM updates the player about what their character should know, and the player adjusts their play accordingly.

Here, it seems like Cipher is saying that the DM was wrong about their own game-world.

From what I've read, the DM nor the players communicated that fact to him at all (not all vampires are evil). Hence this why the OP said it caught him off guard. There was no way for him to know if this was the case. The OP made that perfectly clear.

And then they proceed to jump all over HIM personally being a bigot.

There is no ambiguity here.

What happened to the OP was WRONG.

You also seem to imply it was the OP's fault he didn't know.

Sorry, you're on the wrong side of the argument.

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 10:22:50 AM
Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

Indeed, Brad!

I have mentioned many times in various posts in this thread that I was never informed of any changes to the lore of the Forgotten Realms.

Somehow, that means that I am "deciding vampires are always evil", even though that's exactly what both the Forgotten Realms wiki and the online D&D 5e SRD say. Still, if the DM would have said that "in my version of the Realms, vampires and undead are Neutral and not Evil" then, I would have disagreed but understood. This was never communicated to me.

The arguments were: "Don't attack on sight, that's being a murderhobo!". "Calling a vampire a 'filthy bloodsucker' is bigotry!". "Slaying a vampire that has intelligence is murder!" and finally "Vampire spawns must obey their Masters, so he is actually a victim!". All of these were levied against me as a Player. No in character discussion was done about this. Also, the DM never chimed in and said anything about the alignment of the vampire/undead in his version of the Forgotten Realms.

The DM only chimed in almost 2 hours after we stopped the game to have this out of character discussion to let me know that if I went through the attack, I would break my paladin oath.

Then, when after I said my peace and left the game in the most polite manner I could think of, he sent me a DM saying that I was still in the wrong and that with my attitude he wasn't going to invite me to play with them further to which I replied that I wasn't thinking in playing with them again.

That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Quote from: Cipher on February 05, 2024, 01:53:41 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 10:22:50 AM
Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

Indeed, Brad!

I have mentioned many times in various posts in this thread that I was never informed of any changes to the lore of the Forgotten Realms.

Somehow, that means that I am "deciding vampires are always evil", even though that's exactly what both the Forgotten Realms wiki and the online D&D 5e SRD say. Still, if the DM would have said that "in my version of the Realms, vampires and undead are Neutral and not Evil" then, I would have disagreed but understood. This was never communicated to me.

The arguments were: "Don't attack on sight, that's being a murderhobo!". "Calling a vampire a 'filthy bloodsucker' is bigotry!". "Slaying a vampire that has intelligence is murder!" and finally "Vampire spawns must obey their Masters, so he is actually a victim!". All of these were levied against me as a Player. No in character discussion was done about this. Also, the DM never chimed in and said anything about the alignment of the vampire/undead in his version of the Forgotten Realms.

The DM only chimed in almost 2 hours after we stopped the game to have this out of character discussion to let me know that if I went through the attack, I would break my paladin oath.

Then, when after I said my peace and left the game in the most polite manner I could think of, he sent me a DM saying that I was still in the wrong and that with my attitude he wasn't going to invite me to play with them further to which I replied that I wasn't thinking in playing with them again.

That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Pretty clear to me bro.

But there are people like jhkimBOT where he conveniently misses the points that don't fit his woke leftist narrative.

Because God forbid they might be WRONG.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 12:52:40 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 08:00:38 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:04:47 AM
There was a failure of communication which could well be the fault of the DM.

However, your demands about vampires is wrong. It is the DM's world, and he gets to decide about what the rules for undead are. If the DM says that heroic, good-aligned vampire exist like Blade (in Marvel) or Regis (in The Witcher), then that's the DM's ruling. From web search, there apparently are even canonical good vampires in Faerun - like Thibbledorf Pwent, who was eventually cured of his vampirism.

Which BTW could have been avoided if the DM told the OP that Lathander in his version of FR was different.

AFAICT, he did nothing of the sort.

Fault is 100% on the DM.

By Cipher's own account, all the other players understood this aspect of the world. Also by his own account, they stopped the game and had a lengthy out-of-character discussion about the facts of this.

You don't claim something I never said and misrepresent my words. I've already said many times the issues they had. They treated the vampire spawn as a "victim" because he had to obey their Master's orders. They, as PLAYERS not as characters, decided that the vampire was a victim. If this was something they as a group had agreed before hand, it was never communicated to me.

Going by the official online D&D 5e SRD, vampire spawns are listed as NEUTRAL EVIL. And, you are conveniently ignoring all the times in this thread that I said I would have been OK if they would have made their arguments in character.

Once again, their arguments where:

"Don't attack on sight, that's being a murderhobo!". "Calling a vampire a 'filthy bloodsucker' is bigotry!". "Slaying a vampire that has intelligence is murder!" and finally "Vampire spawns must obey their Masters, so he is actually a victim!". All of these were levied against me as a Player. No in character discussion was done about this. Also, the DM never chimed in and said anything about the alignment of the vampire/undead in his version of the Forgotten Realms.

You are just taking whatever you want from what I've said many times in this thread because, apparently, you are such a fan of X-Cards that must defend their usage. Do whatever you want in your games and your life, but please stop trying to use my words to further your argument.

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

The other Players derided me as a murderhobo for not trying to reason with the vampire spawn, saying that he could be doing all of this against his own will, as the spawns must obey their Masters. I said that be that as it may, there is no way to cure vampirism so I was giving this poor creature mercy, by freeing them from their shackles.

So I'm reading over this again. You seem to be arguing that you were penalized for calling the vampire a slur, that you were called a bigot, and this was triggering. However, there really isn't anything you relate about their response that says anyone was triggered.

The possibility occurs to me that the problem has more to do with playstyle. First of all, they seem to take a more nuanced view of alignment with respect to intelligent creatures. Second of all, they seem to take seriously the moral quandry of enemies who are themselves victims. Third, they called you a murderhobo for deciding this part of the adventure should be dealt with through direct violence, rather than talking. I'm going to kind of brush past the idea vampire spawn are irredeemable, since in every version of D&D they are generally curable, but it's very difficult; it isn't really pertinent to the contrast between your style, and theirs.

So rather than their expectation, which was maybe a game where you had weird and intriguing conversations with "evil" beings who served a more powerful master, you just wanted to kill everything. I see where you're coming from, but honestly, it seems like you just kind of ignored the vibe of the group. They explained the issues, and rather than saying you were the odd man out, this turned into a rant about triggers. I don't think they were concerned you were discriminating against the historically oppressed undead, but rather just frustrated you wouldn't talk to anyone.

Quote from: Cipher on February 05, 2024, 01:53:41 PM
That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Yeah but your anecdotal experience is evidence that X-cards and the mentally deficient smoothbrains who push for them have no real place in a normal game, much less society. Normal people would think this whole thing is just idiotic and ridiculous. Sounds like you're normal and had no idea WTF was going on so you decided to peace out and avoid any further dealings with such abject retardation. Again, a NORMAL response. No meltdowns, no yelling or bitching, just a "see ya later". The fact they contacted you after anyway proves even further they cannot handle you disagreeing with them in ANY capacity. None. If they decided Hawaiian pizza is the best and you said you liked pepperoni, they would hound you until you admitted being a fool and wrong and you best worship at their feet and ask for forgiveness. Their entire reality is based upon the fact they are correct about everything.

jhkim seems to think you're at fault because you didn't magically know they arbitrarily changed fundamental facts of the gaming world then freaked out at a perfectly valid in-character action. The reason he thinks you're wrong is because if you're normal, they're abnormal, and thus X-cards and mentally ill people need to GTFO. And from all his posts as of late, looks like the only people he knows are mentally ill.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 05, 2024, 02:24:03 PM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

The other Players derided me as a murderhobo for not trying to reason with the vampire spawn, saying that he could be doing all of this against his own will, as the spawns must obey their Masters. I said that be that as it may, there is no way to cure vampirism so I was giving this poor creature mercy, by freeing them from their shackles.

So I'm reading over this again. You seem to be arguing that you were penalized for calling the vampire a slur, that you were called a bigot, and this was triggering. However, there really isn't anything you relate about their response that says anyone was triggered.

The possibility occurs to me that the problem has more to do with playstyle. First of all, they seem to take a more nuanced view of alignment with respect to intelligent creatures. Second of all, they seem to take seriously the moral quandry of enemies who are themselves victims. Third, they called you a murderhobo for deciding this part of the adventure should be dealt with through direct violence, rather than talking. I'm going to kind of brush past the idea vampire spawn are irredeemable, since in every version of D&D they are generally curable, but it's very difficult; it isn't really pertinent to the contrast between your style, and theirs.

So rather than their expectation, which was maybe a game where you had weird and intriguing conversations with "evil" beings who served a more powerful master, you just wanted to kill everything. I see where you're coming from, but honestly, it seems like you just kind of ignored the vibe of the group. They explained the issues, and rather than saying you were the odd man out, this turned into a rant about triggers. I don't think they were concerned you were discriminating against the historically oppressed undead, but rather just frustrated you wouldn't talk to anyone.

Leave it to the woketard suspected sex pest to deffend the indefensible...

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 02:26:33 PM

Quote from: Cipher on February 05, 2024, 01:53:41 PM
That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Yeah but your anecdotal experience is evidence that X-cards and the mentally deficient smoothbrains who push for them have no real place in a normal game, much less society. Normal people would think this whole thing is just idiotic and ridiculous. Sounds like you're normal and had no idea WTF was going on so you decided to peace out and avoid any further dealings with such abject retardation. Again, a NORMAL response. No meltdowns, no yelling or bitching, just a "see ya later". The fact they contacted you after anyway proves even further they cannot handle you disagreeing with them in ANY capacity. None. If they decided Hawaiian pizza is the best and you said you liked pepperoni, they would hound you until you admitted being a fool and wrong and you best worship at their feet and ask for forgiveness. Their entire reality is based upon the fact they are correct about everything.

jhkim seems to think you're at fault because you didn't magically know they arbitrarily changed fundamental facts of the gaming world then freaked out at a perfectly valid in-character action. The reason he thinks you're wrong is because if you're normal, they're abnormal, and thus X-cards and mentally ill people need to GTFO. And from all his posts as of late, looks like the only people he knows are mentally ill.

And, I can only speak from my own perspective, but I did entertain the discussion as I wanted to keep playing. Only after the DM ruled that moving forward with attacking the vampire meant breaking my Oath and thus, losing my powers as a Paladin, then I decided the game wasn't for me.

Also, it may seem this way from my own perspective, and perhaps in reality I was more rude than I think I was being, but I did my very best not to raise my voice and I made sure not to be rude and use any insults on any language that could be felt as "insulting". It is my firm believe that I handled this as politely as I could.

Like I said, perhaps it didn't come off that way, I have no way to know how my words and tone of voice was perceived but I did made an effort to remain calm and engage in civil discussion. I didn't just said "K' Imma head out" and dropped the call. I stayed for as long as I thought there was still a way to salvage the session. When it became clear to me there was not way to reach a middle ground and that I could take the decision to not follow what I thought was a sensible choice for my character and that the rest of the table was in consensus about their trigger warnings and me breaking them, then I announced that at that point I wasn't feeling like playing anymore and I wished them well and even thanked them for inviting me to their game and said that I hoped they had fun in this campaign before dropping the call.

From my very first post I said that this is what I would expect to happen in a make believe game played with adults. That any disagreements could be discussed as adults and if no agreement could be made, the door was always open.

In this sense, I vehemently disagree that people playing are "not safe" or in any sort of "danger" while playing TTRPGs online. I can barely entertain the idea if this is IRL in a house that you have never been with and playing with a group of relative strangers, but not online. If worst comes to worst, just drop the call and that's it. No need for drama or "trauma" triggering.

If someone cannot have an adult discussion about what they consider something that shouldn't be in the game, then leaving is always an option.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 01:58:39 PM

Quote from: Cipher on February 05, 2024, 01:53:41 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 10:22:50 AM
Glad jhkim is once again twisting reality so that OP is in the wrong.

Indeed, Brad!

I have mentioned many times in various posts in this thread that I was never informed of any changes to the lore of the Forgotten Realms.

Somehow, that means that I am "deciding vampires are always evil", even though that's exactly what both the Forgotten Realms wiki and the online D&D 5e SRD say. Still, if the DM would have said that "in my version of the Realms, vampires and undead are Neutral and not Evil" then, I would have disagreed but understood. This was never communicated to me.

The arguments were: "Don't attack on sight, that's being a murderhobo!". "Calling a vampire a 'filthy bloodsucker' is bigotry!". "Slaying a vampire that has intelligence is murder!" and finally "Vampire spawns must obey their Masters, so he is actually a victim!". All of these were levied against me as a Player. No in character discussion was done about this. Also, the DM never chimed in and said anything about the alignment of the vampire/undead in his version of the Forgotten Realms.

The DM only chimed in almost 2 hours after we stopped the game to have this out of character discussion to let me know that if I went through the attack, I would break my paladin oath.

Then, when after I said my peace and left the game in the most polite manner I could think of, he sent me a DM saying that I was still in the wrong and that with my attitude he wasn't going to invite me to play with them further to which I replied that I wasn't thinking in playing with them again.

That is it. I already said so as much in this very same thread. Claiming otherwise is either disbelieving my claims or willfully ignoring them.

Pretty clear to me bro.

But there are people like jhkimBOT where he conveniently misses the points that don't fit his woke leftist narrative.

Because God forbid they might be WRONG.

Thanks, Blackstone!

It does appear this way, sadly.

Cipher -

As I understand it, the core of the disagreement is that all the other players and the DM understood a vampire spawn to be a victim of the curse of vampirism, who is then mind-controlled to obey the commands of the master vampire. You disagreed, and held that all undead are inherently evil to the core.

I don't hold that either position is inherently right for all game-worlds. But in this case, the DM ruled against you. If there had been a different DM running the exact same adventure, and the players complained - but the DM sided with you, then you would be right. But it's the DM's game-world, and they get to decide the nature of undead and the Lathander's position as a god.

---

As I understand it, this group wasn't using an X-card, but you were the one demanding that everyone else submit to how you wanted things to be. That's exactly the problem that many people here have complained about the X-card -- that one player can force their demands over all the other players and even the DM.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 05, 2024, 02:24:03 PM

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
My character, as a paladin of Lathander, decided that this crime could not be tolerated any longer and shouted "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and prepared to attack. The game was stopped and I was accused of being a bigot for saying that, which was against the trigger warnings established. I defended myself, pointing out that the enemy was an undead monster, a foul creature of the night that has to feed on the living to survive and that slaying the vampire was not only our only choice, but that it was the righteous choice.

The other Players derided me as a murderhobo for not trying to reason with the vampire spawn, saying that he could be doing all of this against his own will, as the spawns must obey their Masters. I said that be that as it may, there is no way to cure vampirism so I was giving this poor creature mercy, by freeing them from their shackles.

So I'm reading over this again. You seem to be arguing that you were penalized for calling the vampire a slur, that you were called a bigot, and this was triggering. However, there really isn't anything you relate about their response that says anyone was triggered.

The possibility occurs to me that the problem has more to do with playstyle. First of all, they seem to take a more nuanced view of alignment with respect to intelligent creatures. Second of all, they seem to take seriously the moral quandry of enemies who are themselves victims. Third, they called you a murderhobo for deciding this part of the adventure should be dealt with through direct violence, rather than talking. I'm going to kind of brush past the idea vampire spawn are irredeemable, since in every version of D&D they are generally curable, but it's very difficult; it isn't really pertinent to the contrast between your style, and theirs.

So rather than their expectation, which was maybe a game where you had weird and intriguing conversations with "evil" beings who served a more powerful master, you just wanted to kill everything. I see where you're coming from, but honestly, it seems like you just kind of ignored the vibe of the group. They explained the issues, and rather than saying you were the odd man out, this turned into a rant about triggers. I don't think they were concerned you were discriminating against the historically oppressed undead, but rather just frustrated you wouldn't talk to anyone.

1. he made his character as per the rules
2. he played his character as per the rules AS HE KNEW THEM.  nowhere did he say he just wanted to "kill everything". he was playing a Paladin of Lathander and according to the rules, he was playing it accordingly.
3. NOBODY, not even the DM, said anything about house rules on the game world. This was made perfectly clear by the OP.
4. Gets told that killing a vampire is being a "bigot" (Which is full of shit BTW).
5. gets chastised by the group and the DM, and personally called him a bigot as well. This was made perfectly clear by the OP as well.

And you seem ok with this.

Go fuk yourself.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:10:54 PM
Cipher -

As I understand it, the core of the disagreement is that all the other players and the DM understood a vampire spawn to be a victim of the curse of vampirism, who is then mind-controlled to obey the commands of the master vampire. You disagreed, and held that all undead are inherently evil to the core.

I don't hold that either position is inherently right for all game-worlds. But in this case, the DM ruled against you. If there had been a different DM running the exact same adventure, and the players complained - but the DM sided with you, then you would be right. But it's the DM's game-world, and they get to decide the nature of undead and the Lathander's position as a god.

---

As I understand it, this group wasn't using an X-card, but you were the one demanding that everyone else submit to how you wanted things to be. That's exactly the problem that many people here have complained about the X-card -- that one player can force their demands over all the other players and even the DM.

Holy fuk are you blind? Do you need spelled out for you? The simple fact that the DM didn't disclose anything about the game world in regards to undead, knowing perfectly well he was playing a Paladin of Lathander, is the issue. What is he supposed to do read the DM's fuking mind?

Oh and as far as you not "taking a side"? I wouldn't expect anything less from a person who rides the rails of moral relativism.

Fuk, I'll bet you're a pacifist too.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:10:54 PM
As I understand it, the core of the disagreement is that all the other players and the DM understood a vampire spawn to be a victim of the curse of vampirism, who is then mind-controlled to obey the commands of the master vampire. You disagreed, and held that all undead are inherently evil to the core.

I don't hold that either position is inherently right for all game-worlds. But in this case, the DM ruled against you. If there had been a different DM running the exact same adventure, and the players complained - but the DM sided with you, then you would be right. But it's the DM's game-world, and they get to decide the nature of undead and the Lathander's position as a god.

Holy fuk are you blind? Do you need spelled out for you? The simple fact that the DM didn't disclose anything about the game world in regards to undead, knowing perfectly well he was playing a Paladin of Lathander, is the issue. What is he supposed to do read the DM's fuking mind?

He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PM
Oh and as far as you not "taking a side"? I wouldn't expect anything less from a person who rides the rails of moral relativism.

Fuk, I'll bet you're a pacifist too.

As far as undead on fantasy worlds? Yes, I am a moral relativist. It's a fucking fantasy game.

Part of my real-life non-relativist morals is that I don't treat the games people play as if they were real-life.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:10:54 PM
Cipher -

As I understand it, the core of the disagreement is that all the other players and the DM understood a vampire spawn to be a victim of the curse of vampirism, who is then mind-controlled to obey the commands of the master vampire. You disagreed, and held that all undead are inherently evil to the core.

I don't hold that either position is inherently right for all game-worlds. But in this case, the DM ruled against you. If there had been a different DM running the exact same adventure, and the players complained - but the DM sided with you, then you would be right. But it's the DM's game-world, and they get to decide the nature of undead and the Lathander's position as a god.

---

As I understand it, this group wasn't using an X-card, but you were the one demanding that everyone else submit to how you wanted things to be. That's exactly the problem that many people here have complained about the X-card -- that one player can force their demands over all the other players and even the DM.

So, in your mind, now I am the one "demanding that everyone else submit to how I wanted things to be". It appears the idea that some people see X-Cards for what they are "triggers" you and you must twist the words of others to defend the idea of safety tools. Like I said, you can do whatever you want. But, you don't get to twist my words to make your argument.

You are willingly ignoring what I have said about the situation and now are painting me as the one that stopped the game due to trigger warnings.

For everyone else not engaging in disingenuous discussion, I never stopped the game. If I made that attack and the DM ruled that I lose my powers because vampires in his world are considered people and not monsters, and thus striking them down on sight is considered "unprovoked acts of violence", then I would argue that we had plenty of evidence that this vampire had committed crimes even if he was being compelled to by his Master.

If, in turn, the DM would reply to that statement with anything that would amount to "It doesn't matter. Attempting to slay the vampire without being threatened with violence from the vampire is considered murder. Do so at your own risk of breaking your Oath". I would disagree, but without making a fuss out of it I would acquiesce in the interest of keeping the game going and would not have attacked the vampire.

Then, at some point during a break or at the end of the session, I would invite the DM to discuss with me the situation and explain my point of view, as an adult. If the DM would not budge about their decision, then I would consider if I want to play in that game world or not and communicate this decision to the DM and the group days in advance to the next game.

No one is obligated to play in any game at any table. Participation is voluntary. If I don't like were things are going I can just leave and I expect anyone to do the same on my games. In this case, I wouldn't want to play in a game that deviates from the Forgotten Realms lore in such a fashion and, depending on how much I really want to play and how everything else in the game is going, I would have decide to keep playing with this group or not.


From the very opening post I said that it has always been my expectation that disagreements about the game can and should be discussed as adults. In most games, the GM does an amount of legwork that the players do not have to, for this reason I always take the GM into consideration and in disagreements over a game I am inclined to take the GM's side. But, no player is hostage to the way the GM wants to run a game. If a player is unable or unwilling to move past that disagreement they can leave. And they can do so amicably. This is the way disagreements have been resolved in the past in my personal experience. It is only in these online games with younger people that now it turns out discussing disagreements about the game is imposing.

@jhkim: You tried to "Reverse UNO" my situation into claiming I am the one using X-Cards by demanding something out of the game and forcing everyone else to comply with my desires. In doing so, you have shown your hand that, indeed, you believe this is the way X-Cards work and should work and thus, you have validated the merits of the argument many people have made in this thread about why X-Cards are actually malicious and have no place in this hobby.

Thank you. I was neutral to the usage of this so called "safety tools" before this experience. After creating the thread and reading some comments, I was leaning more and more towards the idea they do more harm than good. After seeing how you wanted to twist my words into appearing like I was the one using X-Cards to force everyone at the table to agree with me you have convinced me that safety tools are actually unwanted, insidious malicious and their inclusion will clue me in that this is not a group I want to play games with.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 05, 2024, 02:24:03 PMSo I'm reading over this again. You seem to be arguing that you were penalized for calling the vampire a slur, that you were called a bigot, and this was triggering. However, there really isn't anything you relate about their response that says anyone was triggered.

(https://d1symue921fl4h.cloudfront.net/assets/news/_1400x750_crop_center-center_none/abuse-is-never-your-fault-blog-header.png)

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PMHoly fuk are you blind? Do you need spelled out for you? The simple fact that the DM didn't disclose anything about the game world in regards to undead, knowing perfectly well he was playing a Paladin of Lathander, is the issue. What is he supposed to do read the DM's fuking mind?

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Oh fuck no. This isn't a Rule Zero situation, this is the GM pulling a bait and switch. And the conflict was resolved, by the player leaving the crazy asshole table.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 03:10:54 PM
As I understand it, the core of the disagreement is that all the other players and the DM understood a vampire spawn to be a victim of the curse of vampirism, who is then mind-controlled to obey the commands of the master vampire. You disagreed, and held that all undead are inherently evil to the core.

I don't hold that either position is inherently right for all game-worlds. But in this case, the DM ruled against you. If there had been a different DM running the exact same adventure, and the players complained - but the DM sided with you, then you would be right. But it's the DM's game-world, and they get to decide the nature of undead and the Lathander's position as a god.

Holy fuk are you blind? Do you need spelled out for you? The simple fact that the DM didn't disclose anything about the game world in regards to undead, knowing perfectly well he was playing a Paladin of Lathander, is the issue. What is he supposed to do read the DM's fuking mind?

He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PM
Oh and as far as you not "taking a side"? I wouldn't expect anything less from a person who rides the rails of moral relativism.

Fuk, I'll bet you're a pacifist too.

As far as undead on fantasy worlds? Yes, I am a moral relativist. It's a fucking fantasy game.

Part of my real-life non-relativist morals is that I don't treat the games people play as if they were real-life.

But the people you're defending do.

Hypocrite, thy name is jhkim.

I have nothing more to say to you.

good day to you sir.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 04:49:32 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PMHoly fuk are you blind? Do you need spelled out for you? The simple fact that the DM didn't disclose anything about the game world in regards to undead, knowing perfectly well he was playing a Paladin of Lathander, is the issue. What is he supposed to do read the DM's fuking mind?

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Oh fuck no. This isn't a Rule Zero situation, this is the GM pulling a bait and switch. And the conflict was resolved, by the player leaving the crazy asshole table.

Exactly. a good DM would have known about his character and say "hey, just to let you know, being a Paladin of Lathander when it comes to undead, in my version of the Realms..."

The DM KNEW what type of character he had and didn't say anything.

He's either:

a) a malicious bastard
b) an ignorant left wing shit for brains who truly believes this is how the world works, and his shitty game world should reflect his insane world views.
c) both a and b

I'm going with C.

Cipher, fuck that guy and his pissant group of cultists. Join my group and full disclosure to you all, I already sent him an invite last week if he's interested. I'm going to send more info on the game to you tonight, including our Discord channel. I OWE it to you to get into a good Old School game.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
my real-life non-relativist morals

(X) Doubt

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 05:53:56 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
my real-life non-relativist morals

(X) Doubt

Oh he's a fucking fence sitter, for sure...

Trigger-Warnings allow the Storygamers™ to censor any player decision that might counter their immutable, infallible, perfectly-beautiful STORY.

"How dare you try to roll dice right now, cretin! Don't you recognize we're Making Story?!?!"

It's like how they try to censor rpg game design with their Sensitivity Readers. And who wouldn't want an over-entitled, sexually-confused semi-socialist with zero professional credentials telling them how to write? What kind of people try to dictate not just what you think but WHY you think it and when and how you can say it?

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/lo8YzDnHh07rpxqw45/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952h4bi49vtzusekboo77bva9o88xjn2e12d44qx6ih&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 05:50:01 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 04:49:32 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 03:36:29 PMHoly fuk are you blind? Do you need spelled out for you? The simple fact that the DM didn't disclose anything about the game world in regards to undead, knowing perfectly well he was playing a Paladin of Lathander, is the issue. What is he supposed to do read the DM's fuking mind?

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
He doesn't have to. He can ask the DM to make a ruling, and when the DM tells him what the ruling is, he can accept it and adjust his play accordingly. Conflict resolved.

Oh fuck no. This isn't a Rule Zero situation, this is the GM pulling a bait and switch. And the conflict was resolved, by the player leaving the crazy asshole table.

Exactly. a good DM would have known about his character and say "hey, just to let you know, being a Paladin of Lathander when it comes to undead, in my version of the Realms..."

The DM KNEW what type of character he had and didn't say anything.

He's either:

a) a malicious bastard
b) an ignorant left wing shit for brains who truly believes this is how the world works, and his shitty game world should reflect his insane world views.
c) both a and b

I'm going with C.

Cipher, fuck that guy and his pissant group of cultists. Join my group and full disclosure to you all, I already sent him an invite last week if he's interested. I'm going to send more info on the game to you tonight, including our Discord channel. I OWE it to you to get into a good Old School game.

You seem to be of the impression that they KNOW anything about the setting, they famously don't read the rules.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 05:57:48 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 05:53:56 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
my real-life non-relativist morals

(X) Doubt

Oh he's a fucking fence sitter, for sure...

Fence sitter my ass, he's the infiltrator variant. He's the cultist that can hide the crazy, so they send them out to recruit, or to talk to the Sheriff asking about the girl reporting missing by her dad.

While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 05:50:01 PM
The DM KNEW what type of character he had and didn't say anything.

He's either:

a) a malicious bastard
b) an ignorant left wing shit for brains who truly believes this is how the world works, and his shitty game world should reflect his insane world views.
c) both a and b

I'm going with C.

With a strong dose also of:  d) set the whole thing up to arrange a confrontation, and have all the players pile on.  The whole group knew what they were doing.  Heck, that was clearly more important to them than the game--using the Forgotten Realms was just another piece of the bait and switch.

I'd consider it a giant blessing that it was all online, so that none of those people know where you live.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 05, 2024, 06:24:14 PM
You seem to be of the impression that they KNOW anything about the setting, they famously don't read the rules.

This is my guess.  The DM didn't know or care about the setting.  They had a negative, knee-jerk emotional response to what happened.  The rest is post hoc justification.  The real reason is that it just felt icky to them in the moment.  That's all that actually matters.  The rest is just them trying to justify it.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 05, 2024, 05:57:48 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2024, 05:53:56 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
my real-life non-relativist morals

(X) Doubt

Oh he's a fucking fence sitter, for sure...

Fence sitter my ass, he's the infiltrator variant. He's the cultist that can hide the crazy, so they send them out to recruit, or to talk to the Sheriff asking about the girl reporting missing by her dad.

While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

Damn that's diabolical.
(https://i.imgur.com/5FH4jCs.gif)

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
Fence sitter my ass, he's the infiltrator variant. He's the cultist that can hide the crazy, so they send them out to recruit, or to talk to the Sheriff asking about the girl reporting missing by her dad.

While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

A better description of the two has never been written...

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Narcicistic, egomaniacal and solipsistic

You come to bring anoyance and a few laughs at your expense since you're a deranged lunatic.

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

Holy mother fucking move the goal post, Batman.  Are you fucking serious?

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

But you know this and you don't care.  You're willing to make any argument that lets your side win.  This level of dishonesty is beyond the pale.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

So you don't deny what DM Grognard said?

Good.

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword you self-righteous fucker.

Quote from: BadApple on February 06, 2024, 07:44:24 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

Holy mother fucking move the goal post, Batman.  Are you fucking serious?

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

But you know this and you don't care.  You're willing to make any argument that lets your side win.  This level of dishonesty is beyond the pale.

He's dishonest and a hypocrite. 'nuff said.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

You're sword is flaccid and your trolling is freakin' lame.

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

Regardless of what was "intended", it works best if the GM is consistent within the setting (as much as possible) and different across settings (at least to some extent) for variety, surprise, mystery, etc.  Using an existing setting comes with a lot of built-in consistency and also a lot of built-in baggage.  The more information on the setting available to the players, the more of both consistency and baggage. 

In other words, there is no free lunch.  Using the Forgotten Realms means that the GM needs to be careful of what they change, and the changes need to be communicated, broadly, to the players before the game begins.  It doesn't need to be detailed, because you'd like there to be some surprise when "making the setting your own".  However, it does need to be enough to not play bait and switch with the players.  It would have been sufficient in this case, for example, for the GM to have said something like:  "The gods work radically different in my campaign. If you are playing a character that cares about that, let's talk." 

Just because there's been a lot of stupid things said by the usual suspects in this topic, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to good GM advice. 

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AMthe player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon

Perhaps your community was wealthier than mine; in my circles generally only the DM could afford the Monster Manual (and everyone in the group pitching in so the DM could buy the Monster Manual was common).  The BECMI sets were different, but even the BECMI sets put the monster stats in the DM-only book.  I think that "the players are not expected to have detailed knowledge of the monsters except through experience" was a pretty common assumption in those days.  Also, I don't think there was as much separation of player and character knowledge assumed back then either.  A player starting a new 1st level character wasn't expected to wipe the slate clean and forget everything he'd learned while leveling up his 10th level Fighter Lord.

If "I've been playing for years and know what most of the mid-level monsters can do" wasn't a common thing, why do lookalike monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast, and Nilbog exist?  They are clearly there to subvert players' expectations of what a specific monster can and can't do.

Quote from: daniel_ream on February 06, 2024, 12:41:06 AM
Bit of a tangent: my recollection of the early days of D&D was that it was a fundamental part of the game that the monsters were more or less immutable.  Part of being a skilled player was learning what different monsters looked like and what their capabilities were.  Monsters like the Gas Spore, Ghast and Nilbog strongly imply that a DM was allowed to dick with players' expectations by swapping in a similar-looking monster, but changing an existing one was frowned upon.

Which is why the whole "it's the DM's world" argument doesn't fly with me.  If the DM can change anything about the world - and how the zealous anti-undead God of Light feels about undead is a pretty big change - then the players have nothing to hang their understanding of the world on and every session becomes an endless game of twenty questions.

I hate to admit but I love doing this. I got the idea from Professor Dungeonmaster back when I used to watch his Caves of Carnage videos. Taking stuff like kobolds and reskinning them to something else. Statistically functional monster, just looks different. I wouldn't do that for something like a Beholder, but if I need a creature that can paralyze without dealing damage, I'd reskin a carrion crawler.

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AMI did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

I thought you want to trade your sword for a sheath?

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 06, 2024, 10:47:28 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AMI did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

I thought you want to trade your sword for a sheath?

(https://i.imgur.com/l1xx1NF.jpg)

Greetings!

The DM in this campaign group is really fucking retarded. "I'm changing the Forgotten Realms and how Lathander operates!"

Really, now? Like Paladins are not trained for fucking YEARS in monasteries, learning, studying, and practicing prayer, philosophy, theology, and doctrine?

A Paladin or Cleric is not somehow in strong spiritual communion with the supernatural realm?

Sorry, as I said before, fuck this DM and his group of fucking Woke players. This is why you don't play with Woke morons.

Woke fucking morons have no true concept of what a righteous fucking Paladin or Cleric is. They lovee bulldozing you with moralizing BS though. Fuck them.

KILL THEM ALL!

Remember, DEUS VULT!

That is the answer. When someone doesn't like that answer, you fucking run them through with your broadsword, or drag them to the stake and burn them alive for their heresy and lack of faith.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

When you are using a specific game setting, players will expect the setting to adhere to available material. If the DM wished to alter it, significantly in this case, the onus is on the DM to communicate those changes.

If I joined a pick up basketball game and made a layup and everyone cried out, "no layups allowed!" I'd be upset and confused.

All that being said, the OP made it quite clear he didn't like the direction of the game and politely excused himself. Where's the problem? And then the DM and the other players had the audacity to call him a bigot? It's stupid.

OP handled the situation like a normal adult. Sadly when you are an abnormal immature adult, that is an affront to them. I really don't see a grey area in this matter from the information provided and the information seems reliable and authentic.

Quote from: SHARK on February 06, 2024, 03:51:51 PM
Greetings!

The DM in this campaign group is really fucking retarded. "I'm changing the Forgotten Realms and how Lathander operates!"

Really, now? Like Paladins are not trained for fucking YEARS in monasteries, learning, studying, and practicing prayer, philosophy, theology, and doctrine?

A Paladin or Cleric is not somehow in strong spiritual communion with the supernatural realm?

Sorry, as I said before, fuck this DM and his group of fucking Woke players. This is why you don't play with Woke morons.

Woke fucking morons have no true concept of what a righteous fucking Paladin or Cleric is. They lovee bulldozing you with moralizing BS though. Fuck them.

KILL THEM ALL!

Remember, DEUS VULT!

That is the answer. When someone doesn't like that answer, you fucking run them through with your broadsword, or drag them to the stake and burn them alive for their heresy and lack of faith.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Not retarded, but evil. Destruction is not an accident, but a goal; it is a feature, not a bug.

Quote from: blackstone on February 06, 2024, 07:55:58 AM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 06, 2024, 12:29:03 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 07:00:32 PM
While pawsplay (the fiery but mostly peaceful variant) batters enemies with vitriol and cry-bullying, jhkim uses rhetoric to blur issues to tease out compromises that his side won't honor.

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

So you don't deny what DM Grognard said?

Good.

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword you self-righteous fucker.

I specifically denied what DM Grognard said. But at least you got the sword part.

Quote from: BadApple on February 06, 2024, 07:44:24 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM
How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

In the quote, I was responding to daniel_ream about his tangent regarding monsters -- not to the specific case of Cipher's campaign.

In the big picture of Cipher's campaign... I wasn't there to judge the tone of how everyone acted - so yeah, I'd believe that they were jerks about it. Still, in the big picture, the DM and all the players thought one way, and Cipher thought the other. The answer in the end should be that the game goes the way that the DM and other players thought. There can and should be different ways to run D&D.


There's a lot of vampire fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where vampirism is a malevolent curse, but someone under that curse won't necessarily succumb to evil, and the vampirism might even be cured. In cases of innocent victims cursed to be undead through no choice of their own, it's reasonable that a paladin of Lathander would make sure undead are laid to rest or cured, rather than always immediately attacking to destroy them. If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

(I vaguely recall an AD&D module has something like this - where the ghost of a murdered victim gives the PCs information about his killer. I can't remember which module it was, though, and if it was Faerun or not.)

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 06, 2024, 07:44:24 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM
How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

In the quote, I was responding to daniel_ream about his tangent regarding monsters -- not to the specific case of Cipher's campaign.

In the big picture of Cipher's campaign... I wasn't there to judge the tone of how everyone acted - so yeah, I'd believe that they were jerks about it. Still, in the big picture, the DM and all the players thought one way, and Cipher thought the other. The answer in the end should be that the game goes the way that the DM and other players thought. There can and should be different ways to run D&D.


There's a lot of vampire fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where vampirism is a malevolent curse, but someone under that curse won't necessarily succumb to evil, and the vampirism might even be cured. In cases of innocent victims cursed to be undead through no choice of their own, it's reasonable that a paladin of Lathander would make sure undead are laid to rest or cured, rather than always immediately attacking to destroy them. If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

(I vaguely recall an AD&D module has something like this - where the ghost of a murdered victim gives the PCs information about his killer. I can't remember which module it was, though, and if it was Faerun or not.)

Greetings!

Yeah, Jhkim. I still think it is just fine and good to kill them all.

Yes, there can be some plausibility and even fun in having a campaign that features a *few* Undead that are not evil. Having said that, I don't think it is a good idea to make it some weird campaign rule where Paladins or anyone else gets fucking punished if they don't choose to believe that--or embrace it. If they want to stimp and kill the Undead, that is certainly a natural and reasonable response, regardless of how cool or neat you think having some exceptions might be.

I remember reading a series of Warhammer Fantasy books, by I think it was the Black Library--anyhow, along with a ruffian cast of heroes, there was this one chick, Genieveve Du Monte or something like that. She was sexy, hot, smooth, and very powerful--and an immortal vampire. She had been a vampire for I think, 800 years in the stories. Genevieve had the perpetual appearance of some perky, ripe adolescent girl. She had been bitten and turned into a vampire when she was 16 years old, so that is how she always looked. She was ruthless as fuck, a bit mysterious--but also committed to helping the heroes defeat evil monsters and fight against darkness and Chaos.

I think there are some things that work well in novels, and less well in an RPG.

As a DM, it is fine to say, "Well, there are some Undead that are not evil." Well, ok, good. That does not mean though that the Players--let alone the Characters, in the game world, know that, or believe it.

Some things should just be thrown out there into the wild, and let Players respond to it however they want. The DM should not come along and somehow dammit, I'm gonna force you to respond the way I want! Whaa! Whaa! You know what I'm saying? Just realese it, and let the Players play with that knowledge however they want.

I had a somewhat related situation arise in my own campaign. The group had encountered a group of Ogres while traveling through the Vallorean Empire. One particular player, had in the past befriended Ogres, and knew that some bands and some tribes of Ogres were not evil, inhuman monsters. They could be reasoned with, after a fashion. Ogres within the Vallorean Empire are citizens, and have been accorded the same rights and duties as any other citizen. Many Ogres serve in the Vallorean legions, for example. Anyhow, the group met up with this band of Ogres alongside the road they were traveling on. The Ogres were farmers from the local area, and out doing a bit of hunting. The Ogres greeted the party, as Vallorean Ogres are raised to be somewhat friendly with the humans amidst their communities. Part of the Player group started to cheerfully greet the ogres, and were happy to be meeting them. A different part of the group, however, had different ideas entirely.

They armed up, and let loose with their bows, and launched an attack, swiftly killing three of the young Ogres. One older Ogre survived the attack, and was saved and protected by the rest of the group.

The party almost came to blows against each other on that day. *Laughing* There was HUGE drama that ensued, especially when Imperial Rangers tracked the group down, and arrested three of the Player Characters, charging them with Assault and Murder. Murdering citizens of the Vallorean Empire is an offense that typically gets you crucified. An extra problem that existed was one of the characters--an NPC--is a Vallorean aristocrat, and a high noble. The Character did not appreciate being put into the sticky horned dilemma of honouring the Law--and having some friends crucified--or absolving his friends, but betraying the Law, and compromising his own sense of Duty and Honour.

That episode extended out into a drama-filled mini-series that went on for a good number of episodes before it was resolved, and the party was able to move on to other adventures. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 02:46:38 PM
Well, if people are getting 'triggered' over a fictional game then there is something wrong on their side. So perhaps RPGing isn't a hobby for therm. that or they could just stick to 'cosy' rpgs instead.

No such thing can ever exist because there is NO LIMIT to how insane these nuts can get.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 03:03:50 PM

Quote from: pawsplay on February 03, 2024, 02:52:28 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on February 03, 2024, 02:46:38 PM
Well, if people are getting 'triggered' over a fictional game then there is something wrong on their side. So perhaps RPGing isn't a hobby for therm. that or they could just stick to 'cosy' rpgs instead.

"Having something wrong" is neither a personal failing, nor rare. People on this board get triggered by shit all the time. I've been role-playing for nearly four decades. Your estimation of who should be playing role-playing games strikes me as remarkably unworldly.

Now your changing the scope of the argument. We are talking about playing 'imaginary elf-games' and the zero damage they can do - unless someone is mentally ill or damaged. And if that's the case they should do another activity.

To be fair. There are some really fucked up DMs and players who get off on getting someone invested in a RP and then ruining it deliberately.

Catch is. X cards are meaningless and useless in that case.

Quote from: oggsmash on February 03, 2024, 03:29:15 PM
I think I need a clear, concise definition as to exactly what triggered means...because it looks like the goal posts are moving around so much that anytime you make a remark of disagreement you were "triggered"?   Thing I hate about marxists is their constant and consistent manipulation of language to always try to have a word or two than can be a "catch all".

Happens way too much as any and every term gets twisted by some nut to eventually mean "everything on earth".

Storygamers: Whats an RPG? Everything on earth. No really. I've heard RPG redefined into literally reading a book or watching grass grow.

Storygamers again: Whats storytelling? Everything on Earth.

Whats triggered? Everything on earth."

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM

Quote from: BadApple on February 06, 2024, 07:44:24 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:41:11 AM
How torches work or how armor works is something the PCs should know, and it would be assumed. Detailed knowledge of monsters, though, is different.

At least in my circles of D&D in the 80s, the player behavior of "I memorized the Monster Manual and you can't change it" was frowned upon. PCs should only have knowledge of monsters their characters have direct experience with. So unless a PC has a particular background with vampires, say, it's considered bad role-playing to rattle off the details of the vampire entry. And the DM was within bounds to introduce different types of vampires, so that players couldn't rely on having memorized the Monster Manual entry.

A central part of paladins, like clerics and warlocks, is the deity they are tied to.  If they don't know how their deity works or what they expect from their vassals they it's the same as if they don't know how their armor works.  This has nothing to do with the monster manual.  If a god wants to erase undead then what does it matter what GM changes there are if it's still undead?

In the quote, I was responding to daniel_ream about his tangent regarding monsters -- not to the specific case of Cipher's campaign.

In the big picture of Cipher's campaign... I wasn't there to judge the tone of how everyone acted - so yeah, I'd believe that they were jerks about it. Still, in the big picture, the DM and all the players thought one way, and Cipher thought the other. The answer in the end should be that the game goes the way that the DM and other players thought. There can and should be different ways to run D&D.


There's a lot of vampire fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where vampirism is a malevolent curse, but someone under that curse won't necessarily succumb to evil, and the vampirism might even be cured. In cases of innocent victims cursed to be undead through no choice of their own, it's reasonable that a paladin of Lathander would make sure undead are laid to rest or cured, rather than always immediately attacking to destroy them. If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

(I vaguely recall an AD&D module has something like this - where the ghost of a murdered victim gives the PCs information about his killer. I can't remember which module it was, though, and if it was Faerun or not.)

Except, the Monster's Manual of 5e on page 295 says this:


PLAYER CHARACTERS AS VAMPIRES

The game statistics of a player character
transformed into a vampire spawn and then a
vampire don't change, except that the character's Strength,
Dexterity, and Constitution scores become 18 if they aren't
higher. In addition, the character gains the vampire's damage
resistances, darkvision, traits, and actions. Attack and
damage rolls for the vampire's attacks are based on Strength.
The save DC for Charm is 8 + the vampire's proficiency
bonus+ the vampire's Charisma modifier. The character's
alignment becomes lawful evil, and the DM might take
control of the character until the vampirism is reversed with
a wish spell or the character is killed and brought back to life.


So first of all, you become Lawful Evil if you become a vampire per RAW.  And the methods to cure vampirism are a Wish spell, which is a 9th level spell. Good luck finding a Wizard that knows it and then double good luck having the gold to pay for the service.

The other option, involves the vampire being slain. Once again, as per RAW, my character was actually showing mercy by providing a way for the vampire to be revived as a human, if such a thing was within the party's means and/or desires.

I understand not every game has to be played RAW. But, it has always been common courtesy to explain what is outside of RAW and I've said many times in this thread that this was never announced to me. The DM never said "I am making a ruling now, vampires are not always Evil" or during our session 0 and the other parts of Session 1, he never said "by the way, in my game vampires are not always evil."

This was never discussed before hand, neither in character or out of character.


EDIT: Also, here's another gem from the same entry in the Monster's Manual:

Dark Desires. Whether or not a vampire retains
any memories from its former life, its emotional
attachments wither as once-pure feelings become
twisted by undeath. Love turns into hungry
obsession, while friendship becomes bitter
jealousy. In place of emotion, vampires pursue
physical symbols of what they crave, so that a
vampire seeking love might fixate on a young beauty.
A child might become an object of fascination for a
vampire obsessed with youth and potential. Others
surround themselves with art, books, or sinister items
such as torture devices or trophies from creatures
they have killed.

Once again, per RAW, vampires are not only evil in the sense of their alignment listed as Evil but also they suffer from this "Dark desire" which twists their "once pure feelings", corrupting even friendship and love.

Quote from: Cipher on February 06, 2024, 11:12:14 PM
Once again, per RAW, vampires are not only evil in the sense of their alignment listed as Evil but also they suffer from this "Dark desire" which twists their "once pure feelings", corrupting even friendship and love.

That will get whitewashed come 6e.

Quote from: Omega on February 06, 2024, 11:25:17 PM

Quote from: Cipher on February 06, 2024, 11:12:14 PM
Once again, per RAW, vampires are not only evil in the sense of their alignment listed as Evil but also they suffer from this "Dark desire" which twists their "once pure feelings", corrupting even friendship and love.

That will get whitewashed come 6e.

Perhaps, I don't really care. I don't even like 5e. I just agreed to play that game because I really wanted to play. I am just pointing out that, by RAW, there's plenty of evidence that shows vampires are always evil and not just in name, but in very tangible ways, described in that "dark desire" blurb.

Going against RAW is perfectly fine, but if not communicated then there's no way for the players to know. I was never told this and so my character assumed that RAW was being followed and that vampires are the filthy bloodsucking horrible mockery of life that they have always been in D&D.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM
If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

I like how moral relativism is so pervasive in every single argument you make. It's great. Paladins MIGHT NOT immediately kill undead if they plead for mercy! Hey, divine right says kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. By killing the undead and releasing their souls to the afterlife, they can be at rest.

AD&D is fucking frontier justice, and the morphing into modern Seattle stupidity about morality is fake, gay, and lame.

Going over the original post, this stuck out for me.

QuoteThe story so far that there had been some kidnappings in a city and the Mayor suspected cultists or monsters. We did some investigating, ruffed up some bandits for info, killed some spiders in the sewers and eventually it was revealed that a wealthy merchant was responsible because he is a Vampire Spawn, gathering flock to feast and/or to send to his master.

So, as usual IME, the ethics of killing undead in general is mostly irrelevant to the specifics of the game, where the opponents are usually up to some nefarious deeds. It may be possible to cure an undead without destroying them, but again, usually IME, that's a route that's usually impractical. Stop stopping the bad guy, take a few weeks to research undeath and the nature of their curse, quest for a cure of some sort, hope they stopped feeding on the poor villagers while the party was doing all that shit. No? Sucks (haha) to be them.

jhkim supporting a "the criminal is the TRUE victim!" narrative?

(https://media.tenor.com/images/7f734c5fc107f35983257d5c19609485/tenor.gif)

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM
There's a lot of vampire fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where vampirism is a malevolent curse, but someone under that curse won't necessarily succumb to evil, and the vampirism might even be cured.

There's a lot of fantasy fiction -- including specifically Forgotten Realms fiction -- where a single exceptional drow is part of the inherently lawful evil society that raised them, but does not necessarily succumb to evil, and might even be seen as heroic.

Explicitly exceptional cases do not disprove general patterns.

QuoteAD&D is fucking frontier justice

I think this is the crux of the matter right here.  D&D is based on pre-1980s sword & sorcery, not contemporary West Coast mores.  There are no police, social workers, justice system, presumption of innocence, or pre-trial detention.

Quote from: Brad on February 07, 2024, 06:56:46 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM
If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

I like how moral relativism is so pervasive in every single argument you make. It's great. Paladins MIGHT NOT immediately kill undead if they plead for mercy! Hey, divine right says kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. By killing the undead and releasing their souls to the afterlife, they can be at rest.

AD&D is fucking frontier justice, and the morphing into modern Seattle stupidity about morality is fake, gay, and lame.

  When something is a IRL personality feature its going to show up everywhere IMO.   I think we forget a lawful good paladin is much more Solomon Kane and much less some weenie standing around wondering what the "most good" thing to do is.

Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

Quote from: blackstone on February 07, 2024, 01:28:52 PM
Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

May he crush his enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 07, 2024, 02:11:16 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 07, 2024, 01:28:52 PM
Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

May he crush his enemies, see them driven before him, and hear the lamentations of their women.

You bet your ass he will!

Quote from: blackstone on February 07, 2024, 01:28:52 PM
Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

Making lemons out of lemonade.

EDIT: Haha, the other way!

Quote from: blackstone on February 07, 2024, 01:28:52 PM
Good news! Cipher is to join us in our Hyborian Age campaign!

I want to take this opportunity to thank you so much, again, for inviting me to your game!

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 07, 2024, 07:29:34 AM
Going over the original post, this stuck out for me.

QuoteThe story so far that there had been some kidnappings in a city and the Mayor suspected cultists or monsters. We did some investigating, ruffed up some bandits for info, killed some spiders in the sewers and eventually it was revealed that a wealthy merchant was responsible because he is a Vampire Spawn, gathering flock to feast and/or to send to his master.

So, as usual IME, the ethics of killing undead in general is mostly irrelevant to the specifics of the game, where the opponents are usually up to some nefarious deeds. It may be possible to cure an undead without destroying them, but again, usually IME, that's a route that's usually impractical. Stop stopping the bad guy, take a few weeks to research undeath and the nature of their curse, quest for a cure of some sort, hope they stopped feeding on the poor villagers while the party was doing all that shit. No? Sucks (haha) to be them.

And, in another post, I gave more context.

We used to sewers to get inside a hidden "dungeon"/jail below the estate of this wealthy merchant. It had around 8 to 10 cages, I don't remember the exact number. I think 3 or 4 where currently occupied.

I said to the DM that I wanted to investigate the empty ones, to determine if they have been used recently and I asked what I needed to roll for that. He said that there was no need for a roll, that I could clearly tell that the other cages where used recently.

Meaning, he was holding a handful of innocent people hostage, one was a child and another one was a young woman.

To what end? We didn't know at that time. This is why I said to either feast on them and/or send them to his Master so the Master can feast on them... or worse.

We had confirmation of the crimes, the extent of those crimes, that the crimes had been going on for a while, that some of the victims were no longer there so either dead or already sent to the Master.

As such, this is why when he faced the vampire spawn, I decided to draw my longsword and shout: "Your foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!".

And this is what stopped the game. Some people in this thread are bending over backwards trying to twist my words, but this is the reasoning behind my actions and my words. The Mayor tasked us with finding out what is happening with the missing people, not to apprehend the culprit.

Could there have been value in letting the vampire remain and perhaps have him give us information on his Master? Yes. I admitted to that in this thread. However, I want to make it clear that it was never brought up. No in character discussion happened about the value of not slaying this vampire on sight.

At best, he was taking people hostage and sending them to slaughter. At worst, he was the one actively feeding on these innocents. Even if the vampire is only following his Master's orders, it doesn't change the fact that some victims are already gone. And, keep in mind at this point we still don't know, it could be that he was the one feasting on them.

Again, could there have been value in finding that out? Yes. But the issue the rest of the Players had with me was never about that, or at least it was never communicated to the be that. It was "you are being a murderhobo" and "you are being a bigot" and "the vampire spawn is a victim!" and "attacking an intelligent creature unprovoked is murder!".

And all of those arguments were made to me as a Player and not to my character. I repeat, no in character discussion ever took place.

Understand, the very same people on this thread defending the vampire spawn for being a victim of his evil master will be the same people demanding a 98 year-old go to prison for the rest of his life because he was drafted by the Nazis as a teenager.  They aren't reacting based on principle; they are simply reacting to defend those who attacked you (because they want to be able to use the same tactics themselves on others).

Dude, you have to understand that if you were playing a game about crime investigation, and you found the DNA of a repeat offender thug at the scene, that GM would probably be annoyed you assumed the criminal was guilty, because his story is about a gang of cops planting DNA to "get those coloreds off the streets!"

Quote from: Brad on February 07, 2024, 06:56:46 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM
If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

I like how moral relativism is so pervasive in every single argument you make. It's great. Paladins MIGHT NOT immediately kill undead if they plead for mercy! Hey, divine right says kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. By killing the undead and releasing their souls to the afterlife, they can be at rest.

AD&D is fucking frontier justice, and the morphing into modern Seattle stupidity about morality is fake, gay, and lame.

Um. jhkim is actually somewhat right on this one. Sorting out a situation has been a core of D&D from the start. Is the ghost evil or just lost? Will helping it do more good than just putting it down?

Its D&D you NEVER know when something is not exactly what you thought. Pops up enough in the modules too from TSR.

If anything wotc seems to have lost this and you see far more black and white encounters than shades of grey.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 07, 2024, 09:37:17 PM
Understand, the very same people on this thread defending the vampire spawn for being a victim of his evil master will be the same people demanding a 98 year-old go to prison for the rest of his life because he was drafted by the Nazis as a teenager.  They aren't reacting based on principle; they are simply reacting to defend those who attacked you (because they want to be able to use the same tactics themselves on others).

At the very least, some comments and attitudes in this thread have given me an idea on what was going through the minds of the people in that online game. So, it has been a learning and eye opening experience.

Quote from: Omega on February 07, 2024, 10:13:48 PM

Quote from: Brad on February 07, 2024, 06:56:46 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 06:56:32 PM
If, say, a sorrowful ghost pleads that her family be properly buried, a paladin might bury the family and make sure the ghost passes on, rather than immediately attacking to destroy it.

I like how moral relativism is so pervasive in every single argument you make. It's great. Paladins MIGHT NOT immediately kill undead if they plead for mercy! Hey, divine right says kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out. By killing the undead and releasing their souls to the afterlife, they can be at rest.

AD&D is fucking frontier justice, and the morphing into modern Seattle stupidity about morality is fake, gay, and lame.

Um. jhkim is actually somewhat right on this one. Sorting out a situation has been a core of D&D from the start. Is the ghost evil or just lost? Will helping it do more good than just putting it down?

Its D&D you NEVER know when something is not exactly what you thought. Pops up enough in the modules too from TSR.

If anything wotc seems to have lost this and you see far more black and white encounters than shades of grey.

jhkim is using his usual tactics, the paladin of a god that's against all undead should react exactly as cipher's PC reacted especially given the evidence seen before encountering the vampire, nothing to do with our resident whataboutist's examples.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 07, 2024, 09:37:17 PM
Understand, the very same people on this thread defending the vampire spawn for being a victim of his evil master will be the same people demanding a 98 year-old go to prison for the rest of his life because he was drafted by the Nazis as a teenager.  They aren't reacting based on principle; they are simply reacting to defend those who attacked you (because they want to be able to use the same tactics themselves on others).

Actually they would probably deffend the nazi as they have done with Soros.

Thanks for the added info, Cipher.

What's not clear to me is that you said you had no way to know that the DM was portraying these vampire spawn as possibly (though not necessarily) innocent victims under an evil curse. However, somehow all the other players were on the same page as the DM. If there was no way for you to know, how did all the other players understand this?

I take it that you were faced with what appeared to be the merchant whose house this was. It seems implied that he wasn't offering any violence towards you, and instead was trying to talk with you. Is that right? What was he trying to say? How did your group know what he was?

Basically, I don't get how the other players came to an understanding with the DM. This reminds me how last month I revisited a time back in 2006, where the GM of a Harn game I was playing in posted on HarnForums about how his players were out of line in their violence (i.e. me and the other players). i.e. He posted complaining that we were "murderhobos". However, I and another player joined in on the thread, and we eventually talked through the clash.

https://www.facebook.com/john.h.kim1/posts/pfbid0ca4cb6Qc2bxcXbCAAHrcXDPLSQre9qkGC1ZdWH1id1iKFas19aB1KveDzdnPrH5Fl

---

To be clear - I have nothing against a game where all vampires should be killed on sight and never talked to. I also have nothing against a game where a vampire might be an innocent victim or even a heroic protagonist, and it's premature to instantly kill one that's trying to talk. Either way, it's just a game.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2024, 11:14:05 PM
Thanks for the added info, Cipher.

What's not clear to me is that you said you had no way to know that the DM was portraying these vampire spawn as possibly (though not necessarily) innocent victims under an evil curse. However, somehow all the other players were on the same page as the DM. If there was no way for you to know, how did all the other players understand this?

I take it that you were faced with what appeared to be the merchant whose house this was. It seems implied that he wasn't offering any violence towards you, and instead was trying to talk with you. Is that right? What was he trying to say? How did your group know what he was?

Basically, I don't get how the other players came to an understanding with the DM. This reminds me how last month I revisited a time back in 2006, where the GM of a Harn game I was playing in posted on HarnForums about how his players were out of line in their violence (i.e. me and the other players). i.e. He posted complaining that we were "murderhobos". However, I and another player joined in on the thread, and we eventually talked through the clash.

https://www.facebook.com/john.h.kim1/posts/pfbid0ca4cb6Qc2bxcXbCAAHrcXDPLSQre9qkGC1ZdWH1id1iKFas19aB1KveDzdnPrH5Fl

---

To be clear - I have nothing against a game where all vampires should be killed on sight and never talked to. I also have nothing against a game where a vampire might be an innocent victim or even a heroic protagonist, and it's premature to instantly kill one that's trying to talk. Either way, it's just a game.

Because the only new player was Cipher.

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2024, 11:14:05 PM
Thanks for the added info, Cipher.

What's not clear to me is that you said you had no way to know that the DM was portraying these vampire spawn as possibly (though not necessarily) innocent victims under an evil curse. However, somehow all the other players were on the same page as the DM. If there was no way for you to know, how did all the other players understand this?

I take it that you were faced with what appeared to be the merchant whose house this was. It seems implied that he wasn't offering any violence towards you, and instead was trying to talk with you. Is that right? What was he trying to say? How did your group know what he was?

Basically, I don't get how the other players came to an understanding with the DM. This reminds me how last month I revisited a time back in 2006, where the GM of a Harn game I was playing in posted on HarnForums about how his players were out of line in their violence (i.e. me and the other players). i.e. He posted complaining that we were "murderhobos". However, I and another player joined in on the thread, and we eventually talked through the clash.

https://www.facebook.com/john.h.kim1/posts/pfbid0ca4cb6Qc2bxcXbCAAHrcXDPLSQre9qkGC1ZdWH1id1iKFas19aB1KveDzdnPrH5Fl

---

To be clear - I have nothing against a game where all vampires should be killed on sight and never talked to. I also have nothing against a game where a vampire might be an innocent victim or even a heroic protagonist, and it's premature to instantly kill one that's trying to talk. Either way, it's just a game.

I've went over the events before on this thread.

Here is the run down one more time and with as much detail as I care to write at this hour. We were tasked by the Mayor to investigate some people missing. The Mayor suspected this was either the fault of cultist or monsters. Ruffing up some bandits, we were given a lead. That lead ended up in the city sewers so we could fight some giant spiders. Pretty standard D&D fare so far. However, I must point out, that from the get go there was the anticipation of something supernatural going on and that there's clearly something evil happening here. We were a party of 4 adventurers. A Cleric of Lathander, a rogue by class but he called himself a "swashbuckler", a Paladin of Lathander (my character) and some sort of gish class or fighter/mage multiclass, I am not sure. He could use melee weapons and some sort of magic. I don't really know D&D 5e. I addressed them by their names so I am not sure what class they were using besides the cleric of Lathander, since I know that because after hearing that I asked if I could be a paladin of the same religion so we could all have connections between out characters.

Then, we ended up in a hidden dungeon/jail with many cages, either 8 or 10, I don't remember exactly. 4 of those cages had people in them. I told the DM I wanted to investigate the other cages to see if there was recent activity on them. I was told there was no need to roll, it was clear that some of the empty cages had been used recently. The people still in the cages told us their stories. Through the testimonies of the captives, the party came to the conclusion that this was a vampire's doing and one of the party members told the people in the cages to wait for a bit before we could make sure there was no danger before releasing them. One of the players, I think it was the gish, said that it must be a vampire spawn, since at level 3 there was no way to face an actual vampire and survive.

This is could have been metagaming knowledge. But, I was the new guy at the table and even though I did my best to participate and engage in the game, I was the most passive in terms of leading the party on. Something I did not mind at all. Also, this could be deducted by the information given by the captives and some usage of knowledge lore skills. I don't know. I've never played D&D 5e before. I was just trying to get back into the hobby after years without playing TTRPGs. I mostly went along with what everyone decided, chiming in occasionally with mostly comments to add flavor. If this conclusion was arrived using metagaming knowledge or not, it wasn't really for me to decide or deride. I was doing my best to have fun and be a good player.

The cleric healed the rogue since he had taken damage in our encounter with the spiders before. We were anticipating a "boss" fight after looking for the culprit, who at this point we knew it was this wealthy merchant owner of the estate and was determined to be a vampire.

Again, don't question me about those specifics. I was just along for the ride. Yes, I find the idea of getting ready for a "boss fight" to be metagaming. Once again, I was not about to start wagging my finger and tell the group as the new guy that doing that ruins the game. I wouldn't have run it like that, and if this was my game there are a LOT of things I would have done differently. However, this was not my game and I was the new guest, so I let everything slide.

For the most part, the group was alright. I wanted to play a hero, meaning a party of "Good Guys" and everyone was on the same page. We all agreed not to kill the bandits as there was no need for them to die as long as we got our info. This wasn't really a discussion, when it came time to deal with them I said I wanted to tie them up and no one disagreed or decided to kill them instead. Everyone just went along with my approach. When we were sneaking around the vampire's mannor no one took off to try to loot or bag valuables. We stuck to the mission. Again, as far as I know, things were going great, even though this group played a little more "gamey" than the way I like to play TTRPGs. I wasn't in the mindset of judging.

Then, we opened the door to the study and found the merchant, who at this point is guilty of kidnapping and torturing innocents and most likely guilty of human trafficking at best. At worst, he is a vampire that fed on some of the captives or sent them to his Master.

The DM described the study and said that the merchant was facing the window before turning to us since we made a ruckus by forcibly opening the door. I said that my character draws his sword while shouting "You foul deeds end now, filthy bloodsucker!" and that I wanted to run up and Smite the merchant, who we understood it was a vampire. And that's when the game stopped.

One more time. No one said to me "Maybe he is not actually a vampire". We were all in agreement that he was a vampire. How did the party actually arrived to that conclusion? I am not really sure. I was told that this (what was going on the hidden dungeon/jail) was the doings of a vampire and I took it at face value. Everyone else seemed to agree, as well.

The problem was never that "he could be innocent" or "not a vampire".

The problems were:

1.- "Saying filthy bloodsucker is bigotry"
2.- "Attacking on sight is being a murderhobo"
3.- "Vampire spawns must obey their Master, so he is actually a victim!"
4.- "Lathander would disavow of acts of unprovoked violence. Since I am attacking an intelligent creature before this creature attacks me, that counts as murder"

At many, many points during that discussion, my entire mindset revolved around slaying a vampire, a foul creature of the night that feeds on the living. A mockery of life. No one ever made the argument that we could have been wrong all along, that there was more to this plot and that the merchant could have been innocent. At best, he was determined to be a thrall for a true Vampire, which is in lore and I agree to that approach but that doesn't mean this vampire spawn was necessarily following orders. Something that I did mention. For all we know, he could be the actual mastermind behind the kidnappings and this is just his feeding grounds, no Master involved.

The party disliked me deciding to attack on sight and considered that a "murderhobo" action. Their characters never made a case on why we shouldn't get the drop on the vampire. The players decided that I shouldn't attack on sight. I explained that giving the vampire time to speak means more trouble than its worth. He could be a magic user that uses a spell to turn the tables. He could have minions around that could come to his aid. He could just use the time to flat out escape. This wasn't part of the discussion but, given the events that had transpired as we understood them, at the very least, beating it to a pulp and then asking questions was actually the more sensible option, though I admit that my intentions were always to slay the vampire, not to interrogate it.

After reading comments in this thread, I think that there could have been value in getting information out of this vampire but that was never part of the discussion. I expressed many times that if the other characters have said something along those lines, I would have been open to stay my hand and not attack, although my concerns on relinquishing getting the drop on the vampire are still valid, I could see the value in interrogating him first.

The discussion was never around that and it was always around the 4 points I mentioned. And, the discussion was around the other players telling me, the Player of that Paladin of Lathander, why I was wrong in attacking on sight. There is a reason why I am numbering the points of discussion because they were brought up in that order.

I said it before in my previous comments, the "murderhobo" situation wasn't really that big of a deal. It seems clear to me that they really didn't wanted me to attack the vampire right away, but the biggest issue, the one that was mentioned the most and the one that was discussed the longest during almost 2 hours of talking about this, was the usage of "filthy bloodsucker". The conversation kept coming back to that point.

My reasons are simple. I explained the "murderhobo" allegations pretty quickly, just like I did here, saying that it was in our best interest to NOT let the vampire act and wasting the surprise round was to our detriment, not to our advantage. If that makes me a murderhobo, then so be it. But I'll rather be an alive murderhobo than a dead one or worse, getting jailed like the rest of the captives. However, this was brought up right after I was called a bigot for the usage of "filthy bloodsucker" to refer to this vampire.

Because explaining why I wasn't being a murderhobo was easier, in my mind at least, I started with that one. After explaining my point of view on the importance of getting the drop on the vampire, then the conversation fully revolved around calling it a "filthy bloodsucker". I was specifically told that it was considered bigotry and thus I was breaking the trigger warnings agreements of "no racism, no bullying and no bigotry". The reasoning was that I said those words out of hate, and thus it was bigotry.

I said that the usage was adequate as vampires are foul creatures of the night that must feed on the living to continue their cursed existence. As I posted a few pages back, the Monster's Manual agrees with this take, turning Player Characters that become vampires into "Lawful Evil" and also through the description of the "dark desire" blurb, mentioning that it corrupts their once pure feelings, even those of love and friendship become twisted by undeath. This is all per RAW, which again, I didn't knew at the time, but its still in line with my character's actions. Somehow, it seems I get D&D 5e better then them in terms of the established lore as per RAW, and I am the one that has never played the game before.

During that discussion, I was told that was a bigoted view, since vampires are intelligent creatures that can experience anguish and pain if slain or faced with sunlight and thus, attacking them on sight/in cold blood was considered murder. I explained that it can't be "murder" since vampires are undead and thus, by definition, are not actually "alive". I can admit this was somewhat a semantic argument, but I wasn't the one making that case, I was just explaining my reasoning.

Then, I was told that, as a vampire spawn, he is actually not entirely guilty, or perhaps even not guilty at all, because vampire spawns cannot disobey their Masters. Something that, although is true, goes off a lot of assumptions. Like assuming there is a mastermind behind the kidnappings and this is not just the merchant feeding on the people of the city because... y'know, as a vampire, spawn or otherwise, he has to feed on someone. I replied that, be that as it may, it was actually a mercy to slay the vampire, to release his poor and tormented soul from this undead prison and give him a chance to finally rest in peace as there is now way to cure vampirism and thus, grant rest to his soul. To which it was pointed out to me that I was wrong and that a Wish spell could cure it, however as a 3 level party that's well beyond our means and will be beyond our means for quite some in-game time.

Eventually, the female player, the one playing a cleric of Lathander, said that Lathander would disapprove of attacking the vampire on sight, as this was a "merciless" action that was an act of unprovoked violence. I replied that the violence was not merciless and was very much provoked, since we had the vampire dead to rights as guilty of at least kidnapping and holding captive a bunch of people, more than the people that remained alive in the cages below his estate, which means something happened to the people that were in the other cages, we just don't know what. At the very least, the violence was not unprovoked. And whether or not it was enough to slay the vampire without imprisonment or a trial, that's beside the point as those arguments should have been made by the characters to each other/towards my character after the fight not the players towards me while the game was paused/stopped.

At different points during the discussion, the point about my usage of "filthy bloodsucker" to refer to a vampire was brought up again and again. Saying that it was "hateful" and that's what qualified as bigotry. I maintained the position that vampires are, indeed, undead monsters that feast on the blood of the living and so both "filthy" and "bloodsucker" are apt qualifiers to describe them.

At no point during almost two hours of discussing this, did the DM made any rulings or comments about the nature of vampires in his game. I said so before in this thread. If I made that attack and the DM ruled that I lose my powers because vampires in his world are considered people and not monsters, and thus striking them down on sight is considered "unprovoked acts of violence", then I would argue that we had plenty of evidence that this vampire had committed crimes even if he was being compelled to by his Master.

If, in turn, the DM would reply to that statement with anything that would amount to "It doesn't matter. Attempting to slay the vampire without being threatened with violence from the vampire is considered murder. Do so at your own risk of breaking your Oath". I would disagree, but without making a fuss out of it I would acquiesce in the interest of keeping the game going and would not have attacked the vampire.

This, however, never occurred. The DM kept mostly silent during the entire exchange. I say mostly because this was played on a call over Discord without video and since I am new playing with this group I don't recognize every single voice that easily. I know the cleric of lathander was female and thus I know the points she made against my actions because of that. This is also the reason why it is somewhat complicated for me to understand exactly who decided that the merchant was actually a vampire. All I know for certain is that someone in the party made the decision/observation and everyone else agreed and that during our lengthy discussion the idea of "the merchant may actually not have been a vampire after all" was never entertained.

At many points during the discussion a lot of people were talking at the same time. This is why I am not really sure if the DM was also participating in making those arguments against me. However, I do know for sure that there was no official ruling communicated to me about vampires being or not being "always evil" as per RAW. The discussion went in circles many times, like I said before, with the "bigotry" argument coming up more than once and me being derided for breaking the agreed upon trigger warnings for engaging in hateful speech.

Also, as I said before in this thread, I stuck around because I really wanted to make this work. Since I am neither a racist or a bigot, I was sure I could just explain my point of view, my train of thought, my reasoning and surely, they would see that it was never my intention to be a bigot by using those words and thus, I never actually broke the trigger warning agreement we all made in Session 0. This was my sole intention in entertaining that discussion. Whether my character's actions were right or not or where in line with his faith or not, is a different topic altogether and one that I believe should have been addressed in-character, if at all. The reason I stayed in the call was because, this being my first time playing a game with "trigger warnings", I wanted to make it clear I never broke them. Not intentionally, anyways.

Only when the DM actually made a ruling, addressing my by my Player name and not my character's name and said that if I moved forward with the attack I would break my Oath, then I decided that a consensus was reached and that I disagreed with that consensus. I said as much, thanked them for inviting me, wished them well and to have fun playing this adventure, said my goodbyes and then left the call.

Less than half an hour later, I got a direct message from the DM saying that I was in the wrong, because the trigger warnings were already discussed beforehand and that I was rude and that with my attitude he would not be able to allow me to play with them in the future. I replied in the most polite way I could think of, that I was not interested in playing with them in the future.


You can see why I didn't go over the situation in this amount of detail before. However, if you read my opening post and my other comments throughout this thread, you will see that this has always been my recollection of the events from my perspective. I admitted that it could be that I just did not "get it". I admitted that I tried my best to remain calm, not to raise my voice and was very mindful of my word choice so as to make sure I didn't use any words that could be considered offensive, insulting, demeaning or condescending while discussing this situation with the rest of the party.

I know this is my subjective take on how things transpired. I know it could be that I wasn't as calm as I think I was. I know it could be that they could have interpreted my words as insulting. However,  I can only be responsible for my own actions and for the intentions behind those actions. I did my best to remain calm and discuss the situation in good faith to try to keep playing the game.

Having said that, I remain firm in my belief that I acted according to my understanding of the setting, my character's background and personality, my character's alignment and my character's religion and that I don't think I was being a murderhobo nor a bigot.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on February 08, 2024, 02:03:27 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 07, 2024, 11:14:05 PM
Thanks for the added info, Cipher.

What's not clear to me is that you said you had no way to know that the DM was portraying these vampire spawn as possibly (though not necessarily) innocent victims under an evil curse. However, somehow all the other players were on the same page as the DM. If there was no way for you to know, how did all the other players understand this?

I take it that you were faced with what appeared to be the merchant whose house this was. It seems implied that he wasn't offering any violence towards you, and instead was trying to talk with you. Is that right? What was he trying to say? How did your group know what he was?

Basically, I don't get how the other players came to an understanding with the DM. This reminds me how last month I revisited a time back in 2006, where the GM of a Harn game I was playing in posted on HarnForums about how his players were out of line in their violence (i.e. me and the other players). i.e. He posted complaining that we were "murderhobos". However, I and another player joined in on the thread, and we eventually talked through the clash.

https://www.facebook.com/john.h.kim1/posts/pfbid0ca4cb6Qc2bxcXbCAAHrcXDPLSQre9qkGC1ZdWH1id1iKFas19aB1KveDzdnPrH5Fl

---

To be clear - I have nothing against a game where all vampires should be killed on sight and never talked to. I also have nothing against a game where a vampire might be an innocent victim or even a heroic protagonist, and it's premature to instantly kill one that's trying to talk. Either way, it's just a game.

Because the only new player was Cipher.

Pretty much... yeah. If the DM had expressed before that in his games no creature is always Evil or that alignment is more of a guideline and that whatever RAW says about it is fluff, then I was never informed. I could only go on with what I know of the setting (Forgotten Realms) and my own experience with D&D in general, since this was my first time actually playing 5e.

However, after reading the Monster's Manual, the entry on vampires fully agrees with my take that vampires are always evil and that their own undead existence corrupts their "once pure feelings" and twists them, even if they recall their past memories. Seems to me the game agrees undead are monsters or at least vampires are always monsters.

Monster's Manual page 295:

PLAYER CHARACTERS AS VAMPIRES

The game statistics of a player character
transformed into a vampire spawn and then a
vampire don't change, except that the character's Strength,
Dexterity, and Constitution scores become 18 if they aren't
higher. In addition, the character gains the vampire's damage
resistances, darkvision, traits, and actions. Attack and
damage rolls for the vampire's attacks are based on Strength.
The save DC for Charm is 8 + the vampire's proficiency
bonus+ the vampire's Charisma modifier. The character's
alignment becomes lawful evil, and the DM might take
control of the character until the vampirism is reversed with
a wish spell or the character is killed and brought back to life.


Also, just before that blurb, there's this gem describing vampires:

Dark Desires. Whether or not a vampire retains
any memories from its former life, its emotional
attachments wither as once-pure feelings become
twisted by undeath. Love turns into hungry
obsession, while friendship becomes bitter
jealousy. In place of emotion, vampires pursue
physical symbols of what they crave, so that a
vampire seeking love might fixate on a young beauty.
A child might become an object of fascination for a
vampire obsessed with youth and potential. Others
surround themselves with art, books, or sinister items
such as torture devices or trophies from creatures
they have killed.

As per RAW, even if a Player Character becomes a vampire they are now "lawful evil" and their memories and feelings from their past life are corrupted and twisted by their undead existence. Basically, no gray area here.

I understand not everyone plays RAW, but in my day, making such a big change to the way a monster is RAW required the DM to communicate this with the Players.

After reading the longer version of event, I still hold firm in my original assessment.

When they started attacking you personally, that's when they crossed the line.

They really have a warped sense of morality when it comes to labeling things as bigotry.

I can only imagine what they consider racist or sexists (they'd probably consider the title of Oriental Adventures "racist").

I hope this sort of behavior isn't considered "normal" among gaming groups today.

First off Cipher let me say you are a better man than I would have been, given your description of the situation.

For what it's worth (considering I'm just some random guy on the internet and a FNG to the boards), I think you handled the whole affair with maturity and patience.

Now it's probably the better part of the bottle of Jameson's (on ice, the only way to drink good whiskey) I've been sipping this afternoon but I still having problems as to the why?  You were called a bigot, to your person.  How in the f**k does an in character statement in a fantasy game translate into a personal attack?  Is this what the hobby has become in the 15-17 years I've been away from it?  For Fox Lake.

It makes me mad.

Quote from: blackstone on February 08, 2024, 08:16:51 AM
After reading the longer version of event, I still hold firm in my original assessment.

When they started attacking you personally, that's when they crossed the line.

Wait -- as a question to Cipher - were they saying that you were a bigot in real life? From your descriptions, I thought this was about your character and fantasy bigotry, not about you as a player.

In general, my stance has been that it's fine to have different fantasy worlds -- including ones where those infected with vampirism could be innocent or even heroic. That's not a political stance, it's a fucking fantasy world. It's also fine to have bigotry in the game. There's nothing inherently wrong with, say, a dwarf PC who says "Never trust an elf" or a heroic vampire PC who has to struggle with those who hate her for her condition. But it's also fine for group to have a rule "We don't want to have fantasy bigotry in our game." If that's the agreed-on rule for the fantasy game, then a player should have stick with that rule.

But that's all about fantasy. If they were accusing you of real-life bigotry, Cipher, then that would be out of bounds (and ridiculous).

  Why is it not OK to be racist and a bigot towards Vampires?   Filthy blood sucking monsters who kill intelligent prey for pleasure and to live.  I think some things are just fine to be racist/bigoted about...alien monsters killing your friends and people around you?   Be as racist as you want.  Really dumb take to be called bigoted for attacking a literal monster from hell.

Quote from: oggsmash on February 09, 2024, 12:10:21 PM
  Why is it not OK to be racist and a bigot towards Vampires?   Filthy blood sucking monsters who kill intelligent prey for pleasure and to live.  I think some things are just fine to be racist/bigoted about...alien monsters killing your friends and people around you?   Be as racist as you want.  Really dumb take to be called bigoted for attacking a literal monster from hell.

If you want to run a game where all vampires are by definition from hell, I'm fine with that. Your game, your rules.

Conversely, someone else can run a game where there are innocent or even good people struggling with the curse of vampirism, like SHARK's example of Genieveve Du Monte (in Warhammer) or my examples of Regis (in The Witcher) or Pwent (in Forgotten Realms). If it's their game, it's their rules.

Different things can be true in different fantasy worlds.

This isn't a fucking real-world political difference. And these examples of heroic vampires aren't from recent SJW fiction either. It's a concept that's been around for decades. Even in the original Dracula, they had sign after sign of Lucy being a vampire, but kept investigating until she attacked them before staking her corpse.

Count me among the "Unwanted, insidious and maybe even mailicious: Will not play at a table that enforces them."  People who need these need to have their heads examined. 

Quote from: jhkim on February 09, 2024, 12:58:42 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on February 09, 2024, 12:10:21 PM
  Why is it not OK to be racist and a bigot towards Vampires?   Filthy blood sucking monsters who kill intelligent prey for pleasure and to live.  I think some things are just fine to be racist/bigoted about...alien monsters killing your friends and people around you?   Be as racist as you want.  Really dumb take to be called bigoted for attacking a literal monster from hell.

If you want to run a game where all vampires are by definition from hell, I'm fine with that. Your game, your rules.

Conversely, someone else can run a game where there are innocent or even good people struggling with the curse of vampirism, like SHARK's example of Genieveve Du Monte (in Warhammer) or my examples of Regis (in The Witcher) or Pwent (in Forgotten Realms). If it's their game, it's their rules.

Different things can be true in different fantasy worlds.

This isn't a fucking real-world political difference. And these examples of heroic vampires aren't from recent SJW fiction either. It's a concept that's been around for decades. Even in the original Dracula, they had sign after sign of Lucy being a vampire, but kept investigating until she attacked them before staking her corpse.

  What does your weird tirade here have to do with me talking about the people Cipher was playing with calling him a bigot for having his character draw a sword and attack a vampire?  One that according the what his party had found up to that point was not some hero struggling with a curse at that.

Ok, can we clarify that there's two separate and basically unrelated arguments going on here: One has to do with the behavior of the this particular GM and his party. The other is about the nature of Vampires and Paladins.

On the first question, I think every post has agreed the behavior is out of line. The best possible faith interpretation is Cipher and the rest of the group interpreting the described situation differently. If that was the case, then it's incumbent on the GM and the other players to discuss it like adults. At bare minimum, Cipher should have been given the opportunity to retcon his behavior, based on the fact that this game's version of Faerun is not what an outsider would expect. Frankly, I suspect that the entire incident was a pretense. I suspect this group didn't want Cipher to keep playing, and were too conflict averse come out and say it, so they waited for an excuse to gang up on him without it (in their minds) looking personal.

On the question of "What is a Vampire?". I mean, the obvious answer is "it depends who you ask". JHKim is right that the Vampire as tragic or heroic figure has been around since at least the 70s, and the Vampire Spawn as a victim who could potentially be rescued has been around since Dracula. At the same time, the idea that vampires are wicked abominations and must be destroyed has been around since at least the 17th century. I don't know my Forgotten Realms lore well enough to say what's right in that environment, and anyway, a DM always has the prerogative of saying "in my game Vampires are X, Y or Z"

What I feel a bit more strongly about is the moral question. AFAIC "smite first and ask questions later" is categorically an attitude unworthy of a Paladin. If D&D is frontier justice, then the Paladin is the whitest of white-hat cowboys. Lawful Good means you try to do the right thing in every situation, and that means taking the extra effort to find out what the right thing to do is. That's what makes Paladins interesting to play, being the man of honor in a lawless world. You don't get to take the lazy solutions. Paladin should be the hardest class to play, because being a legitimately good person is hard work.

Having said all that, it sounds like Cipher did his due diligence. If I read the explanatory post right, he had sufficient evidence to conclude that the vampire spawn presented a clear and present danger to innocent lives. Could you argue there was time to interrogate him? Sure, but what if he doesn't surrender? D&D doesn't have great mechanics for subduing an enemy and Vampires are notoriously difficult to imprison. What if he takes the opportunity to turn into mist and escape? I don't know if vampire spawn can do that, but neither does Cipher's character. Frankly, this shows why I dislike game mechanics that expect a DM to directly act out the will of the gods. Maybe it was the wrong action, maybe not. But it sounds like the the intent was right. Does that justify the divine retribution of losing his Paladin levels? Does Lathander want you to investigate, or does he want you to destroy undead wherever you find them? With a real world religion, the PC can have their own interpretation of their god's doctrine, and can grapple with the consequences of possibly having gotten it wrong. Plus the DM gets to keep their neutrality on the question. Having the DM step in and say "your god says you did wrong" is not only less interesting, but it's also always going to come over as the DM themselves saying they don't like the way you play.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2024, 09:02:25 PM
Frankly, I suspect that the entire incident was a pretense. I suspect this group didn't want Cipher to keep playing, and were too conflict averse come out and say it, so they waited for an excuse to gang up on him without it (in their minds) looking personal.

My thoughts as well. They sensed he was not part of their tribe, and they waited for the smallest excuse to exile him.

Quote from: jhkim on February 09, 2024, 12:03:49 PM

Quote from: blackstone on February 08, 2024, 08:16:51 AM
After reading the longer version of event, I still hold firm in my original assessment.

When they started attacking you personally, that's when they crossed the line.

Wait -- as a question to Cipher - were they saying that you were a bigot in real life? From your descriptions, I thought this was about your character and fantasy bigotry, not about you as a player.

In general, my stance has been that it's fine to have different fantasy worlds -- including ones where those infected with vampirism could be innocent or even heroic. That's not a political stance, it's a fucking fantasy world. It's also fine to have bigotry in the game. There's nothing inherently wrong with, say, a dwarf PC who says "Never trust an elf" or a heroic vampire PC who has to struggle with those who hate her for her condition. But it's also fine for group to have a rule "We don't want to have fantasy bigotry in our game." If that's the agreed-on rule for the fantasy game, then a player should have stick with that rule.

But that's all about fantasy. If they were accusing you of real-life bigotry, Cipher, then that would be out of bounds (and ridiculous).

I was the one being a bigot since I decided to use the term "filthy bloodsucker" which turns out to be hateful speech or something like that, at this point its been a week and I don't remember the exact wording. But the word "hate" was thrown around and the word "bigotry" was used to specifically refer to how I broke the trigger warning agreement of "no racism, no bigotry and no bullying".

So, it was most definitely levied at me as I said many many times at this point, there was no in-character discussion of the matter at all. As soon as I announced that action, the game stopped and we, the Players, had a lengthy almost 2 hour discussion which ended with the DM finally ruling that I would lose my powers if I went ahead with attacking the vampire. Once again, I entertained the discussion for as long as I did because, since I am not a racist nor a bigot, I was sure this was just a miscommunication/misunderstanding and if I only I explained my train of thought, we could sort it out and keep the game going.

When it became apparent that the only way moving forward was accepting that a Paladin of Lathander cannot strike down a vampire on sight, I decided the game was no longer for me.

I've said many many times in this thread, that if there was a discussion in-character about the value of interrogating the vampire, if the DM had told me that in his world vampires count as people even though they are undead and so striking them down without being threatened with violence first counts as an act of unprovoked violence, if at any point during the game I was told that in this version of the Realms, Lathander is not anti-undead like the way its represented in the canon version of Forgotten Realms, then I would have acted differently.

For me, after having that lengthy discussion, it was not an acceptable outcome to have to accept that I was being a bigot for calling the vampire a filthy bloodsucker and that striking the vampire while we got the surprise round advantage amounted to murder.

And thus, I decided that if that was the way stuff like this was going to be handled, then the game was not for me.

As I said in the opening post, I expect this stuff to be discussed as adults not to halt the game and then having to explain why I am not a murderhobo or a bigot. Also, if we are going to use stuff that has an established canon, I expect the deviations to that established lore to be communicated before hand.

To me, the situation left me know that at any future point during the game, I could be found breaking the trigger warnings in a way that I don't agree means breaking and that the lore of both D&D as per RAW and the Forgotten Realms could be deviated without prior knowledge. I just don't like that kind of game.

As I said, it would have been different if the DM quickly had said "oh yeah, you are new so I forgot to tell you, I don't really play RAW with the monster's alignment and in my version of Forgotten Realms the gods behave and this and that way, which makes it so you would be breaking your Oath by acting in this manner". That would have been completely different.

But, we had to have the discussion. I was expected to accept I used hateful speech/bigoted words, that I broke the trigger warning agreement, that I was in the wrong and then correct my actions. For me, at that point, this wasn't an acceptable outcome, given the circumstances.

D&D has black and white morality. Alignments are not just words. I've shown how the very Monster's Manual describes vampires. Not as morally gray tragic figures, but as foul monsters, who's very essence is twisted and corrupted by their undead existence. If this is not going to be the case, then I expect someone to let me know before hand.

Also, no such qualms about killing giant spiders, actual living creatures, on sight without even entertaining the idea of using non-lethal attacks. Additionally, I only said that I drawn my sword and smite the vampire. That doesn't mean he would have perished. Yes, my intention was to destroy the vampire, but that doesn't mean that situations in-character, y'know, actual roleplay couldn't have persuaded my character to only take him out without finishing the job.

There were other factors that I did not like about the way the game was run but it wasn't anything too egregious and I was so desperate to play again that I overlooked them. But to me, this was the straw that broke the camel. I just cannot justify to myself separating 5 to 6 hours of my leisure time to play a game when everything can grind to halt due to stuff like this. Either we play as adults and discuss as adults or we actually roleplay out actions and their consequences or to me the game is just not worth it.

Just one of them, in-character, saying something like "wait, Sir Paladin! he is but a cog in this vicious machine. He is not the villain we are looking for. We need to get to the root. We need to find his Master. Stay your hand so we can get the information we need and end this nightmare once and for all!"

Or anything that amounts to that, and I would have been 100% fine with that approach.


However, even on this very thread I can see people saying that "well, vampires can be good so yeah, that's murder!" then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If we cannot count on RAW, on the established lore for the setting we are playing, on the DM to communicate deviations to both RAW and the established setting, if the Player is to defend himself from accusations instead of having actual roleplay in a ROLEPLAYING GAME, if the game can be ground to a halt with an X-Card.

Then, that game is just not for me.

Quote from: aganauton on February 08, 2024, 11:10:49 PM
First off Cipher let me say you are a better man than I would have been, given your description of the situation.

For what it's worth (considering I'm just some random guy on the internet and a FNG to the boards), I think you handled the whole affair with maturity and patience.

Now it's probably the better part of the bottle of Jameson's (on ice, the only way to drink good whiskey) I've been sipping this afternoon but I still having problems as to the why?  You were called a bigot, to your person.  How in the f**k does an in character statement in a fantasy game translate into a personal attack?  Is this what the hobby has become in the 15-17 years I've been away from it?  For Fox Lake.

It makes me mad.

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement, Aganauton.

I don't really see myself as a "better man" than anyone else. I do strive to be kind, truthful and earnest towards others and follow the golden rule: "treat others as I would like to be treated".

And I did my best to adhere to that rule in this situation. I never actually felt attacked, since I know I am not a bigot. I treated it as a miscommunication/misunderstanding. I was unable to convey that to the rest of the group. It's fine. They can have fun with their trigger warnings in games. I will, and have, moved on to greener pastures.

Quote from: Aglondir on February 09, 2024, 09:25:53 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2024, 09:02:25 PM
Frankly, I suspect that the entire incident was a pretense. I suspect this group didn't want Cipher to keep playing, and were too conflict averse come out and say it, so they waited for an excuse to gang up on him without it (in their minds) looking personal.

My thoughts as well. They sensed he was not part of their tribe, and they waited for the smallest excuse to exile him.

If that was the case I would be surprised, since I though things were going great in terms of Player and party dynamics. Yeah, I don't even like D&D 5e and there was some stuff that I would have handled differently in terms of running the game, but such is life when you've been a forever GM for over a decade so, as a Player, I try to have fun and not judge others too harshly on the way they run things.

However, I do agree it was extremely jarring the way the game ground to halt and that all the arguments were levied against me and not my character. On the other hand, reading some comments in this thread has opened my eyes that some people do actually agree with that approach. So, perhaps it was just a matter of different mindsets that ended up incompatible for enjoying the hobby.

If this was their way to kick me out, then I say "good riddance". I wouldn't be having much fun with that kind of crowd anyways, sooner or later.

As I said in my opening post, back in the day, there was no "trigger warning/safety tools/X-Cards" stuff. We just talked things out as a adults outside of the game, either before, after or during a break and that was it.

I've come out of this experience with my eyes opened and I now know that a game with trigger warnings is actually a red flag for me, and thankfully now I know to steer clear from such gaming groups.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2024, 09:02:25 PM

What I feel a bit more strongly about is the moral question. AFAIC "smite first and ask questions later" is categorically an attitude unworthy of a Paladin. If D&D is frontier justice, then the Paladin is the whitest of white-hat cowboys. Lawful Good means you try to do the right thing in every situation, and that means taking the extra effort to find out what the right thing to do is. That's what makes Paladins interesting to play, being the man of honor in a lawless world. You don't get to take the lazy solutions. Paladin should be the hardest class to play, because being a legitimately good person is hard work.

I 100% agree with this take, and that is the reason why I like playing Paladins in D&D and D&D-like games. The difference is that Lathander, the Morninglord, an established deity in the Forgotten Realms setting is anti-undead. As a paladin of Lathander, I share this view.

From the Forgotten Realms wiki, this part is talking about Lathander's personality, taken from the Faiths and Pantheons book published in 2002 by Wizards:

"Exuberant and friendly, his interests laid in vibrant life (regarding both birth and nature), and conversely urged the destruction of the corrupted mockeries of life that he saw the undead as."

Also, we have this past talking about Lathander's worshipers, taken also form the Faiths and Pantheons book:

"All of Lathander's clergy respected art, liberty, nature, and culture; promoted betterment of oneself; and strove to bring hope to their followers and others. Many of these followers worked in various creative arts.They were intolerant of evil, especially undead and inaction that caused evil to prosper."

As such, I would argue that as a level 3 character I am actually making the hard decision here. Instead of offering the vampire parley and a way to bribe his way out of this situation, I am laying down Lathander's judgement and mercy by releasing this poor soul from the torment of undeath.


To summarize, if a Player Character becomes a vampire in 5e by RAW, their alignment is changed to "lawful evil", the same alignment full vampires have in the Monster's Manual description. Why would that be if it isn't to let the DM and the Players know that vampires are always evil, even if they weren't before being turned?

Additionally, one more time, here is what the 5e Monster's Manual says about vampires:

"Dark Desires: Whether or not a vampire retains
any memories from its former life, its emotional
attachments wither as once-pure feelings become
twisted by undeath. Love turns into hungry
obsession, while friendship becomes bitter
jealousy. In place of emotion, vampires pursue
physical symbols of what they crave, so that a
vampire seeking love might fixate on a young beauty.
A child might become an object of fascination for a
vampire obsessed with youth and potential. Others
surround themselves with art, books, or sinister items
such as torture devices or trophies from creatures
they have killed."


So, by all accounts, both 5e and Lathander from Forgotten Realms view undead and, by extension, vampires as evil that is to be destroyed, not reasoned with.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2024, 09:02:25 PM

Having said all that, it sounds like Cipher did his due diligence. If I read the explanatory post right, he had sufficient evidence to conclude that the vampire spawn presented a clear and present danger to innocent lives.

Indeed. At the very least, he was guilty of kidnapping and imprisoning innocents. Leaving them to waste away without food, to me, also counts as a form of torture. That's three serious crimes right there. And that's the stuff that we can prove beyond the shadow of the doubt. Then, there's the situation of what happened to the other people that was in the cells that were recently used but were empty when we arrived at the scene. Feasted upon? Trafficked to the Master or some slave trader? Who knows.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 09, 2024, 09:02:25 PM
Could you argue there was time to interrogate him? Sure, but what if he doesn't surrender? D&D doesn't have great mechanics for subduing an enemy and Vampires are notoriously difficult to imprison. What if he takes the opportunity to turn into mist and escape? I don't know if vampire spawn can do that, but neither does Cipher's character.

This was my approach and when the Player's called me a murderhobo. I explained that, since the vampire was looking at the window and turned our way when we busted through the door, we had the drop on him. There is no way to assess if the vampire has magics, ancient artifacts, minions in the vicinity, or a way to escape like just jumping through the window. He is a vampire, after all. Relinquishing the drop we got on him was ill-advised and to our detriment, not to our advantage. And that's just being pragmatic, never mind the stuff I already presented clearly detailing the way vampires are viewed by both 5e RAW and by Lathander in Forgotten Realms.

I agreed plenty of times in this thread that there could have been value in interrogating him and if such an argument was made in-character from the other characters towards my character, I would have been perfectly fine with that development and 100% open to stay my hand. However, no such argument was made.

And, I also have said that I understand not everyone plays RAW, which is completely fine. However, if we are deviating from both 5e RAW and Forgotten Realms established lore in terms of Lathander's view towards undeads in general, then without this being communicated to me I can only go on with the information I have at hand and that my character should know.

As a paladin of Lathander and his worshiper, I know the views of the Morninglord towards the mockery of life that are undead creatures.

I don't really like to have the established image of my character based on his background, life experiences and in this case, his faith, to be suddenly retconned midgame but I would have been OK with that if the DM had said something right after I announced my intentions towards the vampire, instead of the discussion being around how I broke the trigger warnings agreement made on Session 0.

Quote from: Cipher on February 10, 2024, 01:13:43 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 09, 2024, 12:03:49 PM
Wait -- as a question to Cipher - were they saying that you were a bigot in real life? From your descriptions, I thought this was about your character and fantasy bigotry, not about you as a player.

In general, my stance has been that it's fine to have different fantasy worlds -- including ones where those infected with vampirism could be innocent or even heroic. That's not a political stance, it's a fucking fantasy world. It's also fine to have bigotry in the game. There's nothing inherently wrong with, say, a dwarf PC who says "Never trust an elf" or a heroic vampire PC who has to struggle with those who hate her for her condition. But it's also fine for group to have a rule "We don't want to have fantasy bigotry in our game." If that's the agreed-on rule for the fantasy game, then a player should have stick with that rule.

But that's all about fantasy. If they were accusing you of real-life bigotry, Cipher, then that would be out of bounds (and ridiculous).

I was the one being a bigot since I decided to use the term "filthy bloodsucker" which turns out to be hateful speech or something like that, at this point its been a week and I don't remember the exact wording. But the word "hate" was thrown around and the word "bigotry" was used to specifically refer to how I broke the trigger warning agreement of "no racism, no bigotry and no bullying".

So, it was most definitely levied at me as I said many many times at this point, there was no in-character discussion of the matter at all.

This leaves it ambiguous what they're talking about. There's a difference between out-of-character discussion about a character and out-of-character discussion about the player. For example, if in my old HarnMaster game, if someone were to say "Baraud is bigoted", then I'd respond "Hell yes he is." That isn't a judgement against me as a player, because my character isn't myself, and I would agree that Baraud the character was bigoted. Does that makes sense? i.e.

In-character: "Baraud, you are a bigoted villain. I, Tornhaus, will not stand for it."

Out-of-character about the character: "Hey, jhkim, your character Baraud seems bigoted." "Yes, he is."

Out-of-character about the player: "Hey, jhkim, you're being a bigot by how you play your character Baraud."

Quote from: Cipher on February 10, 2024, 01:13:43 AM
However, even on this very thread I can see people saying that "well, vampires can be good so yeah, that's murder!" then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If we cannot count on RAW, on the established lore for the setting we are playing, on the DM to communicate deviations to both RAW and the established setting, if the Player is to defend himself from accusations instead of having actual roleplay in a ROLEPLAYING GAME, if the game can be ground to a halt with an X-Card.

Here I disagree. As DM, I am not required to pre-announce to players if there are monsters different than the description in the Monster Manual. I will freely introduce new monsters, variant monsters, new monsters that look like old monsters, or old monsters that look different than their canonical description. I'll only tell the player as much about a monster type as their character would reasonably know. I might give a skill roll for their character to know some details, based on their background.

That said, from your description, it sounds like the characters were supposed to know something about vampires - though some of this was possibly metagaming. The biggest mess sounds like the DM sitting largely silent when he could have cut short the long argument among the players. I would think that the other players or you would demand a ruling to settle the issue.

Quote from: Cipher on February 08, 2024, 03:46:08 AM

Pretty much... yeah. If the DM had expressed before that in his games no creature is always Evil or that alignment is more of a guideline and that whatever RAW says about it is fluff, then I was never informed. I could only go on with what I know of the setting (Forgotten Realms) and my own experience with D&D in general, since this was my first time actually playing 5e.

However, after reading the Monster's Manual, the entry on vampires fully agrees with my take that vampires are always evil and that their own undead existence corrupts their "once pure feelings" and twists them, even if they recall their past memories. Seems to me the game agrees undead are monsters or at least vampires are always monsters.

This is another thing wotc has lost with all their incessant lore fuckery. Used to be alignment really was a guideline. But not set in stone. Alot of the old modules played around with that too and Dungeon really ran with it in a few modules.

Its pathetic how wotc was pushing "no alignments for monsters! Be free!" and yet are even more restrictive.

Quote from: blackstone on February 08, 2024, 08:16:51 AM

I can only imagine what they consider racist or sexists (they'd probably consider the title of Oriental Adventures "racist").

I hope this sort of behavior isn't considered "normal" among gaming groups today.

If wotc has their way then eventually more and more players will have this sick mindset.

Right now its probably 25% loons and 75% sane. But if the indicators of 6e go through, expect things to get alot worse. We woll be dealing with the woke and a resurgence of storygamer tyranny.

Quote from: blackstone on February 08, 2024, 08:16:51 AM
After reading the longer version of event, I still hold firm in my original assessment.

When they started attacking you personally, that's when they crossed the line.

They really have a warped sense of morality when it comes to labeling things as bigotry.

I can only imagine what they consider racist or sexists (they'd probably consider the title of Oriental Adventures "racist").

I hope this sort of behavior isn't considered "normal" among gaming groups today.

Oh they 100% do think that is racist and suggesting it's not will get you a permanent ban over at TBP for violating their racism policy.  They can and will label pretty much anything bigotry. 

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 11, 2024, 07:03:24 AM

Quote from: blackstone on February 08, 2024, 08:16:51 AM
After reading the longer version of event, I still hold firm in my original assessment.

When they started attacking you personally, that's when they crossed the line.

They really have a warped sense of morality when it comes to labeling things as bigotry.

I can only imagine what they consider racist or sexists (they'd probably consider the title of Oriental Adventures "racist").

I hope this sort of behavior isn't considered "normal" among gaming groups today.

Oh they 100% do think that is racist and suggesting it's not will get you a permanent ban over at TBP for violating their racism policy.  They can and will label pretty much anything bigotry.

Unless you're being bigoted towards the correct targets.

Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2024, 02:06:30 AM
Here I disagree. As DM, I am not required to pre-announce to players if there are monsters different than the description in the Monster Manual. I will freely introduce new monsters, variant monsters, new monsters that look like old monsters, or old monsters that look different than their canonical description. I'll only tell the player as much about a monster type as their character would reasonably know. I might give a skill roll for their character to know some details, based on their background.

  Whether the character would know about vampires possibly being good or not, he would most definitely know about how Lathander expects his paladins to deal with them, whether it be "smite them without question" or "give them a chance if they might be unwilling victims."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 11, 2024, 02:33:08 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2024, 02:06:30 AM
Here I disagree. As DM, I am not required to pre-announce to players if there are monsters different than the description in the Monster Manual. I will freely introduce new monsters, variant monsters, new monsters that look like old monsters, or old monsters that look different than their canonical description. I'll only tell the player as much about a monster type as their character would reasonably know. I might give a skill roll for their character to know some details, based on their background.

Whether the character would know about vampires possibly being good or not, he would most definitely know about how Lathander expects his paladins to deal with them, whether it be "smite them without question" or "give them a chance if they might be unwilling victims."

That's reasonable if vampires are common. If vampires are rare, it's possible that there isn't a standing vampire policy that all paladins of Lathander are taught. In which case, the answer presumably should be "Investigate and learn more about the creature to determine what to do, based on the general principles of Lathander."

Cipher assumed that the policy was "Kill on sight anyone that you think is a vampire" -- such that when he opened the door to the study and saw the figure looking out the window, he called out for it to die and attacked immediately. The other players apparently thought that this was premature, and they should question the figure in the study first.

I'm still not clear on why they thought the figure in the study was the vampire in question. The people locked in cages in the dungeon below said that they were kidnapped by a vampire, but why did that mean the figure in the study was the vampire? It seems possible, but not proven. Even if there was a vampire, there could be more than one. Cipher said the other didn't argue on whether it was the vampire, but it would be a question I would bring up for the "kill on sight" behavior.

Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2024, 05:38:10 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 11, 2024, 02:33:08 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2024, 02:06:30 AM
Here I disagree. As DM, I am not required to pre-announce to players if there are monsters different than the description in the Monster Manual. I will freely introduce new monsters, variant monsters, new monsters that look like old monsters, or old monsters that look different than their canonical description. I'll only tell the player as much about a monster type as their character would reasonably know. I might give a skill roll for their character to know some details, based on their background.

Whether the character would know about vampires possibly being good or not, he would most definitely know about how Lathander expects his paladins to deal with them, whether it be "smite them without question" or "give them a chance if they might be unwilling victims."

That's reasonable if vampires are common. If vampires are rare, it's possible that there isn't a standing vampire policy that all paladins of Lathander are taught. In which case, the answer presumably should be "Investigate and learn more about the creature to determine what to do, based on the general principles of Lathander."

Lathander's view is to destroy all undead. Vampires are undead. If vampires are rare, it doesn't matter, they are still undead. If, however, Lathander no longer requires its worshippers to destroy undead, then that's something else. Something I should know, since it is a pretty big deviation from the lore.

Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2024, 05:38:10 PM

Cipher assumed that the policy was "Kill on sight anyone that you think is a vampire" -- such that when he opened the door to the study and saw the figure looking out the window, he called out for it to die and attacked immediately. The other players apparently thought that this was premature, and they should question the figure in the study first.

Again, I didn't "assume" anything. We all assumed, or more correctly, agreed that the culprit was a vampire and this person was the culprit. I said it as much. The discussion points mentioned by the players confirm this. If they others weren't sure, why didn't they bring that up? Why say "killing a vampire is murder because they are intelligent and suffer if slain!" or "vampire spawn must obey their Master, so he is actually a victim!"

Such arguments make absolutely no sense if the Players weren't sure that this was our culprit and that he was a vampire. You are either willfully ignoring this or pretending not to notice to imply that somehow I was the only one believing this person was the vampire and the culprit.

Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2024, 05:38:10 PM

I'm still not clear on why they thought the figure in the study was the vampire in question. The people locked in cages in the dungeon below said that they were kidnapped by a vampire, but why did that mean the figure in the study was the vampire? It seems possible, but not proven. Even if there was a vampire, there could be more than one. Cipher said the other didn't argue on whether it was the vampire, but it would be a question I would bring up for the "kill on sight" behavior.

What does it matter if there was more than one vampire?  As I said before, sure, this guy could be someone else. But, if it was, no one else thought of that. The discussion revolved around me being a murderhobo for trying to "murder" a vampire (which is impossible since he is already dead) unprovoked. Not "you are just attacking someone we don't know could be a vampire".

At best you are playing Devil's advocate. At worst you are taking their side. It's fine. But again, for the last time, please engage the discussion from the arguments made. There is no way your reasoning makes sense given the information provided. You can disbelief the information provided, but that's not what you are saying here. You are trying to make the case the only I was sure this was the vampire. Previous posts, ones that I made across these two weeks and that remain, to this day, unedited clearly dispel that notion. Since that angle cannot make sense with the arguments made by the Players against me.

Unless you are just trolling me and want me to waste time writing these replies.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt one last time:

I said it in my long post. I am not entirely sure. I was the new guy and mostly went along with whatever the party wanted to do. After we heard the stories of the people in the cages, that they were kept mostly without food and sometimes the people in cages would wake up and find others that were in the cages no longer in the cages, implying they were "moved" from the cages at night. Someone said that it must be vampires. Then, the gish class character said that it would be unlikely for a full vampire to be the culprit and that it must be a vampire spawn.

As I said, I am not sure if this was determined via in game knowledge skills or whatever or through metagaming. People said: "vampires!" I said: "Ok. Let's get some Van Helsing groove going!". We knew the person in the studio was the vampire because he was alone, at night in the estate.

It is very reasonable to believe this is the lord of the manor. Guests wouldn't be staring at the window alone in a studio inside of a private estate without the owner present.

As I said, as well, the rest of the party prepared themselves for a "boss" fight, this is most surely metagaming knowledge and something I don't really enjoy in my games, but like I said in my long post, I wasn't about to start chastising people for the way they play in a game with an established group that I was just joining.

Also, in that long post I said that I cannot give more specifics than that since, again, this is a D&D gaming group, they play D&D like most people play D&D. Specially the WotC D&D. There is some roleplay but there's also a lot of talk about "D&D terms". It is not my preference to play like this, but I was willing to just have fun and let it slide because I really wanted to get back into the hobby and also as a forever GM for over a decade I make an effort not to judge how others run games.

I said it many times before, it doesn't really matter how this was determined because everyone else believed that the culprit was a vampire and that the vampire was the merchant, the owner of the estate, and that when we opened the door of the studio we were expecting to meet this person.

Once the discussion started, no one made the argument of "we don't even know this is our guy!" or "we don't even know he is actually a vampire"

I said as much in the very, very lengthy post that I wrote just for you, jhkim. It seems you either didn't read it completely or just skimmed through it.

At this point, it seems you are trying to find me tripping on my account of the events. Either you believe me or you don't. It's fine if you don't believe me. Really, it is. But, please, stop pretending like there's some big detail that I am missing since I already explained it across the posts I've made and specifically addressed this in the long form post that was a direct response to you.

Are there gaps in the story? Sure. It's been two weeks from the time I created the original post. I am not a court reporter. I was going off on memory alone. Also, while I took the game seriously, I made an effort to be more of a passive observer and go along with the party because I just wanted to play. As long as we were playing the 'good guys', I was fine with whatever they decided.

I said as much, that my biggest contributions were tying up the bandits after we roughed them for info and asking about the other cages to investigate if they were recently used. I am not an attention hog and specially not when I am the new guy on an established gaming group.

I provided as much information as I can. The very fact that the group did not ever questioned that this guy was our culprit and that he was the vampire is self-explanatory. You are trying to dissect this as if this was a novel written with intention that went over multiple drafts and editors. It's not. This was a D&D 5e game. Someone said "he's a vampire!", everyone went along with it.

Fact of the matter is, maybe there wasn't even a boss fight planned. Maybe the DM intended for it to be cultists, like the Mayor suspected, but when someone said "vampire!" then maybe the DM decided to go along with it. A LOT of people run games like that.

I am not saying that's the case. I am saying I don't know. And there's NO WAY to know. And the reason there's no way to know, because everyone, included the DM, never put that information into question during the discussion.

As I said before, either you believe me and take my word at face value or not. You can decide not to, you are a free person. But, stop the vague attempt at forensics. You are not "suddenly" going to catch me tripping, because I already provided as much description of the events as I can recall and as much as it is needed for the discussion at hand.

For the last time: The discussion was always, always centered around the Players telling me, another Player, about being a murderhobo and a bigot. No discussion in-character took effect. No roleplay. No one put into question the information we were operating by. The problem was I said "filthy bloodsucker" and decided to attack an undead on sight.

Some people took offense on attacking on sight, calling me a murderhobo, but the biggest issue, the one that kept resurfacing across the almost 2 hours of discussion, was that I was being a bigot due to the usage of my words that were spoken out of "hate" or something to that effect and thus that meant that I had broken the trigger warnings agreement made in Session 0 and we, apparently, needed to stop the game and have a discussion about that, culminating in them reaching the consensus that I was, indeed, in the wrong and that if I moved forward with the actions I declared my character was taking, I would lose my powers as a Paladin and who knows what else. Because that's just the DM ruling in regards to my character's actions, I am not sure what was in store for me as the Player that broke the trigger warning contract.

THIS is why I decided to leave the game, in the most calm and polite way I could do so. And then the DM said I was wrong and due to my attitude I would not be invited to continue playing with that group. Most likely, this was going to be the end result of that discussion, perhaps after the session was over. OR, maybe they just wanted me to admit I was being a bigot and apologize and then I would be allowed to continue playing with them.

I don't know because I did not stick around to find that out.

Interestingly (to me at least), the more recent WOTC material kind of removes the moral question. The Forgotten Realms Wiki contains the following quote in its "Church of Lathander" entry, for which it cites the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide:

"They viewed undeath as abhorrent, believing the existence of undead as unnatural and antithetical to the ideal of change and new beginnings."

That phrases it as a dogmatic position as much as a moral one, which would actually make Cipher's behavior more in character. "That looks like an undead. Therefore it must be destroyed" would be in line with the 5e Lathandrian dogma, whether it was right or wrong.

When running a published setting, one of the first things I do is make clear to my players which sources are and are not canon. It's supremely unfair to a player to let them unwittingly make a character based on source material they thought was fair game, only to pull the rug out from under them once the game starts; Heading that issue off at the pass will save you tons of headaches as a DM. I think a unique problem has arisen with Faerun, due to WOTC's decision to simultaneously make it the default setting for D&D while not producing a complete setting guide for the current edition. I suspect this has lead to a lot of newer players being unaware of how much lore the setting actually has. If all you have to go on is the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, you could be forgiven for thinking that Faerun was largely a blank slate setting you were designed to build out with your own canon. All fine until you get players in the group that know the setting from older editions and bring those assumptions into the game with them. Come to think of it, they made the same mistake with 3rd edition. Greyhawk was the official setting, but they never produced a proper setting book for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Odd coincidence, but I had a very similar event play out in one of my campaigns not long ago. The players unwittingly stumbled into a vampire's lair. He'd set up shop in the secret tunnels leading into a castle they were trying to infiltrate  (on account of being an ancestor of the current Baron, and the one who ordered the tunnels constructed in the first place). Exploring it they found evidence of black magic and (empty) cages for holding prisoners in, and had a run-in with a succubus the vampire had enslaved, who "enticed" the party Sorcerer to kill the vampire so that she could be released from his service. By the time they actually met him, they'd correctly deduced what he was. Ironically, the knight in the party was prepared to hear him out, and it was the party assassin who got outraged and immediately attacked. This was arguably the wrong decision. If they hadn't attacked, the vampire was actually going to offer to help them (for personal reasons; he was still evil), and by defeating him, they released the succubus, arguably a worse threat to the population at large. Plus he escaped, earning them a powerful enemy, and the one "prisoner" they rescued from him had already been turned into a vampire herself.

Funny thing is I didn't even make the connection between that scenario and this one until just now, because when it happened in my game, it was a complete non-issue. I go out of my way to make clear to the players that talking to NPCs might yield better results than attacking, to the point where they often surprise me by attempting to negotiate their way out of what I assume to be combat encounters. I fully intended them to talk to this vampire, but was still prepared for what would happen if they didn't. This was actually the second time that assassin player had defaulted to attacking a potentially friendly NPC. The player's a bit of a hothead, and I know him well enough to expect that. But its hard for me to imagine a DM of any experience at all not being prepared for the possibility of players attacking any NPC they find suspicious.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 08:35:41 PM
Interestingly (to me at least), the more recent WOTC material kind of removes the moral question. The Forgotten Realms Wiki contains the following quote in its "Church of Lathander" entry, for which it cites the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide:

"They viewed undeath as abhorrent, believing the existence of undead as unnatural and antithetical to the ideal of change and new beginnings."

That phrases it as a dogmatic position as much as a moral one, which would actually make Cipher's behavior more in character. "That looks like an undead. Therefore it must be destroyed" would be in line with the 5e Lathandrian dogma, whether it was right or wrong.

When running a published setting, one of the first things I do is make clear to my players which sources are and are not canon. It's supremely unfair to a player to let them unwittingly make a character based on source material they thought was fair game, only to pull the rug out from under them once the game starts; Heading that issue off at the pass will save you tons of headaches as a DM. I think a unique problem has arisen with Faerun, due to WOTC's decision to simultaneously make it the default setting for D&D while not producing a complete setting guide for the current edition. I suspect this has lead to a lot of newer players being unaware of how much lore the setting actually has. If all you have to go on is the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, you could be forgiven for thinking that Faerun was largely a blank slate setting you were designed to build out with your own canon. All fine until you get players in the group that know the setting from older editions and bring those assumptions into the game with them. Come to think of it, they made the same mistake with 3rd edition. Greyhawk was the official setting, but they never produced a proper setting book for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Odd coincidence, but I had a very similar event play out in one of my campaigns not long ago. The players unwittingly stumbled into a vampire's lair. He'd set up shop in the secret tunnels leading into a castle they were trying to infiltrate  (on account of being an ancestor of the current Baron, and the one who ordered the tunnels constructed in the first place). Exploring it they found evidence of black magic and (empty) cages for holding prisoners in, and had a run-in with a succubus the vampire had enslaved, who "enticed" the party Sorcerer to kill the vampire so that she could be released from his service. By the time they actually met him, they'd correctly deduced what he was. Ironically, the knight in the party was prepared to hear him out, and it was the party assassin who got outraged and immediately attacked. This was arguably the wrong decision. If they hadn't attacked, the vampire was actually going to offer to help them (for personal reasons; he was still evil), and by defeating him, they released the succubus, arguably a worse threat to the population at large. Plus he escaped, earning them a powerful enemy, and the one "prisoner" they rescued from him had already been turned into a vampire herself.

Funny thing is I didn't even make the connection between that scenario and this one until just now, because when it happened in my game, it was a complete non-issue. I go out of my way to make clear to the players that talking to NPCs might yield better results than attacking, to the point where they often surprise me by attempting to negotiate their way out of what I assume to be combat encounters. I fully intended them to talk to this vampire, but was still prepared for what would happen if they didn't. This was actually the second time that assassin player had defaulted to attacking a potentially friendly NPC. The player's a bit of a hothead, and I know him well enough to expect that. But its hard for me to imagine a DM of any experience at all not being prepared for the possibility of players attacking any NPC they find suspicious.

As I said before, I wasn't privy to changes to the lore and was going off of the established lore as I knew it. I was fine with the lore in 5e being different, but that wasn't ever called into question. I would have been completely OK with the DM saying "my game world is within the Forgotten Realms but in a broad strokes way, and deviates from the lore whenever I see fit. Don't take the established lore too much into concideration and consider it more as a loose baseline for my world". Or, if he had said "please, base your knowledge of the lore in this material". Or not even all that. As I said previously, I would have been 100% fine with the DM making a ruling just right after I declared my attack saying "keep in mind in my world vampires are not always evil" or "Alignments as described in the books are more like loose guidelines and generalities. For all you know, this vampire could be neutral good". And then let me make a decision.

Now, I know why there was no such mention. The lore remains basically the same. Lathander is still anti-undead. So, my paladin was actually following the tenets of Lathander more closely than the player playing the cleric of Lathander character.

Quote from: Cipher on February 11, 2024, 10:21:02 PM
...

Now, I know why there was no such mention. The lore remains basically the same. Lathander is still anti-undead. So, my paladin was actually following the tenets of Lathander more closely than the player playing the cleric of Lathander character.

I wouldn't be surprised if the DM didn't even know. Doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who's doing a detailed read on the source material before he runs a setting. Hell, I spent hours reading the 3rd edition Faerun book back in the day (still have it on my shelf even), and I still had to go back and check the difference between Lathander and Ilmater. He probably glanced over it, got "sun-themed good god" and didn't think it through any further.

A good DM would have brushed up on the religion of two of the clergy characters in his party, but this clearly isn't a good DM, so...

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 11, 2024, 11:54:49 PM

Quote from: Cipher on February 11, 2024, 10:21:02 PM
...

Now, I know why there was no such mention. The lore remains basically the same. Lathander is still anti-undead. So, my paladin was actually following the tenets of Lathander more closely than the player playing the cleric of Lathander character.

I wouldn't be surprised if the DM didn't even know. Doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who's doing a detailed read on the source material before he runs a setting. Hell, I spent hours reading the 3rd edition Faerun book back in the day (still have it on my shelf even), and I still had to go back and check the difference between Lathander and Ilmater. He probably glanced over it, got "sun-themed good god" and didn't think it through any further.

A good DM would have brushed up on the religion of two of the clergy characters in his party, but this clearly isn't a good DM, so...

I understand different DMs do varying degrees of prep. I wouldn't expect the DM to know about this, just to either decide to respect the lore or change it. It the lore is the same and the DM doesn't care then that's fine. If the lore is changed then I expect the DM to let the Players know. The DM doesn't have to go into details just something to the effect of: "I am taking a very loose approach towards the lore of the Forgotten Realms. Take the setting as a lose baseline, so the Sword Coast exist, Baldur's Gate exist, Amn exist but everything else is subject to deviations".

That's it. Then I would have asked, "hey DM, so in this version of the realms, what's Lathander's view towards undead?" And if the DM said something to the effect of "Case by case. Lathander respects life and wants the destruction of evil. Nothing specific towards undead". Then that would have made all the difference for me.

It's like making a game with Star Wars and Jedi in the era before the Empire, when Jedi were numerous across the galaxy and then 3 games in turns out my Jedi character will never get a lightsaber because in this version of Star Wars there are no lightsabers.

Or the other way around, my Jedi gets a lightsaber but turns out the Force is more like a myth and in this version of the setting the Jedi don't have powers.

Playing within a setting creates an expectation of adherence to the established lore. GMs can deviate from this lore but I strongly believe that this has to be explained to the players.

I did that on my own Star Wars game, set 40 years after the Battle of Yavin in the Legends canon. But, I explained that I only respected Legends canon up to the end of the Vong wars. After that I made some changes to suit my tastes and I provided a timeline of events so everyone that was expecting certain things to have occurred understands how those events played out and realize some events actually changed their outcome and some never happened.

The reason I think its important because my character, as a living entity in that setting should be acquainted with the events that pertain to this world. As such, a paladin of Lathander doesn't need to know every single deviation from the established Forgotten Realms lore, but at least I expect my character to understand the religion he is a part of and thus any deviation to the way Lathander is viewed by mortals and the expectations of his worshipers are things my character must definitely should know. 

Cipher did nothing wrong.

Vampire killing is an ancient and noble profession. Hellsing, Belmont, Blade, Joestar, Buffy, Abraham Lincoln. Their footsteps are a venerated path.

Humanized vampires than can or should be reasoned with are a modern construction, not the default. Cipher should be in no way sanctioned for assuming the default to be the default without being priorly informed that the vampires in the DMs setting are less Count Dracula Vlad Ţepeş and more rhinestone-skinned safe-edgy bad boys. His actions at absolute most warranted correction about the basic information that his character definitely would know in world, and allow him to redo his uninformed action with the benefit of knowledge his character was privy to at the time of acting.

The very first literary Vampire of note, Varney the Vampire, started off as monstrous but became more human as the story went on (and on and on) tp the point where he finally threw himself into a volcano

Quote from: JeremyR on February 12, 2024, 03:04:55 AM
The very first literary Vampire of note, Varney the Vampire, started off as monstrous but became more human as the story went on (and on and on) tp the point where he finally threw himself into a volcano

What I'm reading is that he slowly came to the definitely objectively correct conclusion that vampire killing is a high virtue, and took matters into his own hands. topkek

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 12, 2024, 03:23:44 AM

Quote from: JeremyR on February 12, 2024, 03:04:55 AM
The very first literary Vampire of note, Varney the Vampire, started off as monstrous but became more human as the story went on (and on and on) tp the point where he finally threw himself into a volcano

What I'm reading is that he slowly came to the definitely objectively correct conclusion that vampire killing is a high virtue, and took matters into his own hands. topkek

He read the Necronomicon, and wanted to become a Fire Vampire.

whew... this thread is... something.

my two cents:

Quote from: blackstone on February 08, 2024, 08:16:51 AM
When they started attacking you personally, that's when they crossed the line.

that^ is the crux of the matter. the rules can be changed, stuff can be poorly communicated, new player may not be up to speed on everything, a lot of different shit can happen in a game - or any other group activity for that matter - and all of that should have been fixed in the game via tools available to players and the DM, at least an attempt should have been made. that is, if the goal was to play a game among decent people willing to recognize their differences and resolve misunderstandings in order to have fun together.

instead the motherfuckers started attacking Cipher personally. fuck that, just find another group.

p.s. voted "Unecessary but harmless: Don't care either way." - whatever is happening between consenting adults that is not illegal is fine by me. communication is key.

Over on Reddit there was a recent thread about a DM with troublesome player. They tried talking to them in private and it did not pan out. So the DM confronted them with the group present and the player eventually had to leave.

Some of the posters dogpiled the guy for "Ganging up on the player" and that was "triggering".

I kid you not.

Quote from: Omega on February 12, 2024, 07:57:25 PM
Over on Reddit there was a recent thread about a DM with troublesome player. They tried talking to them in private and it did not pan out. So the DM confronted them with the group present and the player eventually had to leave.

Some of the posters dogpiled the guy for "Ganging up on the player" and that was "triggering".

I kid you not.

The prog mindset is that the majority needs to dance like marionettes to the whims of the ultra minority, while the minority has zero responsibility to the majority. This is just that in game form.

The group has a Cleric, Paladin and Druid? Well I want to introduce a Necromancer, stop making it awkward for me to roleplay my character!

Late to this party, as usual!
As I've mentioned before, not only are X-cards open to abuse they also mirror a specific from of spousal/SO abuse. The victim is given the silent treatment and then vilified for not fixing their behaviour - despite having no idea what they've done wrong (they haven't actually done anything wrong, it's a form of control). So the mere presence of an X-card can be triggering to those people.

I'm not in favour of safety tools, but I haven't seen/experienced any issues with them personally. At con games I put up a warning about adult themes, at my home/club games I either know the players or let them know the sort of things that will come up. If they're unhappy, they don't join the game. I tend to avoid excessive nastiness anyway.

On Cipher's specific problem, it sounds like he avoided a bullet. A complete mismatch of expectations - the rest of the group was on one hymn sheet, Cipher was at a completely different church, playing metal tunes.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 12, 2024, 11:21:04 PM
The prog mindset is that the majority needs to dance like marionettes to the whims of the ultra minority, while the minority has zero responsibility to the majority. This is just that in game form.

The group has a Cleric, Paladin and Druid? Well I want to introduce a Necromancer, stop making it awkward for me to roleplay my character!

I agree that the group should conform to whatever the majority want. In Cipher's case, he was playing his paladin as kill-on-sight a figure that that he thinks is a vampire, while all the other players wanted to confront and confirm the figure that they thought was a vampire. As spon just put it:

Quote from: spon on February 13, 2024, 10:50:49 AM
On Cipher's specific problem, it sounds like he avoided a bullet. A complete mismatch of expectations - the rest of the group was on one hymn sheet, Cipher was at a completely different church, playing metal tunes.

Yeah, that's how I see it. Nothing wrong with hymns, and nothing wrong with heavy metal -- but they don't mix well singing side-by-side.

It sounds like he should have called for a ruling from the DM earlier, rather than allowing the DM to sit silent for two hours. Once he had the DM ruling, he could decide to leave the game for one that's more open to kill-on-sight play.

I've got a couple sticking points with jhkim's last post.

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2024, 09:26:50 PM
I agree that the group should conform to whatever the majority want.

First, no. A ttrpg table shouldn't be run by the majority, it's run by the DM. If the DM wants to bend to will of the majority, that's his perogative, but fundamentally the table isn't a democracy, it's an autarchy.

Quote from: jhkim on February 14, 2024, 09:26:50 PM
In Cipher's case, he was playing his paladin as kill-on-sight a figure that that he thinks is a vampire, while all the other players wanted to confront and confirm the figure that they thought was a vampire.

Second, I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of what went down. Per Cipher's original post

Quote from: Cipher on January 28, 2024, 05:32:23 PM
The other Players derided me as a murderhobo for not trying to reason with the vampire spawn, saying that he could be doing all of this against his own will, as the spawns must obey their Masters. I said that be that as it may, there is no way to cure vampirism so I was giving this poor creature mercy, by freeing them from their shackles.

They didn't start to stuggle session him because he assumed it was a vampire spawn, they did it because he was trying to kill what they all knew was a vampire spawn.