Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think different people play tabletop RPG for different reasons. Some want to be a hero and kill monsters, do quests and have fun that way. This group of people the OP is talking about seem to view RPGs as a form of escapism. Where they are free to do whatever they want without fear of repuccusions because its just a game. It sort of like playing GTA. nobody plays GTA to be an upstanding citizen. lol

If your escapist fantasies involves rape, you should self report to a police department. Or a Hospital before you hurt someone.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If your escapist fantasies involves rape, you should self report to a police department. Or a Hospital before you hurt someone.

I mean... No?

Fezzik, can you honestly tell me you've never thought "God, I'd like to punch this guy out," but didn't do it? I highly doubt you can. You've probably thought worse-I hope you never acted on any of those impulses, but everyone has those moments where they think something terrible. If you don't act on them, understand that they're wrong, and keep it strictly to fantasy, then what's the issue?

And again, I certainly agree that them doing it at the table, with you there, is wholly inappropriate because you obviously wanted no part of it. But simply thinking bad thoughts doesn't make you a bad person.

A gut reaction or intrusive thought isn't the same thing as an escapist fantasy.

There is a distinct difference between having a reactionary thought and doing said action. People have bad thoughts but when you act on them it becomes a problem.
Accidents happen but you don't accidently commit your character to sexually assaulting someone in an RPG.

 Gert wrote:
There is a distinct difference between having a reactionary thought and doing said action. People have bad thoughts but when you act on them it becomes a problem.
Accidents happen but you don't accidently commit your character to sexually assaulting someone in an RPG.

I guess I don't view it as inherently different from play-acting an assault fantasy with a significant other-it's only a problem if any of the parties aren't consenting.

Which, again-Fezzik wasn't cool with it, so someone should've noticed he wasn't comfortable and put a stop to it. But if everyone there was okay with it and knew it was just fantasy... I don't see words that no one is bothered by as particularly harmful.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Gert wrote:
There is a distinct difference between having a reactionary thought and doing said action. People have bad thoughts but when you act on them it becomes a problem.
Accidents happen but you don't accidently commit your character to sexually assaulting someone in an RPG.

I guess I don't view it as inherently different from play-acting an assault fantasy with a significant other-it's only a problem if any of the parties aren't consenting.

Which, again-Fezzik wasn't cool with it, so someone should've noticed he wasn't comfortable and put a stop to it. But if everyone there was okay with it and knew it was just fantasy... I don't see words that no one is bothered by as particularly harmful.

I agree with this.

When nobody was actually assaulted, the issue is consent.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If your escapist fantasies involves rape, you should self report to a police department. Or a Hospital before you hurt someone.

But escapist fantasies about crushing skulls with a hammer or slitting throats with a dagger are good fun and deserve no such treatment?

You can chop a goblin's limbs off in fountains of gore or strangle him with a garotte but gods forbid you slap him on his buttocks or grab his groin, you sick sicko!

On the topic of escapist fantasies involving rape (a scientific paper, googled with a site:edu tag, don't worry) this may surprise you. Start at the bottom of page 27: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3192%26context%3Dgc_etds&ved=2ahUKEwjMo5_NwY31AhUQrYsKHR_qCYgQFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0iHUOBqr1DeAq5OtV0Hqmn

Cyel wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If your escapist fantasies involves rape, you should self report to a police department. Or a Hospital before you hurt someone.

But escapist fantasies about crushing skulls with a hammer or slitting throats with a dagger are good fun and deserve no such treatment?

You can chop a goblin's limbs off in fountains of gore or strangle him with a garotte but gods forbid you slap him on his buttocks or grab his groin, you sick sicko!

On the topic of escapist fantasies involving rape (a scientific paper, googled with a site:edu tag, don't worry) this may surprise you. Start at the bottom of page 27: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3192%26context%3Dgc_etds&ved=2ahUKEwjMo5_NwY31AhUQrYsKHR_qCYgQFnoECCcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0iHUOBqr1DeAq5OtV0Hqmn

Yeah, not clicking that link.

And please stop with the whataboutism for violence vs Sex, insinuating I'm some prudish virgin that is afraid of sex. Also, You have no idea how I play my character(s) or how I like my fantasy. My current character is just a monk who heals people and abhors violence and is essentially vegan. His main motivation was teaching kids. But sure, whatever you assume.

Yeah, why click this paper and learn how scientific research shows plenty of women fantasise about sexual assault too if you can just live in your own cognitive dissonance free imaginary world of self-apppointed morals.

Anyway. For some, escapism is an outlet, and its fine because they do not actually commit such crimes. And we can't accuse or look down upon these people because its a harmless outlet. Nobody actually really got hurt. Otherwise, the millions of people who actually play games (be it RPGs, or Grand Theft Auto) where they kill or commit crimes would all be guilty, which is obviously not the case.

However, once a person crosses the line and actually commits such a crime. Its no longer a fetish or just a fantasy, and instead its a crime that can land them in jail or worse.

I think its fine that you walked away and didn't want to participate anymore. Because you have a right to what level of role playing you want to indulge in, and that sort of roleplay wasn't for you. Does this mean that "possessed" person is a sick individual who is on a one way track to committing an actual serious crime? Well, not necessarily.

I would put it this way. Not every single serial killer or rapist has played RPGs before. But neither is every RPG player who roleplayed a rapist or a murderer an actual one in real life.

BTW, if he is ever involved in future in an investigation into a serial murder or rape case, this would for sure raise the suspicion on him...

Cyel wrote:
Yeah, why click this paper and learn how scientific research shows plenty of women fantasise about sexual assault too if you can just live in your own cognitive dissonance free imaginary world of self-apppointed morals.

I highlighted the problem with your argument. Also you misspelled fantasize. Like for instance, you likely fantasize about a woman ever taking you seriously.

I didn't misspell anything, proper Queen's English has "fantasise" as the correct form. I don't care if some newish country is trying to come up with its own version of an existing language changing some letters to feel unique but please don't pretend it's the default form.

I linked the scientific paper to show, that your implication that only the "perpetrator" has fun in a submission fantasy role-play is blatantly false, as it's nothing new that it's in the top of female sexual fantasies (my wife who has studied sexuology was actually surprised that it's apparently breaking news for someone). There's a reason "safe words" exist because just saying "no, please stop!" is part of the experience.

So, your comment that two or more consenting adults who want to incorporate, or even base their RPG or even LARP exerience on adult themes, including submission fantasies must immediately stop and "go to hospital before they hurt someone" is just laughable. But yeah, I know, how can you feel morally superior if you don't come up with an imaginary explanation that what other people are doing is wrong. It's like satanic panic all over again...

If everyone at the table is okay with violent content, then go nuts.

If everyone at the table is okay with sexually explicit content, go nuts.

If someone at the table *isn't* on board for violent content, then don't do it.

If someone at the table *isn't* on board for sexual content, then don't do it.

However, many of the core mechanics for D&D are based around combat mechanics. That's not to say that other kinds of game can't be played, but mechanically, combat and violence (not necessarily gratuitous violence at that) are incentivised in D&D. Therefore, it's a little bit disingenuous to say that "why do you have a problem with sex but not with violence in D&D" when:
1. D&D is incentivised towards combat.
2. It's still a matter of consent. If the group is fine with violence but not something else, they're allowed to be.

I'd also like to mention that it's also totally fine to say at the table "okay, can we dial back the violence please?". This could be a case of the GM and players omitting certain descriptions of events, not having ridiculous scenes of mass carnage, not killing certain NPCs, or changing all moments where something hits 0 HP to them losing their nerve and fleeing, or falling unconscious.

The bottom line is that people have different standards, and we should respect those standards if people are made uncomfortable.

All of which is pretty much self-explanatory. It's a collaborative effort after all, so consent is the most fundamental prerequsite for the whole thing. It baffles me that any of this would even warrant discussion.

Sgt Smudge got it right. I also don't think a single person in this thread advocated staying in a situation that makes one uneasy or uncomfortable (or causing someone to be in such a situation on purpose).

It's only the notion that certain themes should be banned from all games everywhere on principle that provoked a debate.

Cyel wrote:

It's only the notion that certain themes should be banned from all games everywhere on principle that provoked a debate.

I'm sure gaming interpol would be super happy to enforce that.

XD

Cyel wrote:
Sgt Smudge got it right. I also don't think a single person in this thread advocated staying in a situation that makes one uneasy or uncomfortable (or causing someone to be in such a situation on purpose).

It's only the notion that certain themes should be banned from all games everywhere on principle that provoked a debate.

Exactly that.

Session 0 is one of the most important things in DnD, which is where you should set expectations.

But also, this OP could go on rpghorrorstories. Players who go to "I am crazy and I must Rape" are usually kind of gakky people to deal with anyways.

 Gert wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The modern world seems infinitely more horrific to me than the medieval one.

Yeah I'm sure you would have loved the Black Death, cholera, typhoid, dysentery, diphtheria, polio, TB, getting forced to work in the same job as your parents with no chance at any other life, getting conscripted to fight in a war because your Lord decided they want a bit more land, dying at the age of about 35 if you were lucky enough to make it past childhood, dying because you lost your hand in an accident and there was no real medicine to heal it, dying because you had a bad crop and there are no stores because agriculture is garbage.
I'm also sure you wouldn't miss electricity, clean water, a sewage system, modern medicine, and indoor heating. The modern world has serious problems but pretending the middle ages were better is just flat out wrong. At best you're dealing with social issues like racism, bigotry or watching democracy fall apart in front of you instead of immediate danger like those I listed above.

The fall apart of democracy leads to everyone not in the ingroup is rounded up and mass murdered though, so, that's a pretty intense worry for those of us not lilywhite and straighter then an arrow.

Cyel wrote:
Maybe an idyllic world doesn't easily offer powerful emotional investment and tough moral choices (which are the heart and soul of a worthy RPG) but a harsher, more realistic world does?

A lot of people don't want tough moral choices. They want a dungeon filled with monsters and loot to collect. It's not my preferred style, but there's nothing wrong with them being interested in playing the game for the joy of the systems and not the story.

So, again, lessons learned. Session zero got skipped because of real world situations, and even if we did have it, I doubt the player in question would have been like, "I like to murder and occasionally deal in some rapey shenanigans."

If I had known. Glad I left the group. I also think DnD has taken a hit recently. Covid fatigue has ruined a lot of people's ability to be cordial, thoughtful, and sociable. They just do things now, because there is a zoom screen seperating us. If this was a live in person game, I think the person in question would have acted differently, possibly out of fear of judgement.

Whoops wrong tab. my mistake!