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.

How could you even feel comfortable describing your sexual fetishes to a group of people for 15 minutes? That dude is sick.

There is a fairly famous comic about situations like this.

Even has 40k versions

 dracpanzer wrote:
So the DM lets the character go in to a possessed state, but lets the player run the character?

I would insist on the events of the possessed state being under DM control and only revealed in the aftermath where they present a situation the characters have to deal with.

Not as some cringy fantasy a player wants to subject myself and the party too. I'm okay with dark themes in my games, sex, murder or otherwise.

As a DM I bring the consequences.

This is the better way of handling it to be sure, especially if you are going to introduce rape and murder themes, etc. that way the DM bares responsibility for controlling the tone and can ensure its handled in a mature way.

So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

As in like, "first I hit her with a rusty venture, then a dirty sanchez, and blah blah blah"? Thats pretty fethed.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

That is a fair point. But from the outset of "Who here has a problem with Rape?" to "It's over now you can turn your headphones back on" was 15 minutes. I don't care how long it takes to roll damage against one elderly human butler and an elderly widow who lives in the house, anything greater than zero is too much for me if the plan from the outset involves rape.

And I have received comments already on a facebook forum I posted on already regarding "This is adult DnD. If you don't like GoT go watch CareBears." When did nerdcore get so dark and edgy?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

That is a fair point. But from the outset of "Who here has a problem with Rape?" to "It's over now you can turn your headphones back on" was 15 minutes. I don't care how long it takes to roll damage against one elderly human butler and an elderly widow who lives in the house, anything greater than zero is too much for me if the plan from the outset involves rape.

And I have received comments already on a facebook forum I posted on already regarding "This is adult DnD. If you don't like GoT go watch CareBears." When did nerdcore get so dark and edgy?

It never got edgy it always was, its just that each group varies greatly. Some groups are going to be "edgy/dark" some will be silly, some will be childish. Some will focus heavily on combat, others will hardly have any and will instead focus on politics. Some groups use models some don't.

One of the biggest powers DnD has had over the years is the degree of flexibility it offers. You can build what the group likes and wants to play. Of course this goes hand in hand with situations where not all the group always agree. Now sometimes it might be a minor point and you just agree to disagree; other times it might be more major. That's really nothing inherently "wrong" with the group, its simply a reflection that perhaps the group and the type of game/characters that they play isn't for you.


That doesn't make any person in the group evil or such, it just means there's a difference and sometimes that difference is enough for you to step away and find another group. Or leave the current game and rejoin a different game later etc.. Heck I'm sure there are people out there who won't join groups who commit murder or steal or any other activities.



Also it sounds like this is a digital/remote playing group rather than one which meets in person which might well change some of the social dynamics compared to real life interactions. Dealing with people in a remote way can sometimes cause people to diss-associate more so than if they were sitting in the room in person.




In the end part of it is about defining what you are comfortable with and communicating that with the rest of the group. If they disagree then its time to part ways in a polite fashion. If they agree or are willing to adjust then perhaps its time to settle. This situation has clearly unsettled you (as evident in part by the way that its magnifying in your minds eye) so it sounds like its time to make a polite withdrawal from the group and join another.

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

That is a fair point. But from the outset of "Who here has a problem with Rape?" to "It's over now you can turn your headphones back on" was 15 minutes. I don't care how long it takes to roll damage against one elderly human butler and an elderly widow who lives in the house, anything greater than zero is too much for me if the plan from the outset involves rape.

And I have received comments already on a facebook forum I posted on already regarding "This is adult DnD. If you don't like GoT go watch CareBears." When did nerdcore get so dark and edgy?

It never got edgy it always was, its just that each group varies greatly. Some groups are going to be "edgy/dark" some will be silly, some will be childish. Some will focus heavily on combat, others will hardly have any and will instead focus on politics. Some groups use models some don't.

One of the biggest powers DnD has had over the years is the degree of flexibility it offers. You can build what the group likes and wants to play. Of course this goes hand in hand with situations where not all the group always agree. Now sometimes it might be a minor point and you just agree to disagree; other times it might be more major. That's really nothing inherently "wrong" with the group, its simply a reflection that perhaps the group and the type of game/characters that they play isn't for you.


That doesn't make any person in the group evil or such, it just means there's a difference and sometimes that difference is enough for you to step away and find another group. Or leave the current game and rejoin a different game later etc.. Heck I'm sure there are people out there who won't join groups who commit murder or steal or any other activities.



Also it sounds like this is a digital/remote playing group rather than one which meets in person which might well change some of the social dynamics compared to real life interactions. Dealing with people in a remote way can sometimes cause people to diss-associate more so than if they were sitting in the room in person.




In the end part of it is about defining what you are comfortable with and communicating that with the rest of the group. If they disagree then its time to part ways in a polite fashion. If they agree or are willing to adjust then perhaps its time to settle. This situation has clearly unsettled you (as evident in part by the way that its magnifying in your minds eye) so it sounds like its time to make a polite withdrawal from the group and join another.

Some great points!

I think it's really insightful to point out that our very existence has changed how we now play DnD. I can't remember the last time I played DnD at an actual table with other humans and dice. That would easily solve this sort of situation. In the best possible scenario that is. But yes, one of the worst fallouts from Covid is that we've forgotten how to politely interact with others, especially in a closed environment. We now talk through computers, and that detachment fuels the feeling that we don't need to care about how others feel.

I wouldn't say it's anything new. Beloved classics like Vampire the Masquerade or Kult were purposfuly made to be extra-edgy.

Sometimes you want to be Mario, sometimes you enjoy playing as Kratos. One day you watch a new Pixar cartoon, another you may be in the mood for a Tarantino bloodbath. That's escapism for you. Doesn't mean you want to stomp on every mushroom and turtle IRL.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Overread wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

Just to, in a small way, put the brakes on things a little. It was a 15min interaction and as far as you know it was both the sexual act and brutal murder. That could mean the greater part of the 15mins was their character rolling attacks against the occupants of the house and such. Just going by what you've said you've not actually confirmed that the 15mins was purely "sex fetish" stuff. It could be 13mins of general combat and then "and then roll to rape" at the end and done. Ergo no lengthily description or such.

I'm purely going by what you've said thus far of course and it might be totally different to what actually happened.

That is a fair point. But from the outset of "Who here has a problem with Rape?" to "It's over now you can turn your headphones back on" was 15 minutes. I don't care how long it takes to roll damage against one elderly human butler and an elderly widow who lives in the house, anything greater than zero is too much for me if the plan from the outset involves rape.

And I have received comments already on a facebook forum I posted on already regarding "This is adult DnD. If you don't like GoT go watch CareBears." When did nerdcore get so dark and edgy?

For a long-ass time basically all nerd stuff was marketed towards one specific segment of the population only. But in recent years, as the demographics of how many people have how much money have shifted, you either restructure your business to go "wide" and appeal to the most people possible, or you restructure your business to go "tall" and be more expensive/boutique and specialize very heavily to a smaller number of customers.

People for whom products used to be solely marketed to their demographic and which are now marketed "wide" to everybody occasionally feel abandoned, and go seeking out alternative products explicitly designed to give them a concentrated version of what they used to get constant, low levels of when they were kind of the exclusive demographic.

Good examples of general industries going "wide" - movies, video games, comics, novels, social media

examples of industries going "tall" - Games Workshop, Lego, a lot of 'alternative' platforms to extremely popular platforms but catering explicitly to specific segments.

GW *was* going tall, now they are going wide.

No, GW has nothing to do with this. This is about Nerd core culture becomming chic and hip. Now with Stranger Things and Youtube Let's plays, not to mention Covid, and the insufferable Matt Mercer, everyone and their mother now knows about and is at least slightly interested in what before would have been a socially reprehensible act. Sitting in the basement and roleplaying. Now it's seen as cool and fun. Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

It's no more clear than the entire argument over Tasha's racial changes. You have the grognards who say no, orcs are evil because the Great Book (Written by the Great Man) says they are, and you have the Milenials who say no, that's racist and I want Ork/Drow Bard sex in my DnD now.

Finally you have the original nerds just hitting their 40s-50s, just trying to sit quietly and play dice and talk about swords and spells. I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD. Consensual or otherwise. DnD is at it's core about killing monsters and getting loot. And RPing. If you need to shoehorn in your personal kink fantasies, DnD isn't right for you. But I'm sure Adam and Eve have something for you.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD. Consensual or otherwise. DnD is at it's core about killing monsters and getting loot. And RPing. If you need to shoehorn in your personal kink fantasies, DnD isn't right for you. But I'm sure Adam and Eve have something for you.

There's a difference between sexual encounters and turning the D&D session into a sex RP. There's nothing wrong with letting characters have sexual encounters as long as everyone is on board with what's going on. Consent is what matters, not suggesting that Bards who seduce every person they meet need Jesus.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So I would reiterate that this person went into detail of their (It's a male running a slutty female elf) acts for FIFTEEN MINUTES. I can't describe my feelings for cheese for 15 minutes. I can maybe describe living in NYC for 5 minutes. But for 15 minutes, I was volume off, mic muted. How do you RP that for 15 minutes?

This kind of cringey stuff is why I don't play D&D. Every store/group seems to have someone like this who doesn't understand social norms or personal hygiene. It was similar with MtG. I don't know why but these games are a magnet for people who have seemingly never left their basement other than to annoy everyone at D&D/FNM

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
No, GW has nothing to do with this. This is about Nerd core culture becomming chic and hip. Now with Stranger Things and Youtube Let's plays, not to mention Covid, and the insufferable Matt Mercer, everyone and their mother now knows about and is at least slightly interested in what before would have been a socially reprehensible act. Sitting in the basement and roleplaying. Now it's seen as cool and fun. Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

It's no more clear than the entire argument over Tasha's racial changes. You have the grognards who say no, orcs are evil because the Great Book (Written by the Great Man) says they are, and you have the Milenials who say no, that's racist and I want Ork/Drow Bard sex in my DnD now.

Finally you have the original nerds just hitting their 40s-50s, just trying to sit quietly and play dice and talk about swords and spells. I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD. Consensual or otherwise. DnD is at it's core about killing monsters and getting loot. And RPing. If you need to shoehorn in your personal kink fantasies, DnD isn't right for you. But I'm sure Adam and Eve have something for you.

...do you sincerely believe that the inclusion of mainstream audiences into nerd core culture is *increasing* the amount of sexualization present?

If so I just...really, fundamentally have to disagree with you 10,000%. The phenomenon I'm seeing is this:

-officially produced content from the companies reaching out to a wider audience becomes LESS geared towards sex

-alternative, unofficially produced content seeking to capture those angry at the decrease in sexualization become drastically more explicit.

When I was growing up, if there was a woman on the cover of a DND book or comic, odds were extremely good she was sporting a chainmail bikini and in a pose suggesting "Yes, I am fighting this monster, but I am aware you are behind me and there are a couple areas of my body I'd really like you to be able to view". Now, she's much more likely to be dressed more like the other male characters on the cover.

But if I go online and I'm looking to buy a 3d printed, unofficial dnd model for a female character I'm looking to play? Well, lets just say that before when I was grabbing metal minis off the rack there werent quite so many options if I was looking for "naked, and also with extra sets of sexual organs"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
GW *was* going tall, now they are going wide.

Games Workshop products in the 90s-early 00s were kids products. Marketed to teen boys/college age young adults.

That demographic now has WAY less money, and so the price tags go up, the target audience gets older, and the product is marketed to appear more 'luxurious.'

Textbook "tall" business practice. Peek in a lego store sometime for another prime example. Tons of lego sets now have 500$+ price tags, and the box design is just black, with a spotlight illuminating the fully assembled kit. That's not a childrens toy.

I think the issue of how to handle sex, in general, in role playing has been a discussion since the get go. You have a hobby that was originally mostly sweaty adolescent man children to a hobby that still has plenty of sweaty, adolescent man children. Not that male players are the only ones to inject cringe into the game.

At the end of the day, role playing is about just that... playing a role. And people are attracted to roles that allow them to feel things they normally don't. Classic dungeon crawlers let people feel physically powerful, more social campaigns let people feel politically powerful, etc. We've probably all been at a table with a person leaning hard into being the most powerful whatever in the game because they just needed to feel important. So, yeah, some sex stuff (or less offensive but almost as off putting the clear emotional/attention seeking stuff) is a natural consequence.

That said, nobody has to sit through that. It might be a one time thing, especially if you chat with the GM about it, but if that's what the group is okay with, and you're not... probably time to hit the old dusty trail.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

Man are you barking up the wrooooong tree. I hate to break this to you, but kink subculture has *always* very heavily overlapped D&D/RPG subculture. "Roleplay" is core to kink and practitioners of kink have long also been players of D&D and vice versa because *surprise* if you enjoy " roleplaying" you probably also enjoy roleplaying. Its the reason why things like Vampire the Masquerade (first published in 1991, well before any of the trends you indicated) exist. And if you've ever spent any amount of time around Rennys (i.e. Ren Faire performers)in the past 30-40 years you would definitely already know this.

I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD.

The artwork of scantily clad and occasionally partially/fully nude humanoid (and humanoid-adjacent) women in the original D&D publications by TSR, Gygax, et. al. would suggest otherwise.

FWIW I have played a lot of DnD with new players and people who are new to the hobby and veterans who were on a first name basis with Gary Gygax, etc. , etc.... and its *never* the new players who are inserting sex/sexually explicit or implicit material into the campaigns.

That demographic now has WAY less money, and so the price tags go up, the target audience gets older, and the product is marketed to appear more 'luxurious.'
Textbook "tall" business practice. Peek in a lego store sometime for another prime example. Tons of lego sets now have 500$+ price tags, and the box design is just black, with a spotlight illuminating the fully assembled kit. That's not a childrens toy.

Sure, but GW has substantially shifted its marketing and branding and product offerings over the past 3-4 years in order to appeal to women, people of color, LGBTQ+, etc. in order to expand its reach into new audiences. That is no longer tall, that is wide. This includes, of course, young adult novels marketed towards kids and early teens, licensed products like leggings and other women and queer-focused clothing options, etc. Tall business practices focus on existing customers and target demographics to the exclusion of others. GWs existing customer base and target demographic was straight white men aged ~15-35, which is not a demographic that generally buys womens leggings, scented candles, or young adult and childrens novels. Ergo, wide.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT - Hell, it occurs to me that Succubuses and Incubuses, which are very explicitly sex-demons, were included as enemies in the original/1st edition of the game, making their first appearance in *checks notes* the Eldritch Wizardry supplement published by Gygax and Blume in 1976, which was the third supplement ever produced for DnD, after Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Oh, and then theres this article from Dragon Magazine issue #10 (the official zine published by TSR), published 1977: https://twitter.com/BruceCordell/status/1228440128957214723?force_isolation=true

It was written not by an anonymous contributor, but by Jon Pickens, who was one of the lead editors for TSR.

How you say "sex has no place in D&D" when its more or less been there from almost the very beginning - put there by the games very creators and founders no less - is beyond me. To be frank, the game would be better off without it IMO, but regardless its there - and its not because of nerd culture becoming cic and hip and cool and fun and causing "everyone and their mother" to start playing and bring their 50 Thrones of Twilight kinks into the game.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Man are you barking up the wrooooong tree. I hate to break this to you, but kink subculture has *always* very heavily overlapped D&D/RPG subculture. "Roleplay" is core to kink and practitioners of kink have long also been players of D&D and vice versa because *surprise* if you enjoy " roleplaying" you probably also enjoy roleplaying. Its the reason why things like Vampire the Masquerade (first published in 1991, well before any of the trends you indicated) exist. And if you've ever spent any amount of time around Rennys (i.e. Ren Faire performers)in the past 30-40 years you would definitely already know this.

I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD.

The artwork of scantily clad and occasionally partially/fully nude humanoid (and humanoid-adjacent) women in the original D&D publications by TSR, Gygax, et. al. would suggest otherwise.

FWIW I have played a lot of DnD with new players and people who are new to the hobby and veterans who were on a first name basis with Gary Gygax, etc. , etc.... and its *never* the new players who are inserting sex/sexually explicit or implicit material into the campaigns.

I think that when we look at the pre-internet era of TTRPGs, there was a lot of siloing. For many people, like myself, D&D in the 90s was done in my mom's basement with Mountain Dew, Cheetos, and few, if any, women around. Not shockingly, it was pretty light on sexual content. For other people, D&D in the 90s wasn't even D&D, it was White Wolf, and the overlap between it and the kink community was already forming.

I don't think the trend is that new TTPG players are more likely to insert sexual content into a session or campaign, but rather that fewer games are that stereotypical gorup of white guys. My last group was like that, and it shouldn't shock anybody that the only person to remotely flirt with romantic or sexual content was the hopelessly single dude, not the vanilla married dudes.

What has changed, and for the better, is the idea of consent/groundrules, where it's understood that sexual content, especially explicit or violent stuff, shouldn't be sprung on players.

chaos0xomega wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

Man are you barking up the wrooooong tree. I hate to break this to you, but kink subculture has *always* very heavily overlapped D&D/RPG subculture. "Roleplay" is core to kink and practitioners of kink have long also been players of D&D and vice versa because *surprise* if you enjoy " roleplaying" you probably also enjoy roleplaying. Its the reason why things like Vampire the Masquerade (first published in 1991, well before any of the trends you indicated) exist. And if you've ever spent any amount of time around Rennys (i.e. Ren Faire performers)in the past 30-40 years you would definitely already know this.

I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD.

The artwork of scantily clad and occasionally partially/fully nude humanoid (and humanoid-adjacent) women in the original D&D publications by TSR, Gygax, et. al. would suggest otherwise.

FWIW I have played a lot of DnD with new players and people who are new to the hobby and veterans who were on a first name basis with Gary Gygax, etc. , etc.... and its *never* the new players who are inserting sex/sexually explicit or implicit material into the campaigns.

That demographic now has WAY less money, and so the price tags go up, the target audience gets older, and the product is marketed to appear more 'luxurious.'
Textbook "tall" business practice. Peek in a lego store sometime for another prime example. Tons of lego sets now have 500$+ price tags, and the box design is just black, with a spotlight illuminating the fully assembled kit. That's not a childrens toy.

Sure, but GW has substantially shifted its marketing and branding and product offerings over the past 3-4 years in order to appeal to women, people of color, LGBTQ+, etc. in order to expand its reach into new audiences. That is no longer tall, that is wide. This includes, of course, young adult novels marketed towards kids and early teens, licensed products like leggings and other women and queer-focused clothing options, etc. Tall business practices focus on existing customers and target demographics to the exclusion of others. GWs existing customer base and target demographic was straight white men aged ~15-35, which is not a demographic that generally buys womens leggings, scented candles, or young adult and childrens novels. Ergo, wide.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT - Hell, it occurs to me that Succubuses and Incubuses, which are very explicitly sex-demons, were included as enemies in the original/1st edition of the game, making their first appearance in *checks notes* the Eldritch Wizardry supplement published by Gygax and Blume in 1976, which was the third supplement ever produced for DnD, after Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Oh, and then theres this article from Dragon Magazine issue #10 (the official zine published by TSR), published 1977: https://twitter.com/BruceCordell/status/1228440128957214723?force_isolation=true

It was written not by an anonymous contributor, but by Jon Pickens, who was one of the lead editors for TSR.

How you say "sex has no place in D&D" when its more or less been there from almost the very beginning - put there by the games very creators and founders no less - is beyond me. To be frank, the game would be better off without it IMO, but regardless its there - and its not because of nerd culture becoming cic and hip and cool and fun and causing "everyone and their mother" to start playing and bring their 50 Thrones of Twilight kinks into the game.

Ok, I'll give you that kink and sex have been part of nerd culture for a while. Can we at least admit that violent sex kink has not been a part of DnD? I'm talking rape level. GoT level of non-consent.

I think succubi and inccubi fall directly under rape sex. They supernaturally drug you and then steal your life from you. There is very little actually consensual or romantic about what they do.

That being said, it doesn't matter. If people don't want it in their game it should be respected.

Wow, I don't think Monsters that are designed to be killed constitute themes of PC Rape RP in DnD. And I don't think you are correctly stating what a Succubus or an Incubus is.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't think Monsters that are designed to be killed constitute themes of PC Rape RP in DnD. And I don't think you are correctly stating what a Succubus or an Incubus is.

An incubus is a demon in male form who, according to mythological and legendary traditions, lies upon sleeping women in order to engage in sexual activity with them.[1] Its female counterpart is a succubus. Salacious tales of incubi and succubi have been told for many centuries in traditional societies. Some traditions hold that repeated sexual activity with an incubus or succubus may result in the deterioration of health, an impaired mental state, or even death.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus

Even the Forgotten Realms wiki description for them involves the fact their very nature is built around sexual assault.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wow, I don't think Monsters that are designed to be killed constitute themes of PC Rape RP in DnD. And I don't think you are correctly stating what a Succubus or an Incubus is.

I don't know what you want man. Those things are very specifically sex demons. They tend to have supernatural powers that lull and seduce victims so that they are helpless against their sexual assaults. And then, through the sexual acts, steal the life force of their victims to sustain themselves.

Their very existence is a date rape drug. And their sexual assaults is their version of hunting for sustenance. At least, in every version of fiction where I have seen a succubus or inccubus. It's possible that in some other fiction somebody has used the name to represent some other kind of creature. But I mean... at that point it's a succubus in name only.


Also, just a side note. Xenomorphs are themes of sexual assault and rape. A face huger literally impregnates you against your will. Big Chap (The titular alien in Alien) is called "Kane's son" by Ash. https://www.alien-rpg.com/ there is the RPG for it.


https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/succubus

Charm. One humanoid the fiend can see within 30 feet of it must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or be magically charmed for 1 day. The charmed target obeys the fiend's verbal or telepathic commands. If the target suffers any harm or receives a suicidal command, it can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect on a success. If the target successfully saves against the effect, or if the effect on it ends, the target is immune to this fiend's Charm for the next 24 hours.

The fiend can have only one target charmed at a time. If it charms another, the effect on the previous target ends.

Draining Kiss. The fiend kisses a creature charmed by it or a willing creature. The target must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw against this magic, taking 32 (5d10 + 5) psychic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The target's hit point maximum is reduced by an amount equal to the damage taken. This reduction lasts until the target finishes a long rest. The target dies if this effect reduces its hit point maximum to 0.

Charm them so they cannot protest or fight back. Kiss them while "drugged" and steal their life.

As a frequent DM, I early on decided not to include succubi or incubi. I think as demonic entities they are okay and if you can create and interesting story then fine. When I create vicious people or monsters the stuff they do is usually off screen or referred to. Town's are massacred, people brutally killed, the suggestion is there but there's no real need for detail.

It's a game of imagination after all.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now you have everyone from GoT fans to 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight fans trying to shoehorn their personal kinks into DnD.

Man are you barking up the wrooooong tree. I hate to break this to you, but kink subculture has *always* very heavily overlapped D&D/RPG subculture. "Roleplay" is core to kink and practitioners of kink have long also been players of D&D and vice versa because *surprise* if you enjoy " roleplaying" you probably also enjoy roleplaying. Its the reason why things like Vampire the Masquerade (first published in 1991, well before any of the trends you indicated) exist. And if you've ever spent any amount of time around Rennys (i.e. Ren Faire performers)in the past 30-40 years you would definitely already know this.

I think sex of any sort has little or no place in DnD.

The artwork of scantily clad and occasionally partially/fully nude humanoid (and humanoid-adjacent) women in the original D&D publications by TSR, Gygax, et. al. would suggest otherwise.

FWIW I have played a lot of DnD with new players and people who are new to the hobby and veterans who were on a first name basis with Gary Gygax, etc. , etc.... and its *never* the new players who are inserting sex/sexually explicit or implicit material into the campaigns.

That demographic now has WAY less money, and so the price tags go up, the target audience gets older, and the product is marketed to appear more 'luxurious.'
Textbook "tall" business practice. Peek in a lego store sometime for another prime example. Tons of lego sets now have 500$+ price tags, and the box design is just black, with a spotlight illuminating the fully assembled kit. That's not a childrens toy.

Sure, but GW has substantially shifted its marketing and branding and product offerings over the past 3-4 years in order to appeal to women, people of color, LGBTQ+, etc. in order to expand its reach into new audiences. That is no longer tall, that is wide. This includes, of course, young adult novels marketed towards kids and early teens, licensed products like leggings and other women and queer-focused clothing options, etc. Tall business practices focus on existing customers and target demographics to the exclusion of others. GWs existing customer base and target demographic was straight white men aged ~15-35, which is not a demographic that generally buys womens leggings, scented candles, or young adult and childrens novels. Ergo, wide.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT - Hell, it occurs to me that Succubuses and Incubuses, which are very explicitly sex-demons, were included as enemies in the original/1st edition of the game, making their first appearance in *checks notes* the Eldritch Wizardry supplement published by Gygax and Blume in 1976, which was the third supplement ever produced for DnD, after Greyhawk and Blackmoor.

Oh, and then theres this article from Dragon Magazine issue #10 (the official zine published by TSR), published 1977: https://twitter.com/BruceCordell/status/1228440128957214723?force_isolation=true

It was written not by an anonymous contributor, but by Jon Pickens, who was one of the lead editors for TSR.

How you say "sex has no place in D&D" when its more or less been there from almost the very beginning - put there by the games very creators and founders no less - is beyond me. To be frank, the game would be better off without it IMO, but regardless its there - and its not because of nerd culture becoming cic and hip and cool and fun and causing "everyone and their mother" to start playing and bring their 50 Thrones of Twilight kinks into the game.

Ok, I'll give you that kink and sex have been part of nerd culture for a while. Can we at least admit that violent sex kink has not been a part of DnD? I'm talking rape level. GoT level of non-consent.

No. We can't. Because irate and non-con was part of Gygax's vision for the game.

From the fairly innocuous random prostitute table in the DMG, to the entire write up of the drow which was rape/non-con turned on its head, with evil black elf women dominating men. Yes, including sexually.

While this is a creepy conversation, it isn't a new one. You can find some really bad takes on the subject (and women in general) in early issues of Dragon magazine. In the 20s and 30s, iirc, around the time they introduced the anti paladin. So late 1970s/ early 80s at the latest

If RPG is about people impersonating adult characters and having interactions and building relations with each other I can't see how romance and sex can be left out of the game completely - it will make some interactions and relations weird and artificial.

I have never played D&D much because for me it fits more some dungeon crawling board game than actual roleplaying, but sex featured naturally in a lot of games I had. My longest WFRP campaign was actually about my girlfriend at the time playing Bianka, a nymphomaniac noblewoman. She was inspired by Kushiel's Dart novels at the time and with intrigue at court being the focus of her adventures it just clicked perfectly (intrigue and seduction go hand in hand). I was GMing the campaign and the other player character was a road warden, Matias, who in the course of the campaign became Bianka's beloved. Mirroring Phedre and Joscelin from "Kushiel's..." they had this interesting relationship along the lines of "You are the love of my life, but I have my peculiar needs and you have to accept me as I am". Very cool, deep, emotional story, not to mention this...complicated relationship between Bianka and her arch-enemy, Slaaneshi champion, Lysander, based on Sigvald.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also remember from my LARPing days that mechanics for sex were quite common, so that players could indicate being intimate with each other without the need for roleplaying an intercourse (which would be seriously awkward!!!).

I remember for example that stroking the other player's hair was such a substitute. Subtle but funny also, the ratio of men and women larping was always about 50-50 and I know the girls really appreciated these solutions as most of them were into larping for drama, intrigue, and roleplaying relations and emotions rather then running around with a rubber sword. Having fake-sex as a mechanic added another dimension to explore.

If this is a group which you have enjoyed belonging to for some time and this behaviour is new then fight to preserve your group. Continue to state your unease with this new direction. If this is a group you recently joined, on the other hand, then I guess you just learned that this group is not for you. You stated your objections and they disregarded them. Cut your losses and move on. Past-times should not give you stomach churn.

As an aside, if a character is doing something terrible "off-stage" under possession then I guess it could be an interesting part of a campaign, especially if they are not initially aware that it is them who is doing these crimes?

As a teenage AD&Der in the early/mid80s our characters couldn't really be Evil in terms of doing evil acts. You could be a NE Assassin, but in a teenage cheesy dark-anti-hero-Batman way where you only assassinated bad people etc. Being evil to good/innocent people wasn't our thing. Other groups might have been different with different tolerances.

Anyhoo - suggest that the OP moves on and finds a new group of like-minded players.

No. Absolutely not.

Next topic.

I am starting a group in January, and have to say that doing (or allowing) something of this nature would never, EVER, cross my mind. As you note, I play games to escape, have fun, and maybe have a thrilling adventure to boot.

Anything that might trigger someone (e.g., racism, sexual trauma/violence, even violence against children/youth as we are all new-ish parents) would not ever even enter my mind as something I'd want anything near my campaign.

Sorry you experienced this with your game group

Cyel wrote:
If RPG is about people impersonating adult characters and having interactions and building relations with each other I can't see how romance and sex can be left out of the game completely - it will make some interactions and relations weird and artificial.

In the same way that you can have adult movies that are rated pg13 or tv shows that can air during the day time.

 Lance845 wrote:

Cyel wrote:
If RPG is about people impersonating adult characters and having interactions and building relations with each other I can't see how romance and sex can be left out of the game completely - it will make some interactions and relations weird and artificial.

In the same way that you can have adult movies that are rated pg13 or tv shows that can air during the day time.

Unlike a TV show an RPG session isn't entirely scripted, though. If player characters decide to have an intimate relationship GM shouldn't stomp their feet saying "You can't! Why? Because I say so, that's why!" any more than in any other situation when players want to expand their own story the way they want. Such an artificial constraint would make players lose agency in their own story, which in my opinion is unacceptable in a narrative game revolving around lifelike freedom of choice.