What to Watch Out for in Your Players

[Calthropstu]

This is all really far away from a discussion on "Do TTRPG tables have anny justifiable reasons to ban gay characters?" Are we really putting forth the idea that there exists appreciable demand for a game about the struggles of a colonization populace with extremely small reproductive variance? Even if someone created this kind of game, there are so many variables that go into creating this situation that it would have to be tailor-made so that it would "naturally" exclude the presence of gay characters. And that's assuming that the focus of the game would be on the reproduction rather than whatever other adventures the group would get up to.

We're not even talking Devil's Advocate anymore; this is more along the lines of Bizarro Lovecraftian Horror's Advocate, it's so far out there. If a group is going through this much trouble to exclude LGBT+ characters, then they are actively making an effort at this point.

Fair enough, though the pioneer ship has merit. Still, even that is pushing limitations. But, regardless, I can see people wanting to bar gay characters from a table for a myriad of reasons. Whether you can personally accept that or not is entirely up to you... Tying all of this to the original conversation then becomes a simple matter of pointing out that such people would consider people adamant that gay characters should be legitimate to be a huge red flag, while others consider them to be a red flag. In most cases, the parting of ways would be expected and likely favorable to both parties.

As an aside, that nasa thing was likely an exercise in developing criteria to set up thousands of such bunkers across the country. Each would have to assume only it survived. I am trying to locate it, I did the exercise back in college 15 years ago.

[Quertus]

@Segev: I failed my Knowledge:Mormon roll. So, Mormons have prohibitions related to tea and coffee, too?

I'm honestly surprised at the directions this thread has gone. And impressed, by and large, GitP is good people.

When I started this, I just wanted to swap some war stories and maybe have a giggle over the crazy things people have done at their table. What I got was still enlightening.

I mean, personally, I'm a ****, but I choose to post in the Playground because of how amazing a place it is. Playgrounders are an amazing group.

[Delta]

If you were told that you were a bad person for refusing to go to Mutual activities with Mormons, because that means you hate Mormons and discriminate against them, you'd probably be offended, right?

Again, I fail to see the relevance. If a gay person asked you to go to a gay bar with them, I surely wouldn't call you a homophobe for saying "No, thanks" for whatever reason.

But this isn't what we're talking about here. We're simply talking about a gay person existing and you being aware of their sexual orientation, that is not asking you for anything.

To put it in equivalent terms, imagine the following discussion

Me: "Hey, wanna do something on Sunday?"
(Male) Person A: "Sorry, I have a date with my boyfriend on Sunday"
Person B: "Sorry, I got church on Sunday"

This is the equivalent. No one's asking anyone to take part in any religious or "gay" activities or whatever, and in both cases, of course the correct response to both people is to nod and say "Cool, no worries, maybe another time." and if someone can't do that but has to go "Please don't force your homosexuality/religion on me!!!" in answer to that, then I don't feel like either Person A or B should have to be willing to compromise with said someone, the fault lies completely with that someone for being intolerant.

[Scripten]

Someone's likely codified a rule somewhere that any thread on GitP, if left alive long enough, will eventually mutate into something incredibly far removed from its original purpose. That's the nature of conversation, after all.

@Segev: While I don't feel comfortable replying to your newest post, as it comes waaaaay too close to discussing actual politics, I do suggest you do a bit more research into that case and its resolution. It was not ruled that the baker acted in accordance with the law, but that the original ruling contained verbiage that invalidated it. (This is a big deal when talking legal matters.)

There are other issues I have with your post's stated (and unstated) biases, but honestly, I don't have the energy to debate them right now. I hope you are able to come to terms with things in the future.

[Calthropstu]

@Segev: I failed my Knowledge:Mormon roll. So, Mormons have prohibitions related to tea and coffee, too?



I mean, personally, I'm a ****, but I choose to post in the Playground because of how amazing a place it is. Playgrounders are an amazing group.

I went to a mormon church for a month when I was 17 because of reasons. Some of their practices and beliefs were odd.

Religion and I have never mixed well because I like poking holes in their beliefs. Still, I get along with them regardless.

[BBQ Pork]

The original list:

• Thinks that "lol, i so random" is both funny and sufficient characterization
• Steals from party members in game
• Steals from party members irl
• Tries to solve a problem by seducing it
• Plays a character that does not match their gender
• Has ever forced the DM to roll for pregnancy
• Drow
• Gives you a handwritten 15 page backstory, or links you to their Tumblr and tells you it's in there somewhere
• Uses the word "sexy" to describe their character on a regular basis
• Insists on using a class they found on dandwiki
• Wants to be actual royalty in their backstory
• Insists on using anything they found on dandwiki
• Asks to play a class focused on crafting
• Focuses on self-preservation over actually doing anything; e.g. running and hiding from every encounter, social or otherwise
• Dual Wielding
• Katanas
• Dual Wielding Katanas

What about you guys? What are your major signs that something isn't right in you party?

My list:

• 1 Thinks that "lol, i so random" is both funny and sufficient characterization
• 2 Steals from party members in game
• 3 Steals from party members irl (Not an issue twice. You try that ONCE and you're never coming back.)
• 4 Want their character's sexuality to be a frequent plot point.
• 5 Gives you a handwritten 15 page backstory, or links you to their Tumblr and tells you it's in there somewhere. (That's cool, but I'm gonna TLDR that at the end of a page. At most. And I'm not going to go looking for it online. Have it printed on a sheet, with your character sheet.)
  
• 6 Wants to use a race/class/equipment from 3rd party or obscure sources. (Not a hard 'No', but will require the DM take a very cautious eye towards it)
• 7 Wants to be drunk or stoned during a game session
• 8 Acts in a creepy or inappropriate way towards another player, or in front of other people in the house.
  
• 9 (I'm crossing out the "self-preservation guy" for this) : Doesn't participate.
• 10 Want to play stuff that is far from the intended genre and needs to be shoe-horned in with a BIG stretch of disbelief.
• 11 Wants to add ridiculous extra little abilities and notes onto an existing race or class that they are playing. (Elves are a good jumping off point for this one)
• 12 Cheats at die rolls. (We had this. The player has since straightened out.)

#4 brings us between the OP's post and this end of the conversation. I don't want sex stuff to be a major part of my party's adventure. If your character or the player are gay, fine. If they are straight, fine. But I am not going to RP seductions, sexual assaults, pregnancies, etc. I am running a PG-13 table. Violence (without major gore), some innuendo.

Your table may vary, so long as everyone at the table is comfortable.

[War_lord]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Scripten]

#4 brings us between the OP's post and this end of the conversation. I don't want sex stuff to be a major part of my party's adventure. If your character or the player are gay, fine. If they are straight, fine. But I am not going to RP seductions, sexual assaults, pregnancies, etc. I am running a PG-13 table. Violence (without major gore), some innuendo.

Your table may vary, so long as everyone at the table is comfortable.

This is a totally fair and (in my experience) good mentality. Although I would add that one could certainly make their character's sexuality a major plot point in a number of ways that are non-sexual.

For example:
1) If playing in a royal/noble political game where the character is expected to produce heirs, it could be a major plot point that they are not attracted to reproductively viable partners. Technically related to sex, but not even Disney would shy away from depicting this kind of story (at least not with regard to how much sex is depicted in it).

2) In any world where sexuality is considered important, either for good or ill, a character that doesn't follow the setting's sexuality norms could be interesting to play, even if they aren't alluding to or doing anything in-game. IMO, a GM being inclusive of characters (which I consider to be a necessity) does not require the setting to default to an egalitarian society. In my games, I tend to do so, but that's mostly due to my players being largely LGBT+ and seeking escapism from real-world oppression in their elf games.

[kyoryu]

My take on this whole thing:

A person saying "I don't want to play in a game with the following features" is their call. I may not agree with it. In some cases, it might be a good warning that I shouldn't play with them.

People making object statements that certain features must be allowed in all games, or prohibited in all games, worry me. I mean, yeah, there's some restrictions people might make that make me go "yeah, that seems like a jerk move, and totally at odds with my values. I ain't playin' with that person". But I think that's okay, really. I think trying to make the argument that they should be forced to do something they don't want to is silly and likely to be counterproductive in the long term.

Note: This is especially true in situations where we're talking about private games and voluntary association during leisure time.

[Segev]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Delta]

You'd be surprised how often that is not the case. Replace, for instance, "gay bar" with "gay wedding," and watch the fireworks fly.

I'm rather sure I wouldn't be surprised, but that's neither here nor there.

But in the end we're not talking about "gay wedding", we're talking about RPG groups and whether "I don't want gay characters" is a valid request that should be accomodated. It is not, because it is equivalent to the situation I just posted. The simple fact that a character is gay is not asking you to take part in any form of "gay activity" or anything, I feel the need to point this out again and again because you keep trying to draw these false equivalencies with every single post you make.

You say that, but I have pointed out evidence to the contrary.

Evidence to what exactly? Since you're moving the goalposts so rapidly, I have kind of lost track of the point you're trying to make. I'm still just talking about RPG and why I feel asking people not to play gay characters isn't a request I find reasonable, all the other stuff is just a comparison I was trying to make because in the end, all this is asking for is the same level of respect that you're asking for that when you say "I'm going to church on Sunday", you don't want everyone to get in your face about that.

And as I have said time and time again, if someone at my table told me he wouldn't feel comfortable playing with religious characters of any sort, I wouldn't consider that a valid request either. On the other hand, if someone didn't want anyone preaching in his face during RPG, now that's just as valid a request to make as not wanting said gay character to hit on you. But if the mere existence of a gay character is a thing that makes you uncomfortable, I still hold that the fault lies with you, and no one should have to compromise for that.

[Solaris]

Are you guys actually reading the multi-paragraph responses to one another to try and understand their points, or are you skimming them to prove them wrong?

[JoeJ]

issuing a correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the terror group ISIL. you do not, under any circumstances, "gotta hand it to them" @dril on Twitter.

Unless what you're handing them is a grenade. With the pin removed.

[2D8HP]

Are you guys actually reading the multi-paragraph responses to one another to try and understand their points....?

Yes, but I tend to forget about a lot of the points when I get to the end of the post, then I re-read, the same thing happens again and I give up

[Lord Raziere]

I'm honestly surprised at the directions this thread has gone. And impressed, by and large, GitP is good people.

When I started this, I just wanted to swap some war stories and maybe have a giggle over the crazy things people have done at their table. What I got was still enlightening.

Agreed.

I am very thankful that I know which people definitely deserve my ignore list.

the points Kyoru made make sense, but I also agree with War lord and Delta. its complicated to say, but I agree issues about gay people isn't a "cats and dogs" issue, even if its up to individual people to determine what their group is open to. the people around them are also free to choose whether to stay in that group or to join it, and while I guess groups are free to exclude gay things if they want....I'm not gonna lie: I hope everyone else shuns them for it and goes and plays other groups without them, they can have their fun but I sincerely hope that they have it alone and that the wider community rejects them in favor of being more accepting than that. regardless of the individual group thats not the wider community I want.

[Calthropstu]

Are you guys actually reading the multi-paragraph responses to one another to try and understand their points, or are you skimming them to prove them wrong?

Some of these wall-o-texts should definitely have som tl;dr. But I actually like how far this discussion has gone without getting insulting.

Most forums, this would have devolved into "Die gay boy;" "Go to hell nazi creep" etc 100 posts back. I credit the mods and the fairly decent community.

[Hooligan]

Well it's great that we now know who is virtuous and who is villainous.

The only real shame (aside from people crapping on each other) is that the original purpose of this thread was derailed and riddled with replies replete with "conflate" and "...in good faith" and the like within a page or so.

Leave it to the playground to become immediately defensive about something fun (the list, not the subsequent ham-fisted discussion of identity politics).

[Satinavian]

My take on this whole thing:

A person saying "I don't want to play in a game with the following features" is their call. I may not agree with it. In some cases, it might be a good warning that I shouldn't play with them.

People making object statements that certain features must be allowed in all games, or prohibited in all games, worry me. I mean, yeah, there's some restrictions people might make that make me go "yeah, that seems like a jerk move, and totally at odds with my values. I ain't playin' with that person". But I think that's okay, really. I think trying to make the argument that they should be forced to do something they don't want to is silly and likely to be counterproductive in the long term.

Note: This is especially true in situations where we're talking about private games and voluntary association during leisure time.

I agree with that

the points Kyoru made make sense, but I also agree with War lord and Delta. its complicated to say, but I agree issues about gay people isn't a "cats and dogs" issue, even if its up to individual people to determine what their group is open to. the people around them are also free to choose whether to stay in that group or to join it, and while I guess groups are free to exclude gay things if they want....I'm not gonna lie: I hope everyone else shuns them for it and goes and plays other groups without them, they can have their fun but I sincerely hope that they have it alone and that the wider community rejects them in favor of being more accepting than that. regardless of the individual group thats not the wider community I want.

And i disagree with that.

The gaming community should not exclude people for things that have nothing to do with gaming. I know i have played several times with people i very much disagree with, from active Antifa members to extreme rights (but not yet open Neonazis). I have also been in several groups where players were extremely opposed about certain topics (yes, usually religion or politics related) and where it got really tense everytime any discussion moved in that direction.
But all those people share the same hobby, a hobby that is a group activity. And I really believe we should not divide our community along unrelated opinions.

That means unless one player behaves badly to some other player i will ignore any disagreeable out of game opinions or leanings and always try to accomodate all players that are part of the group. I don't have to like them all or share any other activity.

[Mordaedil]

I don't mind sharing a hobby with people that disagree with me politically, but I kinda draw the line at people who think I ought to die or not exist.

[Delta]

To make my point clear yet again because I feel a lot of perspective has been lost over the course of the discussion: I have played with lots of people I disagreed with on many things over the years. I'm not trying to imply anyone should be shunned on principle unless his actual actions (not opinions) warrant it.

All I'm saying is that I feel not all requests a player can ask of a group are to be seen as reasonable requests where you should always try to find a compromise. To put it like this: If you don't want to encounter gay characters in your RPG, find a group where neither players nor GM want to include gay characters or NPCs, simple as that. But if you are playing in a group where gay characters are a thing that exists, I just don't feel that group should have to accomodate that request, that is all, and yes, to get back in the original topic, a player asking for this is a "red flag" for me in the sense that I would keep a closer look on that player because from experience I'd expect more conflicts to arise from that.

[Satinavian]

I would consider to accomodate that request. While i don't think it is particularly reasonable there is a significant chance that the other players, while certainly finding that wish a bit odd and suspicious, don't care too much anyway.

But yes, such a wish certainly is a red flag that the player might be troublesome.

[Knaight]

And i disagree with that.

The gaming community should not exclude people for things that have nothing to do with gaming. I know i have played several times with people i very much disagree with, from active Antifa members to extreme rights (but not yet open Neonazis). I have also been in several groups where players were extremely opposed about certain topics (yes, usually religion or politics related) and where it got really tense everytime any discussion moved in that direction.
But all those people share the same hobby, a hobby that is a group activity. And I really believe we should not divide our community along unrelated opinions.

I'm just going to take the time to strongly disagree with this before bowing out (at least until I get back from a work trip, but hopefully this thread will have died down by then). Gaming is a hobby, and as a hobby it's really not that important in the grand scheme of things. It shouldn't take precedent over things that actually matter, and there are all sorts of things that are religion and politics related that fit into that category, starting with core values. There's two very different classes of disagreement, one of which is about the strategies to use to advance values and one about the values themselves - and while some variation in the latter is acceptable there's a point where the question becomes "Do I spend time with terrible people because we both like RPGs?".

As far as I'm concerned the correct answer there is "No".

[Koo Rehtorb]

Well it's great that we now know who is virtuous and who is villainous.

Unironically agreed.

[Calthropstu]

To make my point clear yet again because I feel a lot of perspective has been lost over the course of the discussion: I have played with lots of people I disagreed with on many things over the years. I'm not trying to imply anyone should be shunned on principle unless his actual actions (not opinions) warrant it.

All I'm saying is that I feel not all requests a player can ask of a group are to be seen as reasonable requests where you should always try to find a compromise. To put it like this: If you don't want to encounter gay characters in your RPG, find a group where neither players nor GM want to include gay characters or NPCs, simple as that. But if you are playing in a group where gay characters are a thing that exists, I just don't feel that group should have to accomodate that request, that is all, and yes, to get back in the original topic, a player asking for this is a "red flag" for me in the sense that I would keep a closer look on that player because from experience I'd expect more conflicts to arise from that.

Agreed. If compromise or tolerance is unreachable, the odd one out should bow out gracefully. And that goes for any issue. With red flags being the topic, any player refusing to compromise to the standards of the rest of the group is probably unwelcome in the group. Red flags for anyone refusing to do so. I hope we can all agree and put this side topic to rest.

[Liquor Box]

My take on this whole thing:

A person saying "I don't want to play in a game with the following features" is their call. I may not agree with it. In some cases, it might be a good warning that I shouldn't play with them.

People making object statements that certain features must be allowed in all games, or prohibited in all games, worry me. I mean, yeah, there's some restrictions people might make that make me go "yeah, that seems like a jerk move, and totally at odds with my values. I ain't playin' with that person". But I think that's okay, really. I think trying to make the argument that they should be forced to do something they don't want to is silly and likely to be counterproductive in the long term.

Note: This is especially true in situations where we're talking about private games and voluntary association during leisure time.

I agree with this.

To make my point clear yet again because I feel a lot of perspective has been lost over the course of the discussion: I have played with lots of people I disagreed with on many things over the years. I'm not trying to imply anyone should be shunned on principle unless his actual actions (not opinions) warrant it.

All I'm saying is that I feel not all requests a player can ask of a group are to be seen as reasonable requests where you should always try to find a compromise. To put it like this: If you don't want to encounter gay characters in your RPG, find a group where neither players nor GM want to include gay characters or NPCs, simple as that. But if you are playing in a group where gay characters are a thing that exists, I just don't feel that group should have to accomodate that request, that is all, and yes, to get back in the original topic, a player asking for this is a "red flag" for me in the sense that I would keep a closer look on that player because from experience I'd expect more conflicts to arise from that.

How would you feel if a person said, "I prefer a game where we don't explore sexual preferences at all, because I prefer to avoid arguments that sometimes surround those issues, therefore lets keep the question of whether our characters are gay or straight in our own heads, and not introduce any story elements that require us to explore sexuality"?

I mean, I understand that might not be the type of game you prefer, but do you think the request would be reasonable?

[Koo Rehtorb]

I mean, I understand that might not be the type of game you prefer, but do you think the request would be reasonable?

It would certainly be more reasonable than just banning gay characters. I don't think banning sexual subject matter strictly so bigots won't ruin the game for everyone is the best call, though. The best call is don't play with bigots at all.

[Delta]

How would you feel if a person said, "I prefer a game where we don't explore sexual preferences at all, because I prefer to avoid arguments that sometimes surround those issues, therefore lets keep the question of whether our characters are gay or straight in our own heads, and not introduce any story elements that require us to explore sexuality"?

I mean, I understand that might not be the type of game you prefer, but do you think the request would be reasonable?

Honestly, no. Because how would a game world like that look with no reference to that at all? "The King and his Q... oh, sorry, almost would've mentioned a romantic pairing there" just doesn't work. Now, sexuality is not a part that needs to be explored in any kind of depth and that's fine, but to remove the sheer mention of it from the game at all would simply castrate the types of stories to be told in the vast majority of settings to such a degree I'd find it ridiculous.

If someone came to me asking me for that, I'd recommend him to find a group playing a purely action-focused dungeon crawler campaign or something like that, because I feel as soon as social interaction within a plausible greater game world is concerned, the simple mentioning of sexuality and romance is kind of a given.

[Calthropstu]

It would certainly be more reasonable than just banning gay characters. I don't think banning sexual subject matter strictly so bigots won't ruin the game for everyone is the best call, though. The best call is don't play with bigots at all.

Ever hear of conventions? Or pick up games? How about if it isn't even a player or gm making the rule but the parents or other family of the host? Or maybe the game has kids in it. Sex talk in that situation could theoretically get you arrested in that point or even sued.

Yeah, no sex talk at all has many applications other than what you consider bigotry.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Ever hear of conventions? Or pick up games? How about if it isn't even a player or gm making the rule but the parents or other family of the host? Or maybe the game has kids in it. Sex talk in that situation could theoretically get you arrested in that point or even sued.

Which were not the situations being discussed. There are legitimate reasons not to involve sexuality in games. "avoiding arguments that sometimes surround those issues" is not one of them.

[Delta]

Ever hear of conventions? Or pick up games? How about if it isn't even a player or gm making the rule but the parents or other family of the host? Or maybe the game has kids in it. Sex talk in that situation could theoretically get you arrested in that point or even sued.

Yeah, no sex talk at all has many applications other than what you consider bigotry.

If "sex talk" were in any shape or form the subject matter, you would be correct. But "The inn is led by the owner, his loving wife and his three kids help around the house" isn't sex talk, yet the sexuality/romantic inclinations of two NPCs has already been clearly established, so "Think of the kids!" isn't really applicable here either, any kid old enough to take part in pen & paper rpg is old enough to handle the mentioning of romance.

But maybe this is also a cultural thing, I've been playing at conventions with people I've hardly if ever met for decades and never once met anyone who mentioned they had a problem with a certain level of sexual content in their games, that's just not a big issue.