Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042935And there you have it.  Too many people simply don't want the possibility of bad consequences.

Quote from: Krimson;1042936Then they should be playing a nice safe game where you get reward without risk.

I feel like we have invented out of whole cloth these hordes of people who have a problem with this belt (or consequences in general). There are undoubtedly gamers like that out there, but within the context of this thread, we have all of Ras venturing that that might be a reason someone would object.

Regardless, Ewan is right, there are significantly worse things that could happen to your character. In fact the real problem (if you can even call it that) with gender-switch items is that it really isn't really anything bad happening to the character*, making it kind of a non-issue (minus an opportunity to roleplay your character being upset, which isn't really a bad thing).
*unless you have arrested-development cases in your gaming group (like the above-mentioned rape-joke jaggoffs), in which case that's the actual problem.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1042946If the item isn't intended to be dickish by design, why is it labeled "cursed" with the connotations that has in D&D (traps and punishment).  Also, why the over the top requirements for reversing it, which some artifacts don't even go as far as?

It is intended to be dickish by design. It is a cursed item. Full stop. D&D cursed items (minus simple -1 items) are clearly designed with a 'laugh at the misery'/'disproportionate retribution for the supposed sleight of not figuring out that they were cursed' aesthetic. Plenty of the Necklace of Strangulation/Bowl of Watery Death-style cursed items can be summed up as "unless the spellcaster (who had better not be you) is standing by with a very specific spell prepared, you will die perma-death." We do not disagree on this, only that it is unusual amongst its peers.

Quote from: Ras AlgethiPlayer agency. If I want to play a Male Human Paladin if I get turned female or into a dwarf it may bother me. What bias would either imply?

Quote from: Omega;1042906"Player Agency" gets used a bit too much as a passive aggressive whining point to stop bad things happening to characters.

I think Ras has a point. There's a psychological and practical difference between a character dying or being petrified or whatever - and a character being significantly changed.

I think it's pretty common to get uncomfortable at having one's gender changed. If I didn't know my players - like in a convention game - I'd probably want to have some kind of warning before effects like this happen. It doesn't have to be specific about the effect - just that weird changes to one's character are possible.

Quote from: Krimson;1042920No one is forcing the character to take the Girdle and put it on. That's a conscious decision by the Player. Just like no one one forces a character to draw a card from the Deck of Many Things.

This is assuming that players have a thorough understanding of the Dungeon Master's Guide and thus exactly what the risks of putting on a girdle are. It also doesn't apply to portals, rooms, and other gender-changing effects.

There seems to be a distinct difference in the type of consequences the girdle invokes. There are no mechanical changes (AFAIK), the character plays the same as far as the dice go. The differences are social and role play driven. Being forced into the wrong gender would be psychologicially troubling and potentially socially disruptive to devestating depends on the character's culture and history (Imagine being married and having this happen). Though for some characters it may even be benifical; if your game deals with matters like transexualism.

For the player it might be a practically a non issue if gender/sex plays little no role in the game or they enjoy the RP potential or something major if they are very attached to a certain image or plans for their character, viewing it as more than an expendable playing piece, disliking the potential psychological issue it would bring up, just being uncomfortable with the whole idea because they don't like sex/gender issues coming up as more than window dressing or in a more negative light don't like bad consequences or find this one hits closer to him than death for personal reasons. This isn't necessarily indicate immaturity. For instance, I'd be more disturbed by a character being rendered blind for extended/permanent time since its a personal phobia of mine.

I think it would be best to have a grasp on your players before spring this or something like it on them like any other risky or potentially problematic endeavor and be ready to talk it out if it doesn't go over well. As a total WAG, I'd assume the device is nominally balanced based on the notion its not going to cause much trouble or player issue as it has such stringent requirements to be rid of or meant as further adventure fuel.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1042947I feel like we have invented out of whole cloth these hordes of people who have a problem with this belt (or consequences in general).

That pretty much describes many many threads on this forum. Mind you if someone wasn't moaning and griping about something at any given time, it wouldn't be the internet.

Quote from: jhkim;1042948This is assuming that players have a thorough understanding of the Dungeon Master's Guide and thus exactly what the risks of putting on a girdle are. It also doesn't apply to portals, rooms, and other gender-changing effects.

You pays your money, you takes your chance.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1042947It is intended to be dickish by design. It is a cursed item. Full stop. D&D cursed items (minus simple -1 items) are clearly designed with a 'laugh at the misery'/'disproportionate retribution for the supposed sleight of not figuring out that they were cursed' aesthetic. Plenty of the Necklace of Strangulation/Bowl of Watery Death-style cursed items can be summed up as "unless the spellcaster (who had better not be you) is standing by with a very specific spell prepared, you will die perma-death." We do not disagree on this, only that it is unusual amongst its peers.

Cursed items came out of players saying "Cool!  Elven Cloak and Boots!"

They also came out of Dying Earth and old mythology.  Dying Earth, wizards are experimenting all the time, and many experiments go wrong.

Quote from: jhkim;1042948This is assuming that players have a thorough understanding of the Dungeon Master's Guide and thus exactly what the risks of putting on a girdle are. It also doesn't apply to portals, rooms, and other gender-changing effects.

No, it assumes that players understand that things might be dangerous.

There are a lot of groups and/or individual players who are not mature enough to deal with a variety of ideas that come up in free-form role playing; some can't deal with the concept of failure. Some can't deal with a sense of loss of control over your avatar. Some are not able to explore issues related to 'alignment' or other measures of character ethics, morality or beliefs without the train going off the tracks. Some can't deal with race (as in, human races as modern societies define them) without freaking out in one direction or another. And some can't deal with gender. A magical item or effect that changes gender is just a component of the game setting that forces the players to address gender in some way. If they are not mature enough or well rounded enough or don't have a nuanced enough sense of humor or drama, then they will throw some sort of tantrum or melt down when forced to deal with gender in a way that isn't on their terms. There is no method or approach that will fix this - those people just can't handle the issue in general, and so will get upset when they are forced to handle it in an unusual or unexpected way. I find it all pathetic - any moderately well adjusted 12 year old should be able to roleplay a different or changing gender and bring something fun or interesting to the table without causing chaos. But, people are half-baked sorts of things so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of them can't do that.

Plus, Gronan is spot on: if you don't want weird shit to happen to your character, don't put on magical belts. Duh.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1042982Cursed items came out of players saying "Cool!  Elven Cloak and Boots!"

They also came out of Dying Earth and old mythology.  Dying Earth, wizards are experimenting all the time, and many experiments go wrong.

Oh no, I got it. Although it's been entirely too long since I read Dying Earth (or much of Appendix N, as the planning for our Conan-esque campaign keeps reminding me), I can definitely taste the same flavor running through. And I get the reason for them-- 'think before you act' is pretty common sense, and when you see your players start assuming things are safe, I see why you then build reasons for them to be cautious. The whole evolution of them makes sense. That said, Gabriel2 is right in that many of them (especially post AD&D) have some serious mocking or 'don't just burn the crops, salt the earth afterwards' kind of tone that can be read as dickish.

Part of that comes from Rob Kuntz and Ernie Gygax actively twitting Gary about how the game had become too easy... in early 1974.  Much of later referee attitude was a reflection on Gary playing "gotcha" with his son and an old friend.  And we did; "ha ha, got you" or "ha ha, got away".

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1042947I feel like we have invented out of whole cloth these hordes of people who have a problem with this belt (or consequences in general). There are undoubtedly gamers like that out there, but within the context of this thread, we have all of Ras venturing that that might be a reason someone would object.

There used to be several here who would bitch-fest about "player agency" and toss out terms like "Mother May I" ad nausium. And it gets trotted out over on BGG too.

Quote from: Omega;1043000There used to be several here who would bitch-fest about "player agency" and toss out terms like "Mother May I" ad nausium. And it gets trotted out over on BGG too.

Not to mention things like "you can't kill my PC without my consent."  Not here so much.

But honestly, the various web fora are full of that kind of shit.

I guess it might impact character agency, although not that much, but player agency? In my latest game we agreed to roll our stats at session zero. One player didn't get the stats he wanted. Apparently that character died before making it to the table. It was either that or a walk out. Players can always refuse to play. You can't get much more agency than that.

Quote from: mightybrain;1043013I guess it might impact character agency, although not that much, but player agency? In my latest game we agreed to roll our stats at session zero. One player didn't get the stats he wanted. Apparently that character died before making it to the table. It was either that or a walk out. Players can always refuse to play. You can't get much more agency than that.

Let them walk out.

Big Grognard Gathering?

Roll to enlist in the Scout service.

Wait, wrong game.