TheRPGSite

There's some parts of old-school play that seem to like to emphasize a certain amount of erotic content; usually of the slightly sophomoric 'sleazy' variety, without ever really going into full-on sordid, and generally acting much more 'dangerous' than it really is.  I mean stuff like some of what you see in some of James Desborough's stuff (Machinations of the Space Princess), or some of Venger Satanis' work.

But I've never actually met gamers who tend to like to get into that stuff in actual play.  If you read my DCC campaign logs (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29376), some of it certainly sounds really very sordid, but in actual play almost all of the erotic stuff is only implied and/or happens totally 'off-camera'.

What about everyone else here?  What do you think about this type of 'sleazy' play like Desborough seems to want to push?

Also, would your answer be any different if it was much more explicit and offensive stuff like the "rape an 11 year old virgin 11 times" stuff you see in Carcosa?

RPGPundit

I'm a big fan of the "you hear a knock on the door.  It's her.  You invite her to come in.  She closes the door and with a gentle tug on the tie of her gown it falls to the floor and she stands before you nude, smiling.  Fade to black."

Some players in Tekumel went full-on "I sticked it in her mouf and she went oog," and I found it somewhere between banal and annoying.

Except the one guy who was a full on sicko, like "I'll break the whore's neck just as I cum so she spasms hard on my dick."  But he was pretty fucked up outside the game too.

I did wonder about Phil sometimes.  I understand "let your players do what they want," but Crom's hairy nutsack.

It's a source of enduring bemusement to me that gamers with no qualms about mass murder, graphic torture, human sacrifice, devil worship, thieving, piracy, assassination, genocide and just about every vice, crime and sin that's part of the mortal condition will -- almost uniquely -- consider depiction of eroticism to be Going Too Far.

But that's a different rant I've made more than once.

As far as whether there's anything about so-called "OSR" that ought to be particularly off-limits to it above and beyond any other gaming milieu, quite aside from that the first PC marriage I was in at a gaming table was in an Empire of the Petal Throne game in 1977, I can't think of a single non-idiotic reason why.

Who the fuck do you have on your table Gronan?  Shit you made my table look classy, well mannered, and gentlemen like.

Maybe you should do that rant Ravenswing because your not the only one to notice how we treat sex as a taboo subject while violence gets to run amok.

As for my view on things.  Depends on what setting you are in, what the players are doing, and where they are at.  If it is Ancient Rome and the players walk into the Emperor's son orgy party who know there will be sex.  If they are at a medieval setting church dedicated to a virgin god you know there won't be any sex.

Quote from: RPGPundit;870792What about everyone else here?  What do you think about this type of 'sleazy' play like Desborough seems to want to push?

I have zero interest.  Of course any setting with people in it will also have people having sex in it.  A blow by blow description at the tabletop is just tedious and annoying.  Good erotica is actually very hard to write.  It's very hard to write an erotic scene without it coming out sounding like someone is describing what is happening in a bad porn he is watching.  That's not something I want to waste game time on.      

Quote from: RPGPundit;870792Also, would your answer be any different if it was much more explicit and offensive stuff like the "rape an 11 year old virgin 11 times" stuff you see in Carcosa?

I don't play with the sort of people who would bring something like that into a game.

For me it just depends on how it's presented and why.
If it's done well... and serves some purpose of atmosphere or illustration I'm fine. If it's just some dork relating his thinly veiled porn fantasy... no thanks.

I don't think about it. People can do what they want in their games. If I want to do it in mine, and my group's down for it I will. If I don't, I won't. This whole "let's judge people for what they play pretend about" is old, tired shit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;870792There's some parts of old-school play that seem to like to emphasize a certain amount of erotic content; usually of the slightly sophomoric 'sleazy' variety, without ever really going into full-on sordid, and generally acting much more 'dangerous' than it really is.  I mean stuff like some of what you see in some of James Desborough's stuff (Machinations of the Space Princess), or some of Venger Satanis' work.

But I've never actually met gamers who tend to like to get into that stuff in actual play.  If you read my DCC campaign logs (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29376), some of it certainly sounds really very sordid, but in actual play almost all of the erotic stuff is only implied and/or happens totally 'off-camera'.

Sex definitely happens off-camera IMCs, typically "I take her to my room" then fade to black. Might go a bit further in some games but the general rule of thumb is that to be in the game it would need to be acceptable in an '18'/R-rated swords & sorcery film of the early 1980s, eg the first Conan film. I'll run Venger Satanis' stuff for my Wilderlands campaign, so you have 'Deathstalker' type level of 'skeevy' nudity, bondage, sex slavery, etc - the PCs are generally the good guys though; the last time I saw a PC commit rape was 15 years ago. And nothing like what Gronan describes. I also run PG-rated games with no skeeviness, and I guess my Forgotten Realms game has generally a '15' rating, so it varies.

In general, I'm a fade-to-black person, although I don't have a strict policy on the matter. I'm not into playing out detailed sex scenarios with people I am not sexually involved with, which cover most people I game with. And while I have dated a few women I gamed with, I am not into playing out detailed sex scenarios with them while everyone else at the table has to sit and watch.

Honestly, I really don't care if other people are into it. I'm not that bothered when it happens. I'm just not going to be the one to bring it to the table.

Quote from: TristramEvans;870820I don't think about it. People can do what they want in their games. If I want to do it in mine, and my group's down for it I will. If I don't, I won't. This whole "let's judge people for what they play pretend about" is old, tired shit.

I don't disagree, especially since it's been my observation that the gamers who sneer at groups which don't touch eroticism are outnumbered about fifty to one by the ones who sneer at the gamers that do.

Who here is even doing that though?

Quote from: yosemitemike;870834Who here is even doing that though?

I kinda feel a hobby that already has enough negative stereotypes hanging off of it and its practitioners can ill-afford the "mouthbreathing fatso creepers getting each other off with fifth rate Playboy prose in a dank basement" stereotype (which I believe RPGs have mostly avoided to date). I certainly won't stop anyone else, but at my table there's an unspoken agreement against anything that would feel out of place in a mainstream 1950s movie.

I am probably more of a fade to black person as well but that stuff can factor in when it is relevant or has an effect on things. We have love and romance in our games, and I assume things happen off camera (if I need to know for any particular reason as GM, I will just ask the player to confirm that). But if you have a monster with a seduction ability or something I find that is best to deal with in play. Doesn't mean you play out things like you are 11 but you deal with it the way it might be dealt with in a horror movie or something. Usually I at least try to subtle about it though. For  example, my party encountered a serpent spirit that had a siren like voice and would lure mean to their death. She created a shrouding mist to conceal her true appearance and called to everyone. Some of their henchmen failed their rolls and ran into the fog with their arms outstretched, loudly proclaiming their love for the creature. The party then heard the "sounds of lovemaking followed by screams of pain and the sounds of cracking bones". So sort of off camera and dealt with fairly quickly.

Is eroticism an old-school thing?

I'm reminded of the hateful rabble at RPGnet who criticized Gygax as being tasteless for including such a thing. They were especially mortified when Gygax released The Canting Crew and the term "Tongue Pad" was used. Of course, if RPGnetters had bothered to actually read the things they criticized before criticizing them, they'd see that harlots had a probability of having some valuable information, and that's exactly what the term "Tongue Pad" referred to, not fellatio. The encounter has a function to the game.

Because it had function to the game, it had value to the player. Because it had value to the player, it could align the decision-making of the player with that of a character who maybe does seek out the encounter for the eroticism.

This is especially important when you take a step back. The encounter table also had a succubus and thieves who might pose as street-walkers. The risk of getting caught up with your pants down in one of these encounters is not worth bragging rights of getting to say your character scored. However, the risk may be worth gaining vital information.

Generally not interested unless a) it's the lure of a trap and tastefully done (like The Frost-Giant's Daughter) or b) it's jokey at the inn in town and happens off screen ("my guy has twenty beers and tries to hook up with the wench," resolved as "did/didn't happen" by a d6 roll). I have zero interest in everyone at the table suffering some pervert's detailed sexual fantasies. Jerk off on your own time, creep.

I generally fall back on the "fade to black" technique simply because the group I have prefers it that way. I don't have anything against describing such scenes, but we don't find them particularly fun so they mostly get skipped. I make exceptions to that rule when the sex is important, such as has happened in games like Cthulhu. There the sex scenes can often be disturbing more often than erotic, so it would do them a disservice to hand-wave them away.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;870797Some players in Tekumel went full-on "I sticked it in her mouf and she went oog," and I found it somewhere between banal and annoying.

'Puerile,' is how I'd put it, or maybe, '12-year old's humor.' I'm not offended by it, but I don't really see why grown adults find something like that humorous.

Quote from: yosemitemike;870806Good erotica is actually very hard to write.  

Very much so, and I have little interest in doing so with my gaming group.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;870843I kinda feel a hobby that already has enough negative stereotypes hanging off of it and its practitioners can ill-afford the "mouthbreathing fatso creepers getting each other off with fifth rate Playboy prose in a dank basement" stereotype (which I believe RPGs have mostly avoided to date).

All "nerd" activities have a slight touch of that stereotype that they have to avoid. OSR maybe more or less so, I'm not sure.

Quote from: Chainsaw;870856or b) it's jokey at the inn in town and happens off screen ("my guy has twenty beers and tries to hook up with the wench,"

That's about where I would draw the line

QuoteI have zero interest in everyone at the table suffering some pervert's detailed sexual fantasies.

It's kind of like going to the strip club with your friends--I understand some people do so, but I don't get the appeal.

I don't mind it being in a supplement, but it wouldn't play a major part in the game.

Setting is the setting. Period.  Bad things happen, good things happen.  Some of those are of a sexual nature.

When PCs get around to having sex, I've never had a player really want to get into details, even in a "Sword and Sorcery We Just Struck it Rich and Are Partying in the most Decadent City in the World." scenario.  The most graphic would be something like "Is Activity-X on the menu at this brothel?" type of thing, but even that is relatively rare.

Graphic "Carcosa-like" depictions have cropped up, usually being a major reason to take out NPCs.  For example, finding a spellbook or ritual notes that tell the PCs just how crazy and evil the bad guy is.  

Or doing a Shadowrun against a Yakuza Bunraku (meat puppet) parlor and finding out kidnapped young teens are part of the stable (at which point a simple datasteal turned into Full.Tactical.Response that got the PCs in an Organized Crime shitstorm of epic proportions as they tried to stay alive by maneuvering between two different Yak clans, Mafia, Lone Star, Corrupt Lone Star and Mitsuhama.

At their own tables, people can LARP Poison'd for all I care, as long as they're not hurting anyone who doesn't want to be there.

What do I think of the "Old School" tendency to have brothels in towns, succubi art without nipple covers, and the dreaded Prostitute Table?  It's accurate and fits the setting. Good stuff.

What do I think of the titillating aspect of Desborough's products or the photoshopped pornstar cover art of that one company I can't think of now?  Whatever.  If that company had good art, I might have wasted money on it, as it is, that kind of art serves as a "don't buy me" flag.  Desborough's stuff isn't tricking anybody, you buy it because you want to, so more power to you.

What do I think of the faux-outrage horseshit like the type surrounding the Savage Worlds Sci-fi book?  I think some people need to get laid more.

Quote from: CRKrueger;870877What do I think of the faux-outrage horseshit like the type surrounding the Savage Worlds Sci-fi book?  I think some people need to get laid more.

What product was that?

My group has always gone with the innuendo then fade to black approach. Whatever works for whatever group though, more graphic descriptions just aren't my thing.

As to the more sordid things present in works like Carcosa, nope ain't happening at my table. I enjoy the idea of Carcosa but I feel like being too graphic about such horrific things is off somehow. Now my settings tend to run a bit dark and horrible things happen but these are implied and inferred more often than not.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;870880What product was that?

Here's the original art (on the right).  The problem is the ass crack and large breast.
(https://www.peginc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/SPF-SFC-ComingSoon.png)

The original cover was going to cover up the ass crack with the logo.
(http://jdgwf.com/img/peginc/forum-posts/SFC_coverpreview2_600.jpg)

Not enough, so now she's had breast reduction surgery, and no longer has an  armored suit (I guess the easier to make her put her arms behind her to cover her ass.)
(https://www.peginc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SFC_Cover_Web.jpg)

Obviously, the top picture turns all men into sexual predators and women into abject slaves, while the bottom picture promotes whateverthefuckwhocares.

Like I said, some people need to just get laid more often by whatever type of plumbing fixture they prefer.

Quote from: Chainsaw;870856Generally not interested unless a) it's the lure of a trap and tastefully done (like The Frost-Giant's Daughter) or b) it's jokey at the inn in town and happens off screen ("my guy has twenty beers and tries to hook up with the wench," resolved as "did/didn't happen" by a d6 roll). I have zero interest in everyone at the table suffering some pervert's detailed sexual fantasies. Jerk off on your own time, creep.

This.

I don't sit around with my friends and talk about erotic stuff out of game, and have no interest in doing so in game.  It all can be implied without showcasing it with table time.

I have had games with eroticism involved. Both as a character and a GM.

However, not all of my games have included it.

Generally speaking, as a character I'm probably looking to seduce someone for a benefit OR I have concluded my character either wants the other OR would likely fall for the other. From this perspective I'm squarely in the "actor" mode - what's my motivation? :-)

As a GM I follow the players hints, desires and play. If they get "frisky" I can match the narrative at their level. I also keep an eye out on how this can further the action or adventure in some manner.

From the OSR standpoint it seems that there are an enthusiastic minority that have found a niche audience within the OSR that like metal - in your face - exploitation style material. As is true in most things, if you like it you should support it. if you don't you should pass. I hardly imagine it's going to have any significant impact on the marketability or desirability of the OSR as a whole.

I come from the "if you don't like it don't buy it" and "if you don't want to see it, turn the channel" crowd, so my opinion is slightly based on the naivete of "live and let live" which is hardly fun for the inquisition crowd. It's probably easier to just toss me in the pervert pool and dismiss any reason I may have for "secret predatory motivations" or something equally malicious.

In the end one players erotic is anothers mundane, and anothers smut, and anothers affront to life.

Really. Theres posts on the net with people decrying as sexist smut a woman in full plate armour simply because its contoured even a little to her chest. Then there was that article about Aleena from BECMI D&D.

As a DM I've never used it in play other than as a backdrop to set tone. If the PCs met a prostitute and not for info then whatever happens is offscreen.

As a player I've run into some pretty weird stuff depending on the DM. One in particular liked to really delve. But overall it doesnt show up much at all.

Quote from: RPGPundit;870792What do you think about this type of 'sleazy' play like Desborough seems to want to push?

I don't care for it much.  Implicit or fade-to-black moments are all I want in a RPG session.  It could be interesting, but in my experience just ends up played for laughs or is plain puerile.

Quote from: RPGPundit;870792Also, would your answer be any different if it was much more explicit and offensive stuff like the "rape an 11 year old virgin 11 times" stuff you see in Carcosa?

Anyone who tried that in a game I was running would be shown the door.   I don't want to put up with that kind of bullshit.  So I don't.

The problem with eroticism/sex in any RPGs, not just the OSR, is that most rewards that a character can attain are incentivized via the game rules, but sex is notably absent in this regard.

If you want a character to gain power, there's rules for acquiring XP (and gaining levels) that let you do that. If you want a character to gain riches and treasure, there are treasure tables and magic item lists that let you do that. If you want them to gain fame and influence, there's often (though not always) some sort of mechanics that let them do that (e.g. gaining a keep and followers once you reach name level).

In every case, this creates a meta-game reason for the player to have their character face danger and overcome obstacles. The reward is incentivized at the meta-game level, giving the player and their character reason to go after something.

Sex has no particular meta-reward mechanic, which creates a disconnect between what a character would likely want and what the player wants their character to do. It's one thing to cross the Mountains of Woe, fight the Demons of Despair, and brave the Fury of the Gods if you know you'll get that flaming holy avenger +6 at the end of it all. Now change that to getting to spend a night with Aphrodite, and unless that has some sort of stat bonus, then it suddenly seems a lot less worthwhile.

This isn't to say that players can't ignore the meta-reward and focus purely on the role-playing aspect, but that's far less easy to do when there's nothing for you to gain, out of character, by doing so.

There's also the issue that it can seem puerile in the extreme to incentivize sex (and of course there's issue with how you do so), but that's beside the point. Eroticism is an awkward fit for RPGs because it's a temptation that isn't really all that tempting.

I’m not familiar with the old-school erotica that Pundit cites, e.g. “James Desborough's stuff (Machinations of the Space Princess), or some of Venger Satanis' work”, “my DCC campaign logs,” and “much more explicit and offensive stuff like the "rape an 11 year old virgin 11 times" stuff you see in Carcosa?”, so I’m not sure what is being compared to what.

I’ve seen and gamed a range of activities. Sex comes up now and then. Sex always fades to black at some point. I don’t see that as being especially different than how I treat violence or torture in game. Those too fade to black, or red as the case might be. I don’t really want the results of violence depicted in every painful, organ damaging, eyeball squelching detail. Neither (I think) does anyone I play with. And descriptions of torture themselves become torturous for me to see or hear, like watching certain obligatory parts of most Mel Gibson flicks. That’s not something I enjoy in my gaming.

Quote from: Alzrius;870906This isn't to say that players can't ignore the meta-reward and focus purely on the role-playing aspect, but that's far less easy to do when there's nothing for you to gain, out of character, by doing so.

Interesting point. In my experience the incentive disconnect between PC and player applies to torture as well, maybe even more so. The pain and fear of pain that torture causes for the PC is not much of a motivator for the player to have their PC break down and talk under harsh interrogation or to scream like a school kinder because of the pain.

Quote from: TristramEvans;870820I don't think about it. People can do what they want in their games. If I want to do it in mine, and my group's down for it I will. If I don't, I won't. This whole "let's judge people for what they play pretend about" is old, tired shit.

Very tired.

Depends on the game and the group in question. I've run allot of games with erotic and sexual elements. They can add fun but they're not for everybody or every game. I try to make as clear as possible up front what level is going to occur so everyone know what they've signed on for and isn't suddenly pushed outside their comfort zone.

Things definitely tend to get more detailed in online games as opposed to face to face and women seem to be more interested in eroticism at first, IME.

Quote from: Alzrius;870906The problem with eroticism/sex in any RPGs, not just the OSR, is that most rewards that a character can attain are incentivized via the game rules, but sex is notably absent in this regard.

If you want a character to gain power, there's rules for acquiring XP (and gaining levels) that let you do that. If you want a character to gain riches and treasure, there are treasure tables and magic item lists that let you do that. If you want them to gain fame and influence, there's often (though not always) some sort of mechanics that let them do that (e.g. gaining a keep and followers once you reach name level).

In every case, this creates a meta-game reason for the player to have their character face danger and overcome obstacles. The reward is incentivized at the meta-game level, giving the player and their character reason to go after something.

Sex has no particular meta-reward mechanic, which creates a disconnect between what a character would likely want and what the player wants their character to do. It's one thing to cross the Mountains of Woe, fight the Demons of Despair, and brave the Fury of the Gods if you know you'll get that flaming holy avenger +6 at the end of it all. Now change that to getting to spend a night with Aphrodite, and unless that has some sort of stat bonus, then it suddenly seems a lot less worthwhile.

This isn't to say that players can't ignore the meta-reward and focus purely on the role-playing aspect, but that's far less easy to do when there's nothing for you to gain, out of character, by doing so.

There's also the issue that it can seem puerile in the extreme to incentivize sex (and of course there's issue with how you do so), but that's beside the point. Eroticism is an awkward fit for RPGs because it's a temptation that isn't really all that tempting.

That really hasn't been an issue in my games for the most part. Players take actions they feel their characters would because its part of why they're playing. If that includes romance and sex then it does. Also sex scenes cane be enjoyable and interesting and that's part of the reason we play: to have fun and generate an enjoyable, well, story for lack of a better term. I guess there is something of a meta reward sometimes. We like to give bonuses for exemplary role playing and characterization but just having sex doesn't automatically generate that.


But I don't think we're "old school" as I understand the definition.

I'll admit that all references to sex in my games have been terribly juvenile and generally played for dorky laughs, such as my barbarian who would have sex in front of the other PCs whenever at taverns and it became a running gag for when the NPCs came up to our table and got weirded out by it. Erotic? No. Dorky? Yes.

Quote from: Ravenswing;870801It's a source of enduring bemusement to me that gamers with no qualms about mass murder, graphic torture, human sacrifice, devil worship, thieving, piracy, assassination, genocide and just about every vice, crime and sin that's part of the mortal condition will -- almost uniquely -- consider depiction of eroticism to be Going Too Far.

I wonder if its a Western mentality thing.

Quote from: Spinachcat;870944I wonder if its a Western mentality thing.

As a Canadian on this board, I can safely say that it's mostly a U.S. thing.

Cannot speak for South America, but I know that up here it ain't all that.  We're more squicky towards out and out violence.

Quote from: Alzrius;870906Sex has no particular meta-reward mechanic, which creates a disconnect between what a character would likely want and what the player wants their character to do.

I'm glad you mentioned that. There are a lot of things that don't translate well due to the disconnect. Why should a PC ever eat anything but rations? It's not like the player gets to enjoy the fresher food. How about excruciating but otherwise non lethal pain?

And as you indicate, they can be role played out. However, I believe the "problem" is worse than the incentive problem you mention. For various reasons that would lead to a long post if I spelled them out, I believe role play without some mechanical effect is in most cases superficial.

Try this little experiment. The next time your PCs are trekking through grassy plains, indicate to one of them that his character was just out of the blue stung by a bee, and just leave it at that. And then contrast that with the same scenario, only at the end you add, "take 1 point of damage."

It's not that players aren't willing to role play in the first scenario. I bet most of them take to role playing being stung without any arm-twisting. But the second scenario, the reaction will be more intense.

Here's the good news. AD&D 1st Ed, I know, does provide some incentives to engage in sex. For one, as I already mentioned, the purpose of the harlot encounter is that it's actually an opportunity to gain information. The player has a reason to spend time with the whore. As does the character. Maybe their reasons are a little different, but the point is the decision is aligned. Action trumps intent.

Another one is a little line dropped in the DMG concerning aging and death by old age, that if it is made clear that death due to old age is final (no amount of wishes or resurrections will work), then it may incentivize players to see to the continuation of the family line as a way of achieving immortality.

So now PCs have reasons for monogamous sex and marriage as well as whoring and revelry. Add to that some sort of mechanics for offspring inheriting genetic traits in a dynastic campaign, and suddenly suitable mates can become more sought after than gold.

Quote from: Spinachcat;870944I wonder if its a Western mentality thing.

I blame the Puritans.

I'm against sex on the gaming table.

I keep falling off!

Quote from: Spinachcat;870944I wonder if its a Western mentality thing.

It's mostly an American thing.

Quote from: Nexus;870932That really hasn't been an issue in my games for the most part. Players take actions they feel their characters would because its part of why they're playing. If that includes romance and sex then it does.

That's more what I see (though we normally fade to black for sex scenes).

That said, players will do more of whatever is mechanically incentivised, and there's no particular reason not to award a Don Juan PC XP for sexual conquests if that fits the kind of game you want to run. I tend to give XP for 'goal achievement', with a goal being anything the player character seeks out that has some measure of challenge/difficulty in achievement. I'm sure I must have given Rey the lothario PC in my 5e Wilderlands game some XP for his seductions at times - I remember there were these three princesses... :D ....Just as I'd give XP for a diplomatic negotiation or a dungeon exploration.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;870981I'm against sex on the gaming table.

I keep falling off!

Put that in your book!
And is 2016 the year of your book?

Watching my friend stuff a Cheeto in his mouth while breathing heavily isn't why I'm at the table.

In those rare instances where the GM is a smokin-hot +10 super model and has invited all of her sorority sisters over for a game where I'm the only male, it's cool.

I like it in my game art.

Cheesecake/Beefcake for life!  REPRESENT!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;870981I'm against sex on the gaming table.

I keep falling off!

And if people think stepping on a d4 is painful...

Quote from: Starkus;871084Watching my friend stuff a Cheeto in his mouth while breathing heavily isn't why I'm at the table.

In those rare instances where the GM is a smokin-hot +10 super model and has invited all of her sorority sisters over for a game where I'm the only male, it's cool.

I tend to have if anything less eroticism in the games with smoking hot female players (& my hot female GM hasn't had much of that stuff in her campaign). :D

This is the other fucked up part of the SJWs and Outrage brigades.

If you put a woman in an RPG illustration. Someone will scream "Sexist!" no matter what.

If you sensibly dont have any illustrations of women in the game then people can and will and have bitched that the game must not be for women to play as they arent represented.

You can not win. Ever.

I'm OK with it because I leave my sandbox campaigns open to player character goals. Also, depending on the enemy, sometimes the field of battle is the heart. (The naughty bits tend to get much scrutinizing attention, but the stage itself is the heart.)

Usually it's fade to black when it is going into NC-17, especially if gaming in public. But there are alternate XP rewards in 2e for quests and 'doing the work of your faith' and the like, so the mechanical incentive has always been present. That and I level up people glacially, so meaning is more derived from living out your character than worrying about leveling up its 'powahs!'

Eroticism is just another facet of play and I really don't mind. Since I run my setting societies in a manner where violence is usually abhorred and sex is more welcome for stability and settling of powerful strangers, similar to the peacetime lulls in our own world, it is not a stranger to my games. Wandering bands of theft and violence without remunerative opportunities to contain would quickly be quashed as a communal threat in my settings, as they usually were on Earth.

I've already had fun with Birthright's bloodline rules. There's interesting competing incentives to fostering bastards, both internally and externally. Set up your legacy? Set up your own glory, blackmail, dynasty, or ruin?  My NPCs are not all stupid and passive...

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;870843I kinda feel a hobby that already has enough negative stereotypes hanging off of it and its practitioners can ill-afford the "mouthbreathing fatso creepers getting each other off with fifth rate Playboy prose in a dank basement" stereotype (which I believe RPGs have mostly avoided to date).

I think haters are going to hate no matter what, and with that "Tongue Pad" anecdote as example, asshats who are bound and determined to be haters are going to find something -- anything! -- over which to scream outrage.  If we have to make them work hard at it, then they're all the more pissed off.

That being said, if we were honestly concerned over the hobby receiving negative stereotypes, we'd be a lot more hardnose about damn near every PC in history being a casual murderer.  Wouldn't we?

Quote from: Ravenswing;871150That being said, if we were honestly concerned over the hobby receiving negative stereotypes, we'd be a lot more hardnose about damn near every PC in history being a casual murderer.  Wouldn't we?

If the general public knew PCs were going about killing Orcus fundamentalists living in caves, many might view that as a positive stereotype.

Quote from: Ravenswing;871150I think haters are going to hate no matter what, and with that "Tongue Pad" anecdote as example, asshats who are bound and determined to be haters are going to find something -- anything! -- over which to scream outrage.  If we have to make them work hard at it, then they're all the more pissed off.

That being said, if we were honestly concerned over the hobby receiving negative stereotypes, we'd be a lot more hardnose about damn near every PC in history being a casual murderer.  Wouldn't we?

Pretty much yeah. Gamers are going to get slammed for being "fatso losers playing Let's Pretend" anyway. If some people have nothing better to than slam me and my players for having sex and romance in our games between flipping through Maxim, reading "50 Shades of Grey" or renewing their subscription to "Bignaturals.com" then screw 'em. I'm not going to restrict my harmless enjoyment based on what some (often hypocritical) assholes think.

I would have bought that SW supplement, if they'd just had the stones to issue a statement that simply and concisely said, "Fuck off".

I do not like eroticism in my gaming. I might like romance, but there generally isn't any interest.

In a way, it really is kinda like violence-- there's a lot of violence in my games, but it's all highly stylized and abstract, because I don't really want to dwell on the details.

Quote from: S'monI tend to have if anything less eroticism in the games with smoking hot female players (& my hot female GM hasn't had much of that stuff in her campaign).

Did you try wearing your synthetic hairy chest costume while playing a barbarian?

Eroticism is fine in RPG artwork, as long as its equally depicted between the sexes. For instance, this is about as erotic that ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG (http://warhammerfantasyroleplay.com) gets:

Spoiler

http://grimandperilous.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Class-Prostitute.jpg

While gaming, however, my personal preference is to "fade to black" for sexytime.

Quote from: Ravenswing;871150That being said, if we were honestly concerned over the hobby receiving negative stereotypes, we'd be a lot more hardnose about damn near every PC in history being a casual murderer.  Wouldn't we?

Casual murder in action movies has rarely earned them or their red-blooded man's man fans much opprobrium at all, so I don't see your point.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;870843I kinda feel a hobby that already has enough negative stereotypes hanging off of it and its practitioners can ill-afford the "mouthbreathing fatso creepers getting each other off with fifth rate Playboy prose in a dank basement" stereotype (which I believe RPGs have mostly avoided to date). I certainly won't stop anyone else, but at my table there's an unspoken agreement against anything that would feel out of place in a mainstream 1950s movie.

Not this tired line - again?

The publics general view of gamers is that they are a bunch of puritanical prudes who have insane ideas of what "sexist" and "erotic" are.

When you have loons trotting this out as eroticist, sexist, misogynist, etc ad nudiumist. That is how RPGs can and are getting viewed.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kKjrNsGlZbE/TJvjV2F3M3I/AAAAAAAAAt8/IchUeUteDrk/s400/Wakshaani-Aleena_03.jpg)

Quote from: Starkus;871199Did you try wearing your synthetic hairy chest costume while playing a barbarian?

Funnily enough, no.

Quote from: Chainsaw;870856Generally not interested unless a) it's the lure of a trap and tastefully done (like The Frost-Giant's Daughter) or b) it's jokey at the inn in town and happens off screen ("my guy has twenty beers and tries to hook up with the wench," resolved as "did/didn't happen" by a d6 roll). I have zero interest in everyone at the table suffering some pervert's detailed sexual fantasies. Jerk off on your own time, creep.

That's how my groups have handled it as well. It's usually as follows:

"Ulfric will try to seduce the serving girl"

I do a quick estimate for difficulty based on relevant factors, roll the dice and apply the results.

"OK, she's up for it."

There's no acting it out. The very idea of doing so in a room full of >90% dudes -the other 10% being females whom I don't want to think of me as a perverted retard- is fucking disturbing.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;870870It's kind of like going to the strip club with your friends--I understand some people do so, but I don't get the appeal.

Because the strip club is last remaining place me and my buddies can watch a ballgame without being hassled by wives and girlfriends. It's worth paying for overpriced beer to avoid that!.

Quote from: Spinachcat;870944I wonder if its a Western mentality thing.

Yeah, because the non-western world is so enormously relaxed about sex. :rolleyes:

Considering the biggest selling book is 50 Shades of Gray I think we nerds are safe with eroticism.

Quote from: RPGPundit;871253Yeah, because the non-western world is so enormously relaxed about sex. :rolleyes:

To be fair, the U.S. seems to be REALLY up tight about it, though.  More so than most other countries.

Here's a legit question I have with the title of this post:

What is the full definition of 'eroticism'?

Are we talking simple imagery, like the naked princess about to be sacrificed to the dark God?  Actual out and out sex that everyone else is assuming?  'Risque' dress for the various PCs and NPCs? (I once played in a literally half-naked female Tiefling Warlock -she only wore boots and a set of metal plated leather pants- in the 4e Darksun Encounter's, she had a thing for male Muls, which one of the players was playing.  And the fact that I had my character come on to him, no actual sex, just interest from this buxom yet sleek sorceress, broke both the player and DM.  Took them completely off-guard.  It was glorious.)

What is it that is being used to define Eroticism?

Quote from: Snowman0147;871254Considering the biggest selling book is 50 Shades of Gray I think we nerds are safe with eroticism.

As long as Tywin Lannister reads it... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3POYx6IeeI)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;871261To be fair, the U.S. seems to be REALLY up tight about it, though.  More so than most other countries.

What countries do you have in mind though. A lot of Asian and Middle Eastern countries are much more conservative about sex than the US. Some of those places might say the US is too open with sex. There are plenty of countries out there that are uptight about sex and don't have anywhere near the number of strip clubs, adult bookstores and other adult venues we do. I think what one can maybe say about the US is we are conflicted about it, there is a kind of thing where sexy is ubiquitous in our media but also kind of shameful. But I really think that is largely a product of the country's size and polarized population. From the outside looking in, I don't think people understand that our television is meant to appeal to people living in both really conservative sections of the midwest and really open cities on the coasts.

I was referring to the fact that anyone calls rpg players sickos because of chain mail bikinis we can point out 50 Shades of Gray which is so love by the mainstream.  In other words people got no room to talk.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;871274What countries do you have in mind though. A lot of Asian and Middle Eastern countries are much more conservative about sex than the US.

I was thinking of Canada, Britain, the rest of the European Commonwealth.  Some African nations, I've been told about, so take that with a grain of salt.

Quote from: Elfdart;871271As long as Tywin Lannister reads it... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3POYx6IeeI)

I prefer Gilbert Gottfried's 50 Shades audio book (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkLqAlIETkA)

Quote from: Snowman0147;871275I was referring to the fact that anyone calls rpg players sickos because of chain mail bikinis we can point out 50 Shades of Gray which is so love by the mainstream.  In other words people got no room to talk.

Mind you, there is no shortage of Outraged folks telling the (mostly women) fans of 50 Shades they're bad people and should feel bad*. The American outlook on sex is complicated to say the least. We have billion dollar porn industry that no one one consumes, after all. :D

*For example,. the college humor videos are, as usual for them, more laughing at than laughing with.

Yeah well it doesn't look like they have much of a impact.  In fact it appears that people as a whole just ignored the outrage people.

What eroticism?

Sure, there's nekkid boobies and callbacks to the 70s, but I've never found them to be erotic as delivered.

Eroticism is like horror in RPGs: you have to be willing to let your fellow players evoke those emotions in you. And honestly, I find it very hard to go there in a game consisting of nothing but 40 something guys.

Luckily, I don't have to do that :D

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871208Casual murder in action movies has rarely earned them or their red-blooded man's man fans much opprobrium at all, so I don't see your point.

You don't see a distinction between passively watching an entertainment in which waxing innocents is something universally restricted to the Bad Guys, and getting together with your friends to fantasize about Killing Them And Taking Their Stuff?  This in the same country where a 10 year old caught doodling guns in the margin of his notebook will be dragged from the school in handcuffs?  Okay, if you say so.

Quote from: Ravenswing;871328You don't see a distinction between passively watching an entertainment in which waxing innocents is something universally restricted to the Bad Guys, and getting together with your friends to fantasize about Killing Them And Taking Their Stuff?  This in the same country where a 10 year old caught doodling guns in the margin of his notebook will be dragged from the school in handcuffs?  Okay, if you say so.

I see a diverse nation that...

A) Has complex and nuanced feelings about depictions of violence but on the whole gives them an obvious pass.

B) Has complex and nuanced feelings about depictions of sex but on the whole publicly glowers at them.

Also, I would argue that at this stage fantasy videogames, novels and movies have mostly solidified the public impression that, in such genres, the players kill obvious monsters and villains, regardless of how many tabletop groups murder innocents (which I don't think is the dominant mode of play despite anecdotes). From everything I've encountered I conclude that tabletop RPers are mainly stereotyped as weird obsessive childish losers who won't amount to much, not murderous psychopaths.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;871274There are plenty of countries out there that are uptight about sex and don't have anywhere near the number of strip clubs, adult bookstores and other adult venues we do.

Well of course we have those. What good is being a nation of uptight-about-sex people if we can't then sell it back to you for $20 a striptease or $19.99 per book/DVD? :-D

QuoteI think what one can maybe say about the US is we are conflicted about it, there is a kind of thing where sexy is ubiquitous in our media but also kind of shameful.

As a Slovakian woman I went to college with (and marginally dated) phrased it, "In the rest of the world, sex is a fact. In the US, sex is something to be ashamed of, and then obsess about because of it." I think she's right.

Quote from: Omega;871217The publics general view of gamers is that they are a bunch of puritanical prudes who have insane ideas of what "sexist" and "erotic" are.

When you have loons trotting this out as eroticist, sexist, misogynist, etc ad nudiumist. That is how RPGs can and are getting viewed.

 

Be honest, outside of one, single, specific, barely-relevant-to-gaming-as-a-whole forum that seems to be the other obsession over here, when's the last time you've seen anyone say that?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;871351Well of course we have those. What good is being a nation of uptight-about-sex people if we can't then sell it back to you for $20 a striptease or $19.99 per book/DVD? :-D



As a Slovakian woman I went to college with (and marginally dated) phrased it, "In the rest of the world, sex is a fact. In the US, sex is something to be ashamed of, and then obsess about because of it." I think she's right.

Again though, it is a big country. Attitudes toward sex in New York or Northern California are very different from attitudes in Idaho or Kentucky. The attitude your friend describes isn't one I've really encountered a whole lot here in the north east. You might see it among the really religious but even then the surrounding culture doesn't really care what you do. We still are not as laid back about it as some European countries but people where I live don't spend a lot of time feeling ashamed for their sex lives.

To bring it back to gaming, I don't think the presence of erotic material has ever been an issue for people I have gamed with locally. Every group varies of course but the only reaction one might get is some eye rolls if you are that guy or girl who brings the book of erotic fantasy to every game. But sex coming up on some form isn't a big deal at the table as long as people are handling it like adults and not like ten year olds.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;871351As a Slovakian woman I went to college with (and marginally dated) phrased it, "In the rest of the world, sex is a fact. In the US, sex is something to be ashamed of, and then obsess about because of it." I think she's right.

While there's definitely a nugget of truth in that I take it with a grain of salt. Usually "everyone in the word but..." expressions tend to mean "Everyone in my circle that thinks like I do and media that supports my opinion." And its really easy to see the mote in someone's eye and miss the beam in yours, if you even bother looking.

 Especially when it comes to young people.

There are as many fucked up misconceptions about the US in other nations as the US has fucked up misconceptions about other nations.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;871351Be honest, outside of one, single, specific, barely-relevant-to-gaming-as-a-whole forum that seems to be the other obsession over here, when's the last time you've seen anyone say that?

That the Aleena pic was sexist? A couple of other sites, or simmilar depictions of women in armour. The usual snide comment of "boob armor" pops up fairly frequently still with the moron brigade.

Well, I don't like "boob armor" because the deflection surfaces are wrong.  But that's because I'm a historical European medieval armor nerd.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;871349Also, I would argue that at this stage fantasy videogames, novels and movies have mostly solidified the public impression that, in such genres, the players kill obvious monsters and villains, regardless of how many tabletop groups murder innocents (which I don't think is the dominant mode of play despite anecdotes). From everything I've encountered I conclude that tabletop RPers are mainly stereotyped as weird obsessive childish losers who won't amount to much, not murderous psychopaths.

If they think about them at all.  I'm totally open about playing and most adults my age or older just give me a vaguely baffled look.

Also, the "kill all the villagers" trope seems to exist mostly within gaming, not outside of it, as you point out.  I've seen it a few times... less than 5... in all my years of gaming, and at least in one case the entire declared point of the game was "let's be the Wild Bunch and do more and more horrible things until we're exterminated in a blaze of gunfire."

Quote from: RPGPundit;870792There's some parts of old-school play that seem to like to emphasize a certain amount of erotic content; usually of the slightly sophomoric 'sleazy' variety, without ever really going into full-on sordid, and generally acting much more 'dangerous' than it really is.  I mean stuff like some of what you see in some of James Desborough's stuff (Machinations of the Space Princess), or some of Venger Satanis' work.

But I've never actually met gamers who tend to like to get into that stuff in actual play.  If you read my DCC campaign logs (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29376), some of it certainly sounds really very sordid, but in actual play almost all of the erotic stuff is only implied and/or happens totally 'off-camera'.

These are different, almost unrelated matters.
A) The frequency of encountering an activity.
B) The share of table time it takes.
C) The share of screen time it gets with the players roleplaying it.
You can encounter sex often, have lots of escapades with sex workers, and it might take next to zero table time, and most of it not being screen time, but the GM rolling on a table for sex workers, associated problems, and the like.
Conversely, at freeform RP sites you can only encounter sex once, but it might well take the majority of both screen and table time (in freeform, of course, screen time and table time is equal).

I can guarantee that sexuality-related events have high frequency in my campaigns. The share of tabletime and screen time, however, depends on who I am playing with:).

If it's with my group that includes all kinds of friends, usually not long. I might ask some question about their approach during sex, in case it's relevant (there was once this hired killer who liked tying up her victims before the assassination, for example, and there was a prince who had slightly questionable tastes for modern players that were causing a scandal in his kingdom).

OTOH, when I'm playing with a group where I'm having sex with every other player, I'm not seeing a reason to avoid descriptions of sexual activities:p. And I've got such a group, too;).

QuoteWhat about everyone else here?  What do you think about this type of 'sleazy' play like Desborough seems to want to push?

Never read his work. What Venger Satanis seems to suggest can be played in a quite tame manner, though. Or it can go full steam. See above.

QuoteAlso, would your answer be any different if it was much more explicit and offensive stuff like the "rape an 11 year old virgin 11 times" stuff you see in Carcosa?

Carcosa was just boring to me. The rituals are usable, but I think I had nastier ones already from having run games in settings where this kind of stuff is expected from the antagonists.
Generally, I'd prefer to lower the amount of screen time, and usually I consider such rituals for NPC use only. Though there are exceptions to every rule.

Quote from: AsenRG;871397OTOH, when I'm playing with a group where I'm having sex with every other player, I'm not seeing a reason to avoid descriptions of sexual activities:p. And I've got such a group, too;).

How many players?(!)

Quote from: AsenRG;871397These are different, almost unrelated matters.
A) The frequency of encountering an activity.
B) The share of table time it takes.
C) The share of screen time it gets with the players roleplaying it.

I think you left out the most important part. The purpose or goal to the encounter.

As I point out, with the prostitute tables in the DMG, or the use of the term "Tongue Pad" in Canting Crew, there is an implication that the purpose to the players spending time on casual sex is to gain information. (I also argue the case that progeny in a dynastic campaign is the purpose behind seeking an ideal long-term mate).

I mean, you could have these sorts of encounters occur frequently, they can take up a majority of the table time, and it can involve heavy roleplay interaction from the players throughout. But if the purpose to the player is to gain valuable information (or better stats for offspring), that's going to be an entirely different thing if the goal is to produce erotica or simply role play the character with no bearing at all on tangible effects on the game.

Quote from: S'mon;871442How many players?(!)

It's solo play

Overall if a PC is motivated by horniness it can get really tedious after a while but it can be interesting for NPCs as it can throw the PCs for a loop and make the world seem more real.

I remember my Zorro-ish character going out of his way to become popular which resulted in him waking up tied to a bed wearing nothing but his signature giant black hat while the fangirl who had kidnapped him went on about her "machines."

Eroticism in games: A great concept in potential that nobody seems to do right.

It helps immeasurably if you do what Aaron Allston called "blue-booking."

JG

Quote from: Lunamancer;871460(I also argue the case that progeny in a dynastic campaign is the purpose behind seeking an ideal long-term mate).

Can be, sure.  But that can also be pursued with no in-game eroticism or explicitly-mentioned sex.  Take Pendragon, for example.  Heirs to carry on the dynasty are a huge deal, but finding a wife can vary from a mini-campaign unto itself (for an exceptional wife) down to simply asking your lord to arrange a marriage for you and then automatically getting an average wife within short order.  Once you have a wife, it's a d20 roll each Winter Phase to determine whether she gave birth and, if so, whether she died in the process.  It's obviously assumed that the knight and his wife are having sex, but there's nothing in the rules to even hint that you might want to openly acknowledge that this is happening, never mind going into details of what they're doing, when they're doing it, etc.

Quote from: Lunamancer;871460As I point out, with the prostitute tables in the DMG, or the use of the term "Tongue Pad" in Canting Crew, there is an implication that the purpose to the players spending time on casual sex is to gain information. (I also argue the case that progeny in a dynastic campaign is the purpose behind seeking an ideal long-term mate).

I think this is one of the things that really changes how a campaign develops too. PCs having children is something, where if it arises, the GM at least needs to address some of the basic details so he gets things right (i.e. are the characters even having sex, are they actively trying to conceive, etc). None of that has to happen on camera, but it has to be handled in some way so people are at least aware that there is a couple in the party (or at the very least the GM and the player are the same page). I've been more open to this sort of thing in recent years and really has made the PCs feel more like real people. Their family ties are not just fabrications before the play, they also emerge during play (which always seems to give them more weight).

Quote from: nDervish;871517Can be, sure.  But that can also be pursued with no in-game eroticism or explicitly-mentioned sex.

Which is besides the point. The point I was making is that if you do have sexual content in the game, including sex scenes, that doesn't make it eroticism. It's been mainly the haters over the years who claim juvenile or offensive erotic content in old-school games. If there is a vital game purpose to it, it doesn't carry all the baggage of mouth-breathers and awkwardness.

If the giant bearded fat guy wants to flirt in character, he does. And if he's eloquent, and amusing, the table enjoys listening to it. Anyone who can't visualize the actual scene and divorce the player and the character when the dialogue is good can leave my table. (If s/he sucks at dialogue, I diplomatically push to a roll-for-it resolution).

The action leaves off when the encounter is resolved. Did you impress the man/woman? Are you trying to woe them or sucker them into a roll in the hay? Was this just fun reparte between two characters? When the scene becomes boring, I either fade to black or roll it out and push to resolutions, much like debates in character.

I've had a two players who were vehemently squeamish about anything quasi erotic or romantic entering game, and both I eventually kicked from the table. To limit this entire vein of potential plot because you can't separate RL emotions from fictional ones is not my problem. When I'm GMing and have my bud's character whispering sweet nothings to my NPC, it's the game. Sheesh.

Kefra and Jan are pretty blase about it all for RPG book content. Kind of a shrug and "Yeah? So?" or a "Are there people really that stupid as to think -that- is a problem?"

Kefra is pretty pragmatic about anything going on with the characters. RP what needs to be RPed, roll what needs to be rolled, move on. Jan though loves to goof off in character. And out of character at the table during the occasional downtimes.

With both my local groups of 15 years now nothing erotic has happened with the characters.

The single biggest reason there is a "Random Harlot Table" in the AD&D 1st Ed DMG is that Gary Gygax really liked Lankhmar.

That is all.

Quote from: Coffee Zombie;871542If the giant bearded fat guy wants to flirt in character, he does. And if he's eloquent, and amusing, the table enjoys listening to it. Anyone who can't visualize the actual scene and divorce the player and the character when the dialogue is good can leave my table. (If s/he sucks at dialogue, I diplomatically push to a roll-for-it resolution).

I'm somewhat reminded of the Dragon "What's New" cartoon where they showed the one fat bearded guy playing a beautiful Elven maid and then in the next panel showed him with the makeup kit they were advertising.

"But that's amazing!  You've gotta be at least two feet shorter!"
"Special shoes."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;871576The single biggest reason there is a "Random Harlot Table" in the AD&D 1st Ed DMG is that Gary Gygax really liked Lankhmar.

That is all.

Well, that's good enough reason.

JG

Quote from: Lunamancer;871460I think you left out the most important part. The purpose or goal to the encounter.

As I point out, with the prostitute tables in the DMG, or the use of the term "Tongue Pad" in Canting Crew, there is an implication that the purpose to the players spending time on casual sex is to gain information. (I also argue the case that progeny in a dynastic campaign is the purpose behind seeking an ideal long-term mate).

I mean, you could have these sorts of encounters occur frequently, they can take up a majority of the table time, and it can involve heavy roleplay interaction from the players throughout. But if the purpose to the player is to gain valuable information (or better stats for offspring), that's going to be an entirely different thing if the goal is to produce erotica or simply role play the character with no bearing at all on tangible effects on the game.

Sure, we could add it. But why does that matter to the discussion? I mean, sex isn't something people do just to get information, or just to speed up healing (as I seem to remember some games actually requiring it). Then again, people do it for those reasons, too, so it's not necessarily out of character, either...

And if you engage in any sexual encounter, I'd argue that at least one NPC's attitude to you is going to depend on what you're doing in bed (hopefully, it would be always a positive bonus to the reaction roll:D). Hence, it could potentially matter, even if the goal of the player was "to simply play my character".

Quote from: S'mon;871442How many players?(!)

Does it matter:)? Let's say it's a small group, and leave it at that.

Quote from: TristramEvans;871464It's solo play

Maybe that would be the case in your group, but the question was to me, as far as I can tell. And you simply can't answer for me;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;870792There's some parts of old-school play that seem to like to emphasize a certain amount of erotic content; usually of the slightly sophomoric 'sleazy' variety, without ever really going into full-on sordid, and generally acting much more 'dangerous' than it really is.  I mean stuff like some of what you see in some of James Desborough's stuff (Machinations of the Space Princess), or some of Venger Satanis' work.

But I've never actually met gamers who tend to like to get into that stuff in actual play.  If you read my DCC campaign logs (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29376), some of it certainly sounds really very sordid, but in actual play almost all of the erotic stuff is only implied and/or happens totally 'off-camera'.

What about everyone else here?  What do you think about this type of 'sleazy' play like Desborough seems to want to push?

Also, would your answer be any different if it was much more explicit and offensive stuff like the "rape an 11 year old virgin 11 times" stuff you see in Carcosa?

RPGPundit

I think eroticism in the game is great, but only as insinuation and to add texture to the environment and situations. I generally describe fey creatures in this light, which adds a strange dichotomy of repulsion and desire. You have no idea of its motivations, adding a sense of danger. As far as explicit sex and fulfilling sexual fantasies through gameplay, I don't know about everyone else, but unless I was with a group of swingers (and it was my thing) or just playing with my wife, I'd find it odd and frankly disconcerting. If you like erotic fiction, I suggest 4 play or writing/reading it yourself.

I suppose some amount of eroticism is okay, seeing as how we have a vinyl mat to protect our dining room table. Just be quick about it, and don't spill any drinks.:-)

And one small observation.

Having a prostitute in a game is not erotic". Especially if you've ever actually been approached by one. (Had that happen at GenCon walking to the hotel from the con.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;871576The single biggest reason there is a "Random Harlot Table" in the AD&D 1st Ed DMG is that Gary Gygax really liked Lankhmar.

Probably in the same vein as the single biggest reason there's fire-and-forget spells was probably that Gygax was a Jack Vance fan.  (shrugs)

Quote from: Omega;871648Having a prostitute in a game is not "erotic."

I think we can all agree that "erotic," in terms of this thread, is code for "of and pertaining to overt sexuality."

Quote from: Omega;871648And one small observation.

Having a prostitute in a game is not erotic". Especially if you've ever actually been approached by one. (Had that happen at GenCon walking to the hotel from the con.)

True that.

I'm not big on erotica in my games and I don't think caveat one failed vampire game I've every played with anyone who very much was.

Even the fact that one PC in my current E6 Pathfinder game grew up around prostitutes and was a brothel; guard is just a source for an off color joke no one else, in the group me included likes and a little drama.

I do see very  occasional "family" and "romance" and "girl/boy/thing friend" relationships but most players are there for the action and combat. YCMV of course

For myself  I don't think any of my characters even have romantic inclinations or sex drives to speak of. I'm not there to play some Lothario, I'm trying for Reacher or sometimes Jayne  or the like.

I applaud these two for their efforts to combine two...distinct styles of role playing. :D

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/11406460_10153390568339085_7256451428097085468_n.jpg?oh=28a8c9a2c441bf70a84d6025a202881e&oe=56FD5939)

Quote from: Omega;871648And one small observation.

Having a prostitute in a game is not erotic". Especially if you've ever actually been approached by one. (Had that happen at GenCon walking to the hotel from the con.)

Obviously, you are going to the wrong conventions to attract the appropriate prostitutes.

Quote from: Nexus;871694I applaud these two for their efforts to combine two...distinct styles of role playing. :D

Oi...Fred Perry's Gold Digger...

I used to read that comic religiously, but the entire thing was genre-savvy pop-culture references. That joke, made in that page there? That particular style of humor is funny as comic relief, but when it's the only kind of joke that the comic knows how to make, and makes it a lot - including interrupting the action/dramatic scenes to do - it very quickly gets old.

Throw in the fact that everything had to be uber-powered ("This explosion is going to take out half the universe if we don't stop it!" "This entire parallel dimension is actually a refugee-ship from before the Big Bang!" "Another universe is hurtling towards ours, and they'll both be destroyed by the collision!"), and I just couldn't bring myself to keep reading it.

There's a way to do high-epic material, and to my mind it's to build up to it over time, while establishing an internal consistency for the setting to explain how things can reach such heights. Moreover, it helps to take high-stakes at least somewhat seriously, if only to establish that what you're fighting for is worth the enormous effort that you're putting into it.

Reading Gold Digger was like reading about somebody's Monty Haul campaign where the characters all started at 20th level and got XP bonuses for making wisecracks.

Quote from: Alzrius;871793Oi...Fred Perry's Gold Digger...

I used to read that comic religiously, but the entire thing was genre-savvy pop-culture references. That joke, made in that page there? That particular style of humor is funny as comic relief, but when it's the only kind of joke that the comic knows how to make, and makes it a lot - including interrupting the action/dramatic scenes to do - it very quickly gets old.

Throw in the fact that everything had to be uber-powered ("This explosion is going to take out half the universe if we don't stop it!" "This entire parallel dimension is actually a refugee-ship from before the Big Bang!" "Another universe is hurtling towards ours, and they'll both be destroyed by the collision!"), and I just couldn't bring myself to keep reading it.

There's a way to do high-epic material, and to my mind it's to build up to it over time, while establishing an internal consistency for the setting to explain how things can reach such heights. Moreover, it helps to take high-stakes at least somewhat seriously, if only to establish that what you're fighting for is worth the enormous effort that you're putting into it.

Reading Gold Digger was like reading about somebody's Monty Haul campaign where the characters all started at 20th level and got XP bonuses for making wisecracks.

Okay... personally I really enjoy it. Just thought the picture was amusing and related to the topic at hand.

Quote from: Nexus;871798Just thought the picture was amusing and related to the topic at hand.

It was; however, that particular comic triggers me.

As such, even though there's no way you could have known that, and there's no particular reason for you to respect that, I still feel that you owe me an apology, and that everyone else on this board refrain from ever bringing up that comic again.

For great (social) justice!

Quote from: Alzrius;871814It was; however, that particular comic triggers me.

As such, even though there's no way you could have known that, and there's no particular reason for you to respect that, I still feel that you owe me an apology, and that everyone else on this board refrain from ever bringing up that comic again.

For great (social) justice!

Please don't use the word: Trigger. I find it problematic. ;)

But seriously we all have our "things" that set off Nerd Rage.  I was just a bit blindsided. I admit a little puzzled by it too since it seems GD does much of what you described. Its a very long running series that started off at the low end and built up to its current levels. Its always struck as being like a long running rpg campaign more than anything else. It started out with two girls looking for artifacts to examine (and sell). The characters didn't start out that potent but have grown over their years of adventure. But have forged relationships, allies, discovered facets of the world and the things that are happening now tie into these things in a way I find pretty satisfying and consistent. It ties together.

 But taste is taste, YMMV, IMHO, letter salad, amen. :D

I suppose its kind of off topic though Gold Digger definitely incorporates eroticism into its setting, not too surprising given its origin. Some find it fun and sexy while others find it skeazy. The risk you run incorporating those elements so like with most things its important to know your group and have good communication.

Quote from: Alzrius;871814It was; however, that particular comic triggers me.

As such, even though there's no way you could have known that, and there's no particular reason for you to respect that, I still feel that you owe me an apology, and that everyone else on this board refrain from ever bringing up that comic again.

For great (social) justice!

You havent seen Fred's X rated comics then. :eek:

But yeah. Fred is alot like Phil Foglio. Except without that spark for scope or pacing Phil has.

Quote from: AsenRG;871635Sure, we could add it. But why does that matter to the discussion?

The reason it matters is because if we're playing the scene out, say, for the sake of information gathering, everyone on the table is clear that we're doing it for information gathering, not for the sake of perversion. I think that removes the eroticism from the experience at the player level. (At the character level, it's still an erotic encounter.)

I would disqualify "role play" as a qualifying purpose for reasons that would require a metaphysical discussion on free will vs determinism to spell out. The simple version is that there is no one correct way to role play the character. You could just as easily choose not make time with the harlot without breaking character. To the extent that we are role playing sentient, willed beings, role playing can never be a sole purpose. It's always coterminous with some other purpose. (Does that break GNS theory?)

Quote from: Lunamancer;871883The reason it matters is because if we're playing the scene out, say, for the sake of information gathering, everyone on the table is clear that we're doing it for information gathering, not for the sake of perversion. I think that removes the eroticism from the experience at the player level. (At the character level, it's still an erotic encounter.)

Because people can only do things for one reason so if they are seeking information there can't possibly be an erotic component to the scene, right? :rolleyes:

Also, eroticism and perversion have different meanings, they aren't synonyms. Switching from discussing eroticism in gaming to perversion is a major goal post switch.

Quote from: Lunamancer;871883The reason it matters is because if we're playing the scene out, say, for the sake of information gathering, everyone on the table is clear that we're doing it for information gathering, not for the sake of perversion.

First, what Bren said, both on account of switching non sinonimous words, and on account of scenes not having a purpose. That's an indie narrativist idea I never quite adopted.
To me, scenes have opportunities, not goals. Characters might be more interested in some of those goals, but unless we're playing a narrativist game with conflict resolution, no guarantee said opportunities would even get a roll.

QuoteI think that removes the eroticism from the experience at the player level.

It might remove it or it might not.

Quote(At the character level, it's still an erotic encounter.)

Yes, though characters can have multiple goals as well.

QuoteI would disqualify "role play" as a qualifying purpose for reasons that would require a metaphysical discussion on free will vs determinism to spell out.

Fair warning: I've had this discussion and always found myself on the other side.

QuoteThe simple version is that there is no one correct way to role play the character. You could just as easily choose not make time with the harlot without breaking character. To the extent that we are role playing sentient, willed beings, role playing can never be a sole purpose.

Some schools of thought about roleplaying would totally disagree.

QuoteIt's always coterminous with some other purpose. (Does that break GNS theory?)

No, it's part of the premise of narrativist theory, so no, it actually is trying to confirm the parts that I disagree with.

Quote from: Bren;871923Because people can only do things for one reason so if they are seeking information there can't possibly be an erotic component to the scene, right? :rolleyes:

Also, eroticism and perversion have different meanings, they aren't synonyms. Switching from discussing eroticism in gaming to perversion is a major goal post switch.

Bren's post I was referring to.

Quote from: Bren;871923Because people can only do things for one reason so if they are seeking information there can't possibly be an erotic component to the scene, right? :rolleyes:

Also, eroticism and perversion have different meanings, they aren't synonyms. Switching from discussing eroticism in gaming to perversion is a major goal post switch.

Remember, kinky is using a feather.  Perverted is using the whole chicken.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;872023Remember, kinky is using a feather.  Perverted is using the whole chicken.

JG

BAWK!!

Quote from: AsenRG;871975First, what Bren said, both on account of switching non sinonimous words, and on account of scenes not having a purpose.

Of course, Bren is being deceptive. There is no goal post shift, nor any implication that I am treating the two words as synonymous. You may agree with him, but you are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with something he pulled out of his ass.

QuoteThat's an indie narrativist idea I never quite adopted.
To me, scenes have opportunities, not goals.

Again, what you're arguing against is not something I have said. Only willed beings have goals. A person utilizes scarce means to achieve those goals. This is the definition of action (as opposed to reaction). Actions have purpose--to bring about the end. Scenes likewise have purposes because playing them out is an action.

QuoteYes, though characters can have multiple goals as well.

Insofar as characters resemble real people, I would say it's safe to assume they have an infinite number of goals. However, at any given time, at the moment of action, or choice, there is a very specific prioritization of those goals.

QuoteSome schools of thought about roleplaying would totally disagree.

95% of all information, theories, schools of thought, journalism, etc in the financial industry is false. Once you've seen that, you realize it's probably true that 95% of schools of thought on just about anything is patently false. It's just that when it comes to games of make-believe, things are a lot more forgiving. Doesn't mean I should give a shit what they would disagree with.

QuoteNo, it's part of the premise of narrativist theory, so no, it actually is trying to confirm the parts that I disagree with.

Which narrativist theory? The one from Ron Edwards original article, or the one that shows up in wikipedia? The most frustrating thing about GNS theory is whenever you prove it dead from the neck up, someone goes and changes the definition. If we're talking about the old Ron Edwards verison of narrativist, the belief that N play can occur coterminous with role play is demonstrably false. If we're talking about the wikipedia version, then N play is role play, nothing more and nothing less.

Quote from: Lunamancer;872030Of course, Bren is being deceptive. There is no goal post shift, nor any implication that I am treating the two words as synonymous.

You claim I am being deceptive, but people can read what you wrote and decide for themselves.

Quote95% of all information, theories, schools of thought, journalism, etc in the financial industry is false. Once you've seen that, you realize it's probably true that 95% of schools of thought on just about anything is patently false.

Of course we are supposed to believe your sophomoric understanding of Aristotelian causation puts you in the 5%. :rolleyes: Typical.

Yeah I think there's a bit of slippage occurring with your use of the word "perversion". That implies a whole raft of judgement about erotic content. I'm pretty sure Bren is on the money here.

Quote from: Bren;872071You claim I am being deceptive, but people can read what you wrote and decide for themselves.

Okay, so everyone gets to decide for themselves... except for the guy who wrote it, and only after you decided to put your deceptive spin on it. Because it's not like you were just deciding for yourself what it meant. You were trying to dictate what it meant.

I don't care if you disagree with me. Your problem is you disagree with yourself.

QuoteOf course we are supposed to believe your sophomoric understanding of Aristotelian causation puts you in the 5%. :rolleyes: Typical.

And where did I mention anything about this?

Oh. That's right. I didn't. Except in peoples subjective imaginations I suppose. Because you're making shit up just for the sake of being a dick.

Quote from: Lunamancer;872088Okay, so everyone gets to decide for themselves... except for the guy who wrote it, and only after you decided to put your deceptive spin on it.

Of course everyone gets to decide for themselves what they think your words mean. But its not deceptive to point out the fallacy of your only one cause argument nor that you pulled perversion out of your ass to insert it into your...discussion.

QuoteI don't care if you disagree with me.

It seems like you do care. A lot.

QuoteAnd where did I mention anything about this?

It's my supposition of where you got your simplistic understanding of primary or first causes. I can't tell whether you got it directly from Aristotle or via some second-hand Scholastic or religious interpretation. Your combining it with a free-will argument leads me to suspect the latter, but its not like a freshman philosophy class is some obscure or unavailable source of knowledge.

Quote from: James Gillen;872023Remember, kinky is using a feather.  Perverted is using the whole chicken.

JG

I thought it was kinky is what turns me on, perverted is what turns you on? :D

Quote from: Nexus;872124I thought it was kinky is what turns me on, perverted is what turns you on? :D

Why can't it be both???

No, no, it goes "what I like is eroticism, what you like is porn! Shame on you and your prurient interests!"

Quote from: Opaopajr;872202No, no, it goes "what I like is eroticism, what you like is porn! Shame on you and your prurient interests!"

I like porn. "Eroticism" sounds like something they call 19th century paintings of naked women with weird boobs pointing to the sides. No extracurricular activities coming from that.

I remember when the joke was:  Porn is what men like.  Erotica is what women like.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872196Why can't it be both???

Its the way of the world, like the difference between erotica and porn  :D

There's a great British word which y'all should use:

Smut.

Quote from: S'mon;872250There's a great British word which y'all should use:

Smut.

We have that word in the states as well.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;872256We have that word in the states as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pva35TFiBfI

:D

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872259https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pva35TFiBfI

:D

I hate that guy.

Quote from: Opaopajr;872202No, no, it goes "what I like is eroticism, what you like is porn! Shame on you and your prurient interests!"

Something like my definition of "slut" -- "a woman who's slept with two more people than you'd feel comfortable doing yourself in her shoes."

Quote from: Ravenswing;872267Something like my definition of "slut" -- "a woman who's slept with two more people than you'd feel comfortable doing yourself in her shoes."

Why would I want to do her shoes???

Quote from: Christopher Brady;872273Why would I want to do her shoes???

:D Self satisfaction while wearing her shoes does sound like an odd kink...not that their's anything wrong with that.

Quote from: S'mon;872250There's a great British word which y'all should use:

Smut.

Been around since at least the 60s. Both Dragon and Twilight Zone magazine had at least one outrage moment way back. (The gossamer clad witch cover and the one panel of a comic incidents respectively.) TSR more or less caved in. (Theyd never had that much risque art in Dragon anyhow.) Issac Asimov told em to get bent, the magazine was all inclusive. Then they added a bit more "smut" in later issues just to rub it in. (And if White Dwarf got any outrage they never posted it (that I saw). wimps. :D)

Quote from: Omega;872295(And if White Dwarf got any outrage they never posted it (that I saw). wimps. :D)

Before Political Correctness no one in the UK really cared much. You'd get an occasional letter in White Dwarf "she should be wearing more armour to fight that demon" sort of thing, but it was always pretty equal-opportunity

Spoiler

(http://www.ukroleplayers.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Best-of-White-Dwarf-Articles-1.jpg)

Spoiler

(http://ayay.co.uk/backgrounds/magazine_covers/white_dwarf/white-dwarf-44.jpg)

Haven't really done any sexual content in RPGs since I was a teenager. Occasional maturely handled romance if it leads to a good story.

I do like "mental cheesecake" in that it's fun to imagine that many of the female inhabitants are hotter and more scantily clad than would be feasible in real life. No different from movies or RPG art.

It must be the very tameness of my heterosexuality which has made the SJW anti-straight white male crusade of the last few years stick in my craw all the more.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;872260I hate that guy.

Why?

Quote from: Omega;871871You havent seen Fred's X rated comics then. :eek:

Is the implication that Fred Perry is "SJW"? :D

I actually like Foglio's adult material more, has more plot and characterization than Perry's. I prefer Gold Digger to Girl Genius though but I can't tell you exactly why.

My recent interview with Venger Satanis  (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2016/01/rpgpundit-interviews-venger-satanis.html)is pretty relevant here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;873091My recent interview with Venger Satanis  (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2016/01/rpgpundit-interviews-venger-satanis.html)is pretty relevant here.

"semi-autistic 340lb guy in the filthy t-shirt"

Does that really describe your players, Pundit? If it described mine I wouldn't want to play RPGs at all, never mind any erotic element! You poor poor man. :(

Quote from: S'mon;873103"semi-autistic 340lb guy in the filthy t-shirt"

[raises hand]

Quote from: S'mon;873103"semi-autistic 340lb guy in the filthy t-shirt"

Does that really describe your players, Pundit? If it described mine I wouldn't want to play RPGs at all, never mind any erotic element! You poor poor man. :(

Actually, the vast majority of my players, being southern-cone latinos, are probably thinner and better dressed than American gamers.  

But I still wouldn't want to be spending time in my game watching any of them, even the women, graphically describing their PC's sex acts.

Quote from: RPGPundit;873666Actually, the vast majority of my players, being southern-cone latinos, are probably thinner and better dressed than American gamers.

So, the description wasn't of a real case, but just a cheap way to score rhetorical points.  Gotcha.

And well, some playstyles just aren't for some people, no shame in being one of those people.

Quote from: RPGPundit;873666Actually, the vast majority of my players, being southern-cone latinos, are probably thinner and better dressed than American gamers.  

But I still wouldn't want to be spending time in my game watching any of them, even the women, graphically describing their PC's sex acts.

Me neither (even the cute females). Two things:

1. Seems to me you can have 'eroticism' without graphic sex scenes.

2. I'm wondering how accurate your stereotype of American(?) gamers is - certainly doesn't describe more than one or two of the hundreds at the London D&D Meetup. My impression is that there are a lot of fat Americans & a lot of fat American gamers, but only a tiny number of Cat Piss Men are filthy.

Quote from: S'mon;873706Me neither (even the cute females). Two things:

1. Seems to me you can have 'eroticism' without graphic sex scenes.

This point cannot be stated enough.

Quote from: S'mon;8737061. Seems to me you can have 'eroticism' without graphic sex scenes.

That's an amen from me too. Sex and relationships can drive characters, without going into graphic detail about the actual act.

I actually think that eroticism can inform mood and atmosphere, and enrich the game even on a metaphorical level. After all, part of the threat of certain monsters and villains is clearly erotic. Innocence threatened by forbidden knowledge, purity at risk, the body horror of any creature that spawns more monsters. These are all ways that the erotic can make its way into D&D.

Think of the Alien movies. There's almost no actual sex in them, but the whole design of the aliens and their life cycle is dripping with darkly erotic content.

As for something like World of Darkness games, it would severely limit their appeal if the implicit sexuality of them is neutered. But I realise they're not what we're talking about.

Still, when I think of the kind of dark fantasy that most appeals to me, it is inseparable from some degree of erotic content.

Quote from: AsenRG;873702So, the description wasn't of a real case, but just a cheap way to score rhetorical points.  Gotcha.

It is based on people I have seen in the north american roleplaying scene (and a couple here too, I don't want to suggest that the Uruguayan RPG scene is totally devoid of socially-retarded willfully disgusting nerds), including people I had played with at cons or my old University club.

On the other hand, you ARE trying to score cheap points here by pretending that such people don't exist or aren't a (disgusting) problem in our hobby.

Quote from: RPGPundit;874222It is based on people I have seen in the north american roleplaying scene (and a couple here too, I don't want to suggest that the Uruguayan RPG scene is totally devoid of socially-retarded willfully disgusting nerds), including people I had played with at cons or my old University club.

Really? I mean, it's not a myth?
I've never before known anyone who has played with them, instead of meeting one in a gaming store. For some reason, I've always assumed those people didn't get any actual play.

QuoteOn the other hand, you ARE trying to score cheap points here by pretending that such people don't exist or aren't a (disgusting) problem in our hobby.

You could accuse me of trying that, if I'd ever seen even one that fits all three criteria of being over 155 kgs, semi-or-more autistic, willfully disgusting, and actually being a roleplayer.
I've never seen in person any roleplayer that fits even two of those, and actually only know two people in the whole Bulgarian scene that approach the weight requirement.

Quote from: AsenRG;874287You could accuse me of trying that, if I'd ever seen even one that fits all three criteria of being over 155 kgs, semi-or-more autistic, willfully disgusting, and actually being a roleplayer.

Hmm, yeah - I've seen some fat players, one of whom was physically unpleasant ('disgusting' would be a stretch). But I think zero overlap between them and the players with any signs of autism spectrum.

Well since Pundit has taken us off into wacky off-topic land...

Out of all the groups I have DMed or played with I can say that a couple of my players were heavy. But of those only two were overweight. At least three of my players have been well over 6ft tall. One of whom could swing a claymore easily. Of the two that were overweight one was wheelchair bound.

This carries over to gaming cons. Ive seen a few mildly overweight attendees but never anyone really out there.

Never seen anyone autistic. And while I can say a few were vulgar. None were willfully disgusting. So no. doesnt jibe for gaming.

On the other hand at a non-Gaming con I was at Alan Dean Foster was about ready to kill. Not to mention some nasty sniping from various circuit artists at various overweight attendees.

When I ran the 4e Encounters for the last leg of Essentials, we had a local player who was clearly Asperger's.  As in the inability to recognize basic social ques that everyone else seems to know.  He was loud, but well meaning.  But he wasn't all that overweight, and he was fastidiously clean.

About what I think of the mosquitos in Vladivostok. It has fuck-all to do with me, so why should I care? People play what they want to play.

I've had a few autistic players, mostly in online play. No morbidly obese players but some overweight ones (I'm no slender willow myself). Only one that seems deliberately gross as far personal habits went and I heard of one more locally so I always though the "Cat Piss Man" thing was somewhat overblown. Have had players that have been rough around the edge as far as social graces go but that's going to happen with any large group of people.

Quote from: flyingmice;874338About what I think of the mosquitos in Vladivostok. It has fuck-all to do with me, so why should I care? People play what they want to play.

You're deprotagonizing the mosquitos of Vladivostok. :(

Quote from: Opaopajr;874347You're deprotagonizing the mosquitos of Vladivostok. :(

That's a risk I am willing to run! :D

-clash

Quote from: AsenRG;874287Really? I mean, it's not a myth?
I've never before known anyone who has played with them, instead of meeting one in a gaming store. For some reason, I've always assumed those people didn't get any actual play.


You could accuse me of trying that, if I'd ever seen even one that fits all three criteria of being over 155 kgs, semi-or-more autistic, willfully disgusting, and actually being a roleplayer.
I've never seen in person any roleplayer that fits even two of those, and actually only know two people in the whole Bulgarian scene that approach the weight requirement.

Hmm, I hadn't noticed you were from Bulgaria.  It is likely different there than in north america (just like it's different in Uruguay).  Let me assure you that in the U.S. and Canada we have several people fitting one or combinations of all of those in the Roleplaying scene.

Quote from: S'mon;874291Hmm, yeah - I've seen some fat players, one of whom was physically unpleasant ('disgusting' would be a stretch). But I think zero overlap between them and the players with any signs of autism spectrum.

Does it really matter if it's all those traits in ONE person or that there are many people who have one or more of those traits in the hobby?!!

Quote from: RPGPundit;874222It is based on people I have seen in the north american roleplaying scene (and a couple here too, I don't want to suggest that the Uruguayan RPG scene is totally devoid of socially-retarded willfully disgusting nerds), including people I had played with at cons or my old University club.

I have seen such people talked about and complained about much more often than I have actually seen them.  I have seen a handful even at cons.  I never had one in any of the groups I played with.  I have never met one at a store with public play.  They exist but they don't seem to be nearly as prevalent as people make them out to be.

If I could game only with players on the autistic spectrum I would.

Quote from: RPGPundit;874722Does it really matter if it's all those traits in ONE person or that there are many people who have one or more of those traits in the hobby?!!

Yeah, you can fuck right off with that ignorant bigotry.

Quote from: TristramEvans;874734If I could game only with players on the autistic spectrum I would.

Why do you say that?

Yup, it's a shame that rude and obnoxious people are allowed into the hobby.  There ought to be a screening procedure or something.  Or you know, we could all learn some tolerance.  Nah!

Come on Pundit I can tell from your avatar that you're a handsome middle aged man with a sweet mustache so you're in the clear but that's no reason to be so dismissive of your fellow roleplayer.  RPGs aren't exclusively played by spokesmodels I think that isn't so hard to accept.

Quote from: RPGPundit;874222It is based on people I have seen in the north american roleplaying scene (and a couple here too, I don't want to suggest that the Uruguayan RPG scene is totally devoid of socially-retarded willfully disgusting nerds), including people I had played with at cons or my old University club.

This describes my biased experience too. I've run games at lots of cons, and played with lots of folks at my gaming table. I've had more than a few that matched that description... oddly, one of them, the perviest fucking weirdo of them all, a mouth-breathing cliche of the dungeon-dwelling, greasy-skinned, fat-Weird-Al clone, ended up working for one of my favorite game-studios at the time, after I booted his ass out of my group for trying to proposition one the other players... ugh.

yeah I don't have much tolerance for those folks at my table. Which fortunately for me, I'm comfortable telling anyone I don't owe them a spot in my games, anyone that says otherwise is pretty much full of crap.

Quote from: David Johansen;874737Or you know, we could all learn some tolerance.  Nah!

There are some sorts of behavior that people should not be obliged to tolerate.

The RPG hobby lost most of the Catpissmen when WoW arrived. Most of the total freaks found it easier to stay home in their stink where nobody gives them a hard time.

Also, what's with the ragging on autistic gamers?

I've met a few and all were good dudes who put real effort into trying to do their best as players in spite of their disability. Considering how easy it would be for an autistic gamer to vanish to online games, I really respect those who push themselves to game in public.

Quote from: RPGPundit;874721Hmm, I hadn't noticed you were from Bulgaria.  It is likely different there than in north america (just like it's different in Uruguay).  Let me assure you that in the U.S. and Canada we have several people fitting one or combinations of all of those in the Roleplaying scene.

Well, I'll take your word for it - since I haven't been to the US yet.
(And I'm pretty sure that there are such people in Bulgaria. I'm also quite sure that the reason they don't end up in RPG groups is simple gatekeeping. It's not "the hobby should be only for the best of the best". It's more "nobody in their sane mind would invite someone who's willfully disgusting on a first session". Because if he or she starts playing, you're stuck having to play with someone who doesn't care whether you're disgusted:)!)

Quote from: TristramEvans;874734If I could game only with players on the autistic spectrum I would.

I suspect some of my players are on the spectrum (but I'm not qualified to judge). If it was all of them, though, I'd have a much harder time GMing for them.

Quote from: Spinachcat;874762The RPG hobby lost most of the Catpissmen when WoW arrived. Most of the total freaks found it easier to stay home in their stink where nobody gives them a hard time.

Sounds plausible. And it leads me to saying something I never dreamt I'd say.
"Praise WoW!"

QuoteAlso, what's with the ragging on autistic gamers?

No idea. They can learn to function socially, so it's not an insurmontable issue - in fact, many of those I suspected being on the spectrum showed some improvement.

To me, it's the "willfully disgusting" part that would be the greatest obstacle with the archetype Pundit presented;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;874722Does it really matter if it's all those traits in ONE person or that there are many people who have one or more of those traits in the hobby?!!

I only mind fat people if they break my chairs. The only thing I don't like is players with bad hygiene, and these are extremely rare IME. You seem to think the USA is full of gross players but I am doubtful.

Quote from: Spinachcat;874762Also, what's with the ragging on autistic gamers?  

I'm pretty sure that they don't mean actual autistic people (I don't know if that makes it better or worse). I think it's the stereotypical gamer who is socially stunted and clueless (particularly with regards to annoying others). It's part and parcel with the nerd-gamer stereotype along with mouth-breather, fat, greasy, pervy, basement dwelling, fedora and flames/oriental dragon shirt, etc. etc. that may or may not ever come together in real life. It's not a healthy stereotype (and not one I like seeing associated more with American gamers). However, we've all known that guy-- the one that you say, "that's where the stereotype comes from."

One of the things I like about this hobby, that really made it a great place for me growing up, was there was a tolerance of people who were awkward, nerdy, and a little strange. Sometimes I feel like we are losing that in the internet age, where we're suddenly expecting gamers to act like jocks or something. My feeling here is there are two kinds of strange. There are people who are genuinely toxic that are mean, rude, etc. That sort of behavior I've never really tolerated at my game table. I just don't want to spend time with someone who insults me all the time. But most gamers I've played with are quirky to some degree (whether it is because they'd rather talk about life in Ancient Rome for an hour than talk about the latest sitcom or football game, or because they are shy and not particularly good with words). To me this largely boils down to intent. There is a big difference between someone who unknowingly does things that are a annoying (but is otherwise kind and trying to be nice) and someone who knocks others down to build themselves up or tries to uspset the social dynamics at the table for whatever reason. There is definitely behavior that you have to call out and not accept. But I feel like we are starting to fold a lot into that and the people that are going to be getting the short end of the stick are a lot of well-intentioned, awkward people the hobby has traditionally embraced.

Quote from: TristramEvans;874734If I could game only with players on the autistic spectrum I would.

If it's truly a spectrum, isn't everybody on it somewhere?

Or was that a joke I didn't get?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;874794But I feel like we are starting to fold a lot into that and the people that are going to be getting the short end of the stick are a lot of well-intentioned, awkward people the hobby has traditionally embraced.

Complaining about those unpleasant gamers who blight our hobby (but who are almost always in somebody else's game, but not the complainers game, oh no of course not) has been around forever. Creating a nerd pecking order is one method that insecure nerds use to try to feel better about themselves. Its no different really than what the insecure teenagers known as "the popular kids" did to the not popular kids in whatever middle school or high school you attended. Pundit is just the latest in a long, long line of peckers. Unfortunately the Internet gives him and those like him a winder audience for their pecking. The good news is that mostly, such things have nothing to do with the average game group.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;874791I'm pretty sure that they don't mean actual autistic people (I don't know if that makes it better or worse). I think it's the stereotypical gamer who is socially stunted and clueless (particularly with regards to annoying others). It's part and parcel with the nerd-gamer stereotype along with mouth-breather, fat, greasy, pervy, basement dwelling, fedora and flames/oriental dragon shirt, etc. etc. that may or may not ever come together in real life. It's not a healthy stereotype (and not one I like seeing associated more with American gamers). However, we've all known that guy-- the one that you say, "that's where the stereotype comes from."

I haven't seen that guy, actually, although I've met almost all of these qualities in by themselves - but not together.
That's why I called the RPG Pundit on trying to score cheap points...and he called me on pretending to never have seen it. Except I wasn't pretending:D.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;874794One of the things I like about this hobby, that really made it a great place for me growing up, was there was a tolerance of people who were awkward, nerdy, and a little strange. Sometimes I feel like we are losing that in the internet age, where we're suddenly expecting gamers to act like jocks or something.

I must admit that the "nerd" vs "jock" stereotypes are something I'm actually not used to, but let's leave it at that.

QuoteMy feeling here is there are two kinds of strange. There are people who are genuinely toxic that are mean, rude, etc. That sort of behavior I've never really tolerated at my game table. I just don't want to spend time with someone who insults me all the time.

Well, that's what I assumed Pundit to mean, except with added lack of hygiene and equal lack of decent looks, for emphasis;). And because we were talking about eroticism (which, for some reason, Pundit assumes to mean "descriptive sex". It's the descriptive part that's wrong).

QuoteBut most gamers I've played with are quirky to some degree (whether it is because they'd rather talk about life in Ancient Rome for an hour than talk about the latest sitcom or football game, or because they are shy and not particularly good with words).

Well, pretty much everyone is either quirky to some degree, or boring to the Nth degree.
That's why you get bonus points for quirks in GURPS:p!

QuoteTo me this largely boils down to intent. There is a big difference between someone who unknowingly does things that are a annoying (but is otherwise kind and trying to be nice) and someone who knocks others down to build themselves up or tries to uspset the social dynamics at the table for whatever reason. There is definitely behavior that you have to call out and not accept. But I feel like we are starting to fold a lot into that and the people that are going to be getting the short end of the stick are a lot of well-intentioned, awkward people the hobby has traditionally embraced.

Isn't that more of a societal trend, lately:D?

Quote from: Bren;874802Complaining about those unpleasant gamers who blight our hobby (but who are almost always in somebody else's game, but not the complainers game, oh no of course not) has been around forever. Creating a nerd pecking order is one method that insecure nerds use to try to feel better about themselves..

I never really encountered this sort of thing until the internet. Maybe I was lucky. Personally I think the net tends to accelerate and intensify ideas.

But I do want to be clear with what I am saying. I am not saying any and all behavior is acceptable, or that there isn't a a potential issue with some gamers. I think we've all met that guy or girl who goes beyond the quirks of being geeky, nerdy, awkward etc and is just mean, hostile or abusive to others (and in a group of geeky, awkward, shy people, that individual can often end up not just sticking around, but with a lot of clout). And I make a distinction between being awkward around the opposite sex, and just being plain pervy (and in the gaming community, I have certainly seen the latter at places like game stores). So I am not saying there are not things like this that ought to be addressed in some way. And one thing we've probably all witnessed is people who don't manage their personal hygiene for whatever reason. I would agree with people who say those things are not good for the hobby. But what I am saying is there is an increasing tendency online (and it is everywhere, I don't think it is coming from just one person or group) where we are folding a lot of those awkward and shy people into that category. This is one reason I am not a fan of the whole Geek Social Fallacy thing. It actually states some really common sense points that most people probably ought to understand, but in the hands of gamers and geeks, just like regular fallacies, it seems to get misapplied to everything and almost become a tool for mocking people who are just different. I think we just have a tendency to take things like that to an extreme. It is common sense that if the guy to your right keeps kicking you in the shin, you have the right to tell him to leave. But I see the geek social fallacy list get whipped out because people are just awkward though well intentioned, or as an excuse to have zero empathy for someone (you aren't obligated to play with anyone you don't like, but it also doesn't mean they are no longer human and you should completely ignore their feelings).

I think people don't acknowledge any of these things existing in their own group because it is rude to comment that way on the people you game with in most peoples minds. But I could certainly use myself as an example. There are plenty of gamer stereotypes that don't apply to me, but some fit me like a glove. I don't think we have any egregious offenders in our group, but people can probably sense we are gamers or on the geeky side when they see us chatting together.

Quote from: AsenRG;874805Isn't that more of a societal trend, lately:D?

Probably. But I a spend most of my online time in venues related to gaming, history and media I like so that is what I am measuring. But when I look at the Facebook feeds of people in my family who are not gamers or geeks, I just don't see this stuff coming up at all. But that is a small sampling of people.

Quote from: AsenRG;874805Well, that's what I assumed Pundit to mean, except with added lack of hygiene and equal lack of decent looks, for emphasis;). And because we were talking about eroticism (which, for some reason, Pundit assumes to mean "descriptive sex". It's the descriptive part that's wrong).
?

I wasn't really commenting on what any one poster here said specifically. I was reacting to the general flow of the discussions and it prompted me to share my thoughts on the whole geek social fallacy issue, because it is something I see across the board on social media from a wide range of sources.

For the record: I think people should take showers. There are times, like when someone is in the final days of writing a great novel or something, where I get not showering. But if you are going to be around people, you should bathe. I am more talking about an inability in these discussions for people to find the mean. Where its either all comers are always welcome, or we start getting really exclusive and only let the cool kids in. For me one of the strengths of gaming has been it doesn't judge folks for being different in ways that are obviously beyond their control (for example the kid who stuttered a lot, the one who was just kind of spastic and excitable, the guy who only knew how to talk about the thing that intensely interested him in that moment). There are behaviors that become a problem in any group. I'm saying let's not cast that net too widely. Showering, leering, being mean or hostile, these are all things you can basically control.

Quote from: Nexus;874736Why do you say that?

Because actual autistic people are, on the whole, more courteous, polite, intelligent, imaginative, and engaging than an atypical NT.

Quote from: TristramEvans;874821Because actual autistic people are, on the whole, more courteous, polite, intelligent, imaginative, and engaging than an atypical NT.

Those are the ones that can operate reasonably well in society. The more extreme cases are often in care facility of some kind, simply because they cannot operate in a social situation.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;874806I never really encountered this sort of thing until the internet. Maybe I was lucky. Personally I think the net tends to accelerate and intensify ideas.

The net intensifies fads.

QuoteBut I do want to be clear with what I am saying.

I think you were clear.

Let me also be clear. No one is entitled to a seat at my table. Or anyone else's table. This is a leisure activity not a public service or a paid job so we get to choose with whom we want to spend our leisure time. Based on 40+ years of experience gaming in a lot of places, times, states, and countries this "problem" is blown way out of proportion, I don't see this so-called problem anywhere other than public venues like cons or FLGS open game events. And it is rare there. But if you want to go to open events, you should know that one hazard of an open event is that it is, by definition, open. So you may run into someone you'd rather not interact with there just like if you stop by McDonald's, Walmart, Denny's, or a five-star Hotel you may run into someone you'd rather not see, hear, talk to, or smell. Get over it.

But to your point Brendan, just because one finds someone else objectionable that doesn't give one the right to be an ass towards them. But some people seem to feel a burning need to create some category of untouchable people that the rest of us (whoever "us" is) are allowed to treat terribly and towards whom it is OK to be an ass. I see that as part of the nerd pecking order urge of the insecure.

Both Bren and Brendan are approaching being humane through two different facets of the practice. Compassionate patience with the underserved other, versus equanimous respect for those deemed 'othered'. It is like watching Lawful Goods have an argument. Let's observe for that moment where crockery is thrown!
:popcorn:

Quote from: Opaopajr;874851Both Bren and Brendan are approaching being humane through two different facets of the practice. Compassionate patience with the underserved other, versus equanimous respect for those deemed 'othered'. It is like watching Lawful Goods have an argument. Let's observe for that moment where crockery is thrown!
:popcorn:

I don't think either of us are debating (unless I am misreading Bren's posts). I actually typed up a response to Bren's post but it just wasn't clear to me where we disagree exactly so figured, best to let his post stand.  

I don't know about 'othered'. To me it is just about being nice to people, being fair and being accepting of differences, but knowing how to draw boundaries. All I am basically saying aligns with what Bren seems to be saying: we can deal with bad behavior as it comes up, but I don't like the idea of giving ourselves the green light to vent our rage at a particular group within the hobby.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;874824Those are the ones that can operate reasonably well in society. The more extreme cases are often in care facility of some kind, simply because they cannot operate in a social situation.

Hence they don't enter into the equation

Quote from: Willie the Duck;874791I'm pretty sure that they don't mean actual autistic people (I don't know if that makes it better or worse). I think it's the stereotypical gamer who is socially stunted and clueless (particularly with regards to annoying others). It's part and parcel with the nerd-gamer stereotype along with mouth-breather, fat, greasy, pervy, basement dwelling, fedora and flames/oriental dragon shirt, etc. etc. that may or may not ever come together in real life. It's not a healthy stereotype (and not one I like seeing associated more with American gamers). However, we've all known that guy-- the one that you say, "that's where the stereotype comes from."

I remember shortly after moving to Texas as a teen encountering the very first real life racists I'd ever met in my life. These guys I was hanging out with starting going off about " nigger-this" and "nigger-that" and I was like "What the hell?" And they explained to me that when they said nigger they didn't really mean all black people,  there was "normal" black people and there were "niggers". And my reaction to that is the exact same as this explanation.

Yeah there are dumbasses online who have self diagnosed themselves as having Aspergers because they think it's an excuse for them being socially inept assholes

That doesn't excuse people using autism as a derogatory term If anything its worse because its basically acknowledging those fuckers and giving a big fuck you to actual autistics, who as a whole, of ANY group of people on earth, least deserve that shit

IME, I've found autistic to be a very mixed bag. Some have been quite nice if sometimes odd individuals that were occasionally difficult to deal, not too different from most folks at the end of the day except by degree. Others, well, not so much. More imaginative and engaging? I can't really say one way or the other. From past experience I'd imagine gming for an entire group might be difficult.

It definitely doesn't seem connected to the "Catpiss Man" thing though.

Quote from: S'mon;874785I only mind fat people if they break my chairs. The only thing I don't like is players with bad hygiene, and these are extremely rare IME. You seem to think the USA is full of gross players but I am doubtful.

I attended meetings at the University of Minnesota gaming club every week for fourteen years, helped put on numerous TwinCities gaming cons, and spent several years traveling all summer to GenCon, Origins, and every other con I could.

The number of "catpiss men" I encountered in all those years and cons could be counted on one hand.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;874824Those are the ones that can operate reasonably well in society. The more extreme cases are often in care facility of some kind, simply because they cannot operate in a social situation.

One that seems to stand is the autistic people I've personally met that acknowledge their condition and work with people tend to be much easier to deal with than the ones that seem to feel its everyone else's that has a problem. Or that have have brought into the idea that their condition makes them superior not just different. But yeah, they're not allot of Sheldon Coopers out there but those are the ones that probably stick in people's memories. Like Catpiss Men.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874886The number of "catpiss men" I encountered in all those years and cons could be counted on one hand.

One cat piss man goes a long way, though. I've only met one, long ago, but even now I cannot scoff at the stereotype. The nearby game store has several signs promising to boot players with offensive odor; I don't know if they have ever had to carry through on that.

And I don't think "narrate your character's sexual activity" (or "listen to other players do that") would be made any more comfortable with lean, clean, genial players of either gender, Uruguayan or not. (As the Pundit more or less said.)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;874853I don't know about 'othered'. To me it is just about being nice to people, being fair and being accepting of differences, but knowing how to draw boundaries. All I am basically saying aligns with what Bren seems to be saying: we can deal with bad behavior as it comes up, but I don't like the idea of giving ourselves the green light to vent our rage at a particular group within the hobby.

You and I are in agreement.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;874794One of the things I like about this hobby, that really made it a great place for me growing up, was there was a tolerance of people who were awkward, nerdy, and a little strange. Sometimes I feel like we are losing that in the internet age, where we're suddenly expecting gamers to act like jocks or something. My feeling here is there are two kinds of strange. There are people who are genuinely toxic that are mean, rude, etc. That sort of behavior I've never really tolerated at my game table. I just don't want to spend time with someone who insults me all the time. But most gamers I've played with are quirky to some degree (whether it is because they'd rather talk about life in Ancient Rome for an hour than talk about the latest sitcom or football game, or because they are shy and not particularly good with words). To me this largely boils down to intent. There is a big difference between someone who unknowingly does things that are a annoying (but is otherwise kind and trying to be nice) and someone who knocks others down to build themselves up or tries to uspset the social dynamics at the table for whatever reason. There is definitely behavior that you have to call out and not accept. But I feel like we are starting to fold a lot into that and the people that are going to be getting the short end of the stick are a lot of well-intentioned, awkward people the hobby has traditionally embraced.

Amen.

JG

This is a long thread that seems to have morphed into something other than what it was initially about.  I know...SHOCKING!  lol...


As far as erotic content at the gaming table goes, I'm a "fade to black" guy for sure.  That sort of thing gets uncomfortable pretty quick.  I haven't read the entire thread but it was noted early on that there is a dichotomy of sorts in the fact that we're OK with all sorts of violence a the table but sex is taboo.  True to an extent, but I don't think it's as big a dichotomy as some think.  In my experience, most of the violence is handled off screen too.  "I lopped off the Orc's head!" is fine, but "I sliced open his gut causing his innards to tumble out onto the floor in a steaming mess.  He screams in agony and falls to his knees desperately trying to collect his entrails and shove them back in at which point I lop off his head sending a geyser of blood up to the ceiling!"  is perhaps less OK...particularly if everything is being described in that sort of gory detail.  Ftmp, the violence in games I've played has been pretty cartoonish and it doesn't take long before the detail gets to be too much...so many of us are OK with "action movie violence" but not so OK with realistic portrayals of violence.  

Also, while on the surface it seems pretty odd that violence is "more acceptable" than sex, it makes a certain amount of sense to me.  I mean for the vast majority of us, violence exists in the realm of pure fantasy.  None of us (or at least very very few of us) are going to go home after a game night and start shooting guns and swinging swords at anyone.  I'm 49 and haven't had so much as a fist fight since maybe grade 3.  Sex otoh is a very real part of many of our lives.  It's actually something that we do...or at least we want to do, lol.  When you have someone at the table describing sex acts in detail, there's much more of a sense that they are describing actions that might be something they might actually want to do.  There's a higher degree of "squickishness" to the whole thing.  It pretty quickly morphs into a "too much information" situation...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;874886The number of "catpiss men" I encountered in all those years and cons could be counted on one hand.

But they were there!

I have met a few over the years, doesn't really bother me.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;874979As far as erotic content at the gaming table goes, I'm a "fade to black" guy for sure.  That sort of thing gets uncomfortable pretty quick.

Yes, and so am I, unless I'm playing with people I know and feel they'd appreciate it otherwise. I'm yet to be proven wrong in my assessement.

QuoteI haven't read the entire thread but it was noted early on that there is a dichotomy of sorts in the fact that we're OK with all sorts of violence a the table but sex is taboo.  True to an extent, but I don't think it's as big a dichotomy as some think.

Shrug. I happen to think it is, and an illogical one at that.

QuoteIn my experience, most of the violence is handled off screen too.  "I lopped off the Orc's head!" is fine, but "I sliced open his gut causing his innards to tumble out onto the floor in a steaming mess.  He screams in agony and falls to his knees desperately trying to collect his entrails and shove them back in at which point I lop off his head sending a geyser of blood up to the ceiling!"  is perhaps less OK...particularly if everything is being described in that sort of gory detail.

The latter is what a deadly blow is like in my campaigns, though. Don't like it? Try not to kill people.

QuoteFtmp, the violence in games I've played has been pretty cartoonish and it doesn't take long before the detail gets to be too much...so many of us are OK with "action movie violence" but not so OK with realistic portrayals of violence.  

It's a valid preference. It's just one that bores me to tears.
I don't go for cartoonish even in highly cinematic settings.

QuoteAlso, while on the surface it seems pretty odd that violence is "more acceptable" than sex, it makes a certain amount of sense to me.  I mean for the vast majority of us, violence exists in the realm of pure fantasy.  None of us (or at least very very few of us) are going to go home after a game night and start shooting guns and swinging swords at anyone.

Funny, for years my group ended the session when it was time to go practicing with swords;).

QuoteI'm 49 and haven't had so much as a fist fight since maybe grade 3.

My last experience was much more recent. Let's leave it at that.

QuoteSex otoh is a very real part of many of our lives.  It's actually something that we do...or at least we want to do, lol.

Well, that part at least is simiar:p!

QuoteWhen you have someone at the table describing sex acts in detail, there's much more of a sense that they are describing actions that might be something they might actually want to do.  There's a higher degree of "squickishness" to the whole thing.  It pretty quickly morphs into a "too much information" situation...

It be might, or it might not.
Just as I wouldn't always go for the kill when my character would, I wouldn't want to do every sex act my characters have gotten to. Let's just say we've received different upbringing in both respects, and leave it at that:D!
That said, such acts are almost always best left to the fading. That's something we agree on.
I suspect that people that disagree on that have just never had a group they'd feel comfortable describing such details. I might be wrong, of course, though I doubt that;).

Quote from: soltakss;875026But they were there!

A single-digit number of individuals can't be allowed to shape a whole segment of the roleplaying hobby.

Quote from: AsenRG;875064It be might, or it might not.
Just as I wouldn't always go for the kill when my character would, I wouldn't want to do every sex act my characters have gotten to. Let's just say we've received different upbringing in both respects, and leave it at that:D!
That said, such acts are almost always best left to the fading. That's something we agree on.
I suspect that people that disagree on that have just never had a group they'd feel comfortable describing such details. I might be wrong, of course, though I doubt that;).

yeah, my point wasn't really that there was any logic or reality to that feeling...just that it's a reasonable expectation.  I mean the guy sitting across the table might be a serial killer in real life and he might go home and do some really bad shit...but probably it's more likely that he'll go home and shag his wife/gf/significant other...

What I was suggesting was that most of us (you may or may not be in that "most") have a more personal connection to sex than we do violence.  I mean as parents we have to discuss sex with our kids in the understanding that they are going to likely want to have sex at some point in their lives and while we don't want to hurry that activity too much we also don't want to dissuade it really.  Violence otoh is something that we don't want our kids to have any dealings with at all in reality.  There's an expectation that sex will happen, and a hopr that violence won't.  

For myself, I can't imagine a group that i'd feel comfortable expressing detailed erotic situations with during a game.  ymmv...

As far as practicing with swords goes, I'd suggest there's a pretty significant distance between that and chopping somebody's head off with a sword.  ;)

I have no idea what catpiss smells like, and am relatively convinced I have never encountered this "Catpiss Man" archetype. Of course, I've always gamed with friends, i.e. people I would otherwise hang around with. I've never been to an RPG convention. But I've been to several comicbook and wargame conventions, and still have managed to avoid encountering even so much as a "neckbeard".

Quote from: TristramEvans;875092I have no idea what catpiss smells like, and am relatively convinced I have never encountered this "Catpiss Man" archetype. Of course, I've always gamed with friends, i.e. people I would otherwise hang around with. I've never been to an RPG convention. But I've been to several comicbook and wargame conventions, and still have managed to avoid encountering even so much as a "neckbeard".

Cat piss smells like ammonia.

Quote from: TristramEvans;875092I have no idea what catpiss smells like, and am relatively convinced I have never encountered this "Catpiss Man" archetype.

It's an eye watering smell.  If you had encountered one, you would know.  I don't remember ever encountering on either but my family has always had cats.  If you had encountered someone who smelled like that, you would remember it.

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;875075yeah, my point wasn't really that there was any logic or reality to that feeling...just that it's a reasonable expectation.

It's the reasonable part I disagree of, unless you add "for people in your social circle":).

QuoteI mean the guy sitting across the table might be a serial killer in real life and he might go home and do some really bad shit...but probably it's more likely that he'll go home and shag his wife/gf/significant other...

Statistically, one of those is more likely. Of course, if you have even the hint of suspicion a guy might be on the evil side IRL, you don't play with him. You excuse yourself and leave, making sure he wouldn't follow you...:D

QuoteWhat I was suggesting was that most of us (you may or may not be in that "most") have a more personal connection to sex than we do violence.

True, that, but you were talking "no connection". That part, I feel, isn't really valid for many people, often simply by virtue of location.

QuoteI mean as parents we have to discuss sex with our kids in the understanding that they are going to likely want to have sex at some point in their lives and while we don't want to hurry that activity too much we also don't want to dissuade it really.  Violence otoh is something that we don't want our kids to have any dealings with at all in reality.  There's an expectation that sex will happen, and a hopr that violence won't.  

Well, no.
I've got to discuss stuff with my daughter, and said stuff includes violence. She's 3 yo, and she's had kids her age becoming abusive;).
Not discussing it is, in my opinion, the equivalent of not discussing safe sex with her because of hopes that she'd keep herself pure until the marriage. In other words, I'd call it irresponsible parenting, unless you subscribe to a particular worldview that requires it, and you know the kid also subscribes to it.

QuoteFor myself, I can't imagine a group that i'd feel comfortable expressing detailed erotic situations with during a game.  ymmv...

Never played with your girlfriend:p?

QuoteAs far as practicing with swords goes, I'd suggest there's a pretty significant distance between that and chopping somebody's head off with a sword.  ;)

There is, of course, but you said "swinging swords at anyone". I'm definitely swinging swords at someone, three types of swords being used most often:D!
And even a blunt sword may do lots of damage. It's a constant struggle for us to find better equipment to prevent it;).

I always assumed "Catpiss man" was a colloquialism for someone with very bad hygiene and powerful offensive body odor not that they all literally smelled like cat urine?

Quote from: AsenRG;875125It's the reasonable part I disagree of, unless you add "for people in your social circle":).


Statistically, one of those is more likely. Of course, if you have even the hint of suspicion a guy might be on the evil side IRL, you don't play with him. You excuse yourself and leave, making sure he wouldn't follow you...:D


True, that, but you were talking "no connection". That part, I feel, isn't really valid for many people, often simply by virtue of location.


Well, no.
I've got to discuss stuff with my daughter, and said stuff includes violence. She's 3 yo, and she's had kids her age becoming abusive;).
Not discussing it is, in my opinion, the equivalent of not discussing safe sex with her because of hopes that she'd keep herself pure until the marriage. In other words, I'd call it irresponsible parenting, unless you subscribe to a particular worldview that requires it, and you know the kid also subscribes to it.


Never played with your girlfriend:p?


There is, of course, but you said "swinging swords at anyone". I'm definitely swinging swords at someone, three types of swords being used most often:D!
And even a blunt sword may do lots of damage. It's a constant struggle for us to find better equipment to prevent it;).

Much of what I said was presented in a "half-joking" manner.  If you want to take each point and treat it like it was a serious scholarly assertion you can, but you're taking it more seriously than I intend.  

For instance, yes I have "played" with my girlfriend (wife actually).  But I've never "role-played" with her.  She ain't into that.  My gaming consists of a group of 4 or 5 individuals of varying ages but pretty much always men who I have no interest in exploring detailed sexual content with.  

And yes, I said "going home and swinging swords."  I think you know that I meant swinging them in such a way as to actually try and kill someone.  Of course we discuss violence with our kids - but not in a sense that we expect or want them to experience it in their lives.  

OK, so you live in a violent part of the world and you game with people you feel extremely comfortable with in terms of exploring sexual content, and after the game you all go home and swing swords at each other.  Great.  I'm going to go ahead and suggest you may be a bit of a rare case.  I could be wrong and in that case then I will say that my thoughts on the subject are nothing more than an effort to explain why I myself have a bit less trouble with violence in games than I do eroticism.  Again, YMMV.  :)

Actually now that I think about it, since the point about how it's "weird" that violence is OK but sex isn't is usually directed at us North Americans (and more pointedly at Americans really) it's probably appropriate for me to limit my thoughts to my own part of the world as well.  In other words I guess I'm only offering an idea for why we in North America are a bit more accepting of violent content than sexual content.

Quote from: Nexus;875135I always assumed "Catpiss man" was a colloquialism for someone with very bad hygiene and powerful offensive body odor not that they all literally smelled like cat urine?

Yeah more or less my take as well.  The same character exists in other "nerdy" realms - there's comicbook guy and videogame guy too.  Very similar types.  Essentially it's a person who has become so invested in the hobby that it takes precedence over everything including bathing regularly.  I've definitely encountered that person.  I was in a video game shop a few weeks back and there was a very grungy guy in a trench coat there talking much too loudly and intensely in a sort of breathy, "desperate" voice to the clerk about his personal pet peeves in crpgs...I could only take about a minute before I had to move on.  I found it embarrassing actually...

Quote from: Zevious Zoquis;875142Much of what I said was presented in a "half-joking" manner.  If you want to take each point and treat it like it was a serious scholarly assertion you can, but you're taking it more seriously than I intend.

That's simply how I answer to post with more than one point. If you had used more emoticons, I'd have assumed a half-joking manner. As it was, I didn't.

QuoteFor instance, yes I have "played" with my girlfriend (wife actually).  But I've never "role-played" with her.  She ain't into that.  My gaming consists of a group of 4 or 5 individuals of varying ages but pretty much always men who I have no interest in exploring detailed sexual content with.  

Why "played"? I mean, have you played with your wife in the same RPG group?
And in the group you describe, it's pretty much a given you'd revert to no detailed content. There's a reason it's my default approach as well:).

No, I don't know that you were using "swinging swords" in such a way. Swords can cause serious harm without even the shade of an intent to kill. These are roughly 1,2 - 1,3 kg metal bars, after all. The damage is likely to be comparable to some "light" brawling (i.e. most "monkey dancing").

And of course, I wouldn't discuss violence with my daughter unless I felt that she might realistically encounter it. It's not a topic I feel is particularly nice.

QuoteOK, so you live in a violent part of the world and you game with people you feel extremely comfortable with in terms of exploring sexual content, and after the game you all go home and swing swords at each other.  Great.

Luckily, "a violent part of the world" is untrue. The rest of it is true for only one of my groups...which happens to contain my wife, too.
Does it mean I'm a rare case? Maybe I am - to the extent that I have a hobby not so many people like. But a lot of those that do are RPG players, so there's quite a bit of overlap.
Or do you mean I'm a rare case because some people seem not to play with their SOs (for reasons that elude me)? If so, maybe they should try it.

QuoteI could be wrong and in that case then I will say that my thoughts on the subject are nothing more than an effort to explain why I myself have a bit less trouble with violence in games than I do eroticism.  Again, YMMV.  :)

Likewise.

And if you're talking about the USA only, then yes - I could see it. Doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't still find it weird that you have less trouble stomaching the sight of a shooting gun that kills people than of consensual sex between adults;).

Quote from: TristramEvans;875092I've never been to an RPG convention.

If you enjoyed wargame cons, you'll enjoy RPG cons.

If you didn't encounter a meaningful amount of freaks at wargame cons, you won't at RPG cons either.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;874791It's part and parcel with the nerd-gamer stereotype along with mouth-breather, fat, greasy, pervy, basement dwelling, fedora and flames/oriental dragon shirt, etc. etc. that may or may not ever come together in real life.

Now we're ragging on fedoras AND my flaming oriental dragon wardrobe?

Between this and Jim Breuer whining about Slayer fans, I'm one micro-aggression away from becoming an oppressed minority! :)

My favorite RPG fashion fad was the guys wearing mirrorshades when they played Cyberpunk and Shadowrun. I found that in SF and LA. Anyone else remember that?

Also, let's be honest kids, am I the only one willing to admit to running L5R wearing a kimono? I know I wasn't the only one.

Quote from: Nexus;875135I always assumed "Catpiss man" was a colloquialism for someone with very bad hygiene and powerful offensive body odor not that they all literally smelled like cat urine?

I got the impression that it was rather more literal than that.  It was for a guy who got thrown out of a game store I used to go to ages ago.

Quote from: RPGPundit;870792There's some parts of old-school play that seem to like to emphasize a certain amount of erotic content; usually of the slightly sophomoric 'sleazy' variety, without ever really going into full-on sordid, and generally acting much more 'dangerous' than it really is.  I mean stuff like some of what you see in some of James Desborough's stuff (Machinations of the Space Princess), or some of Venger Satanis' work.

But I've never actually met gamers who tend to like to get into that stuff in actual play.  If you read my DCC campaign logs (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=29376), some of it certainly sounds really very sordid, but in actual play almost all of the erotic stuff is only implied and/or happens totally 'off-camera'.

What about everyone else here?  What do you think about this type of 'sleazy' play like Desborough seems to want to push?

Also, would your answer be any different if it was much more explicit and offensive stuff like the "rape an 11 year old virgin 11 times" stuff you see in Carcosa?

RPGPundit

I use fade to black for sex. This is rarely necessary, though.


Brothels, harlots, trafficking of women, and some instances implied/offscreen assault and abuse (assault and abuse used only in rare instances and with players I have come  know well, who feel comfortable with grim elements in play) and have all shown up in my PBP  campaigns.
Except for a few brief descriptions of pretty doxies and alluring dancing girls, this sex related content has been sordid and grim instead of sexy.

The trafficking and abuse elements were done by villains, and stopped by PCs.

Romance and marriage have come up more than once. Babies come along. The stork brought them? No, but that fade to black/ it happens off screen rule remains in effect.



I lean toward "PG rating" for  games I run with mixed groups of adults and kids. You just aren't going to encounter saucy harlots in a game I run with a nine year old girl as a player, much less anything really dark like abuse and assault.

In high school days when I gamed with only dudes, sex almost never came up at the table, besides the occasional joke.

Well I missed too much, but good to see Lawful Good settle back into accord. :p

As for Catpissmen, I worked a video game shop and a tabletop game/hobby shop, let alone work Cons and attended some unsavory locations from innocuous game invitations. Catpissmen are very real, both from body odor funk (sometimes medical; yes, that's real too) and from actual cat piss. I've even been to (very depressingly unclean) homes where the cats spray marked everything — and one time I myself ended up leaving with my removed hoodie sprayed when I briefly lost attention to where the cats were.

Needless to say I have become far more selective with whom I game and where as I have gotten older. Hanging out at nightclubs with vomiting drunks pissing about in public at least comes with better music, better drinks than Mt Dew, and better action. Also, when washing cat peed clothing sometimes they need a few washings, unless it's a really nasty concentrate marking which, if not caught and washed immediately, might as well be permanent. I kinda miss that hoodie.

Also, the lot of you sound sheltered from the real depravity out there. Next you're going to tell me how clean the bathrooms were at your punk shows. Trust me, there's nightmares out there, and they are very real.

Quote from: Opaopajr;875502Also, the lot of you sound sheltered from the real depravity out there.

I try to avoid it. :D

Quote from: Opaopajr;875502Next you're going to tell me how clean the bathrooms were at your punk shows.

Well it depends, clock, steam, diesel, or cyber? ;)

In real life, I have very little in the way of a sense of smell, so am protected against most forms of Body Odour. However, some people have managed to get through my natural defences and have almost overwhelmed me.

I'm not saying that this is common, I've only had it a handful of times, but it has happened.

At Conventions, I have to get "Geeked-Up" in order to interact properly with fellow gamers, as the geek quotient in the gaming groups that I have played in has been relatively low, myself excluded of course.

So we agree, then? Catpiss men (or whatever) really exist. No they are not everywhere and no they do not define our gaming culture. And yeah, shouldn't be calling them autistic. Glad to hear.

Gormenghast, thanks for getting us back to eroticism. Do you think you're deliberately altering your campaign based on the presence of kids at the gaming table, or is this what you'd do anyway?

Quote from: soltakss;875522At Conventions, I have to get "Geeked-Up" in order to interact properly with fellow gamers, as the geek quotient in the gaming groups that I have played in has been relatively low, myself excluded of course.

I have no idea why, but the thought of getting "Geeked-up" made me picture some weird nerd-variation on the transformation scenes from Bibleman.

Quote from: TristramEvans;875530I have no idea why, but the thought of getting "Geeked-up" made me picture some weird nerd-variation on the transformation scenes from Bibleman.

I thought it described a violent encounter with a roaming band of geeks.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;875529Gormenghast, thanks for getting us back to eroticism. Do you think you're deliberately altering your campaign based on the presence of kids at the gaming table, or is this what you'd do anyway?

It is intentional. With a young girl at the table, I tend to go with whimsical and light hearted adventure elements.

(The girl's father is the only other GM in the extended group here, and he actually does include erotic elements in his campaigns. Far more than I would use, with less grimness and more sexiness. But now he can't use that stuff, because his daughter is interested in gaming. )

Looking over my online games, I would say sex-related content shows up, but most of is not what I would call erotic.

RE erotic stuff in OSR, I have never noticed much in the way of this, except I suppose for some cheesecake illos.

Cheesecake fantasy illos are not really my thing, although I certainly don't object to the occasional odalisque. Chainkinis can be humorous, but they don't get my blood pumping.
This has squat to do with politics. It is a matter of taste.
(I mention politics not to start a tangent but just to make it clear I am in no way an "SJW." )

As ever, YMMV.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;875531I thought it described a violent encounter with a roaming band of geeks.

I was thinking pick out the right t-shirt with quote, matching dice bag, heavy rimmed glasses, and pocket protector with mechanical pencils.

It occurs to me that maybe all of classic D&D is one huge metaphor for the fears of pre adolescent boys about sex ...

"You arrive in front of the Mysterious Chasm armed with your trusty +2 Phallic Symbol. What do you do?"

"Check for traps!"

Quote from: Bren;875545I was thinking pick out the right t-shirt with quote, matching dice bag, heavy rimmed glasses, and pocket protector with mechanical pencils.

We been spendin' most our life livin' in s geek's paradise... Fought a Tarrasque once or twice, living in a geek's paradise....

Quote from: Nexus;875550We been spendin' most our life livin' in s geek's paradise... Fought a Tarrasque once or twice, living in a geek's paradise....

Shouldn't that be pair-o'-dice?

Quote from: Opaopajr;875502Also, the lot of you sound sheltered from the real depravity out there. Next you're going to tell me how clean the bathrooms were at your punk shows. Trust me, there's nightmares out there, and they are very real.

Well, maybe it helps that I can't play in a location with cats, due to an allergy. After reading your account, I'm no longer as sorry about it as I was before:D!
But the truth remains, I haven't met an individual with such smell in gaming:).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;875529So we agree, then? Catpiss men (or whatever) really exist. No they are not everywhere and no they do not define our gaming culture. And yeah, shouldn't be calling them autistic. Glad to hear.

I basically agree with that - but keep in mind, they remain a legend to me. I'll just choose to trust the accounts here and assume it's a legend with a real, smelly foundation;).

Quote from: Gormenghast;875544It is intentional. With a young girl at the table, I tend to go with whimsical and light hearted adventure elements.

(The girl's father is the only other GM in the extended group here, and he actually does include erotic elements in his campaigns. Far more than I would use, with less grimness and more sexiness. But now he can't use that stuff, because his daughter is interested in gaming. )

That might be me after a few years:p. Well, I'm going to revert to much less erotic content if that happens.

QuoteLooking over my online games, I would say sex-related content shows up, but most of is not what I would call erotic.

Some online games have more of it, some less.

QuoteRE erotic stuff in OSR, I have never noticed much in the way of this, except I suppose for some cheesecake illos.

I own and have read Alpha Blue. Normally I don't find sex workers exactly erotic, but it sure can be used to add erotic content that doesn't include monetary transactions, too:).

Quote from: markfitz;875547It occurs to me that maybe all of classic D&D is one huge metaphor for the fears of pre adolescent boys about sex ...

"You arrive in front of the Mysterious Chasm armed with your trusty +2 Phallic Symbol. What do you do?"

"Check for traps!"

:D
Yeah, lots of people have suggested that. The problem is, the creators weren't exactly pre-adolescent, as far as I can tell;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;870797I'm a big fan of the "you hear a knock on the door.  It's her.  You invite her to come in.  She closes the door and with a gentle tug on the tie of her gown it falls to the floor and she stands before you nude, smiling.  Fade to black."

Fade to Black

Absolutely Fade to Back, do not pass go.

Now what a group of consenting adult gamers choose to do in their own campaigns behind closed doors is absolutely 100% their business and have at it if you want to play that way. Cultural Libertarianism 4 Life!

But for Me

I personally find it uncomfortable at best and honestly downright creepy. It's bordering on watching or looking at porn with your adult friends. Something I have ZERO % interest in doing.

I'm the same way with portraying rape or any sort of sexual violence. I just pretend it doesn't exist. I play games for escape and heroic deeds, not to plum the depths of sexual depravity so I can feel "deep".

Even Half/Orc raise a "problematic" issue of rape. I just don't have em in my  Fantasy games. Is it silly maybe, but I just have no desire to roleplay that sort of thing or idea.

I can remember a gamer friend of a friend recounting a story of D&D to me when he found out I liked Old School D&D. He and his party managed to disarm and capture a Bug Bear in some dungeon, and proceeded to interogate him for info on the Dungeon Boss Villain. The Bug Bear wouldn't talk so the guys character took a spear and proceeded to rape the bugbear with the blunt end while the other party members held the Bug Bear down. WTF, I mean I can still remember the look on my face, and his face when he told me that. To him it was still one of his most cherished and hilarious D&D stories. To me all I could think is what the fuck is wrong with you sociopath?!?. Not to mention where the fuck was the GM during all this. I'd have had the BugBear go feral and tear him apart for suggesting something so sick, let alone just say no you sick fuck you're not going to do that. Player Fiat my ass, the GM is LAW.

I'll take Slavery, Murder, Gore, Blood, Beading, Demonic Possession, Animal  Sacrifice, Human Sacrifice in spades over a single rape or sex scene being acted out at the game table.

I'm not a big fan of playing Villain characters either so that probably has allot to do with it. I prefer my villains in Fantasy at least to be a bit more back and white. They don't have to be moustache twirling clowns but I prefer less moral ambiguity about the players killing them than the average story gamer most likely does.

Grey Hero's like Han Solo are great, as at heart they are still good guys. Reformed Serial Killers like "Dexter" Even when he is killing other psychopaths not so much.

Punisher and Judge Dredd yes
Dexter and Tragic Vampires not so much,.

Quote from: Gwarh;875749Reformed Serial Killers like "Dexter" Even when he is killing other psychopaths not so much.

Punisher and Judge Dredd yes
Dexter and Tragic Vampires not so much,.

:hmm: The Punisher is vigilante Judge Dredd. And the only difference between those two serial killers and Dexter is they wear uniforms and prefer to shoot people dead quick rather than stab 'em slow.

Got to agree with you on vampires though. I'd much rather play a vampire hunter.

Quote from: Gwarh;875749I'll take Slavery, Murder, Gore, Blood, Beading, Demonic Possession, Animal  Sacrifice, Human Sacrifice in spades over a single rape or sex scene being acted out at the game table.

What do you have against cold-connection jewelry making? :huhsign:

If you don't want a peyote-stitch, seed bead, handbag fob, fine. But don't go presenting my jewelry color sense as a crime against humanity. :(

:D

Quote from: Gwarh;875749
I'll take Slavery, Murder, Gore, Blood, Beading, Demonic Possession, Animal  Sacrifice, Human Sacrifice in spades over a single rape or sex scene...

Excluding rape this seems to sum the attitudes of a significant portion of the American public.

Quote from: Gwarh;875749
I'll take Slavery, Murder, Gore, Blood, Beading, Demonic Possession, Animal  Sacrifice, Human Sacrifice in spades over a single rape or sex scene being acted out at the game table.

I'm not a big fan of playing Villain characters either so that probably has allot to do with it.

First, these are your preferences, you're presenting them as such, and I can only say "great that you know what you want, have fun with it!"

Second, what does beading mean, here:)?

And third, did you intend to imply that only villain characters have sex scenes, or was it an Unfortunate Implication of putting the villains next to the list of two things you'd rather not have to deal with;)?

Quote from: AsenRG;875863Second, what does beading mean, here:)?

Probably beheading, the removal of someone's head.

Quote from: Gwarh;875749I'll take Slavery, Murder, Gore, Blood, Beading, Demonic Possession, Animal  Sacrifice, Human Sacrifice in spades over a single rape or sex scene being acted out at the game table.

What about a sex scene involving Slavery, Murder, Gore, Blood, Beading, Demonic Possession, Animal  Sacrifice or Human Sacrifice? Are you now conflicted?

Quote from: soltakss;875885Probably beheading, the removal of someone's head.

Thanks. I'm not a native English speaker and sometimes I'm afraid I ask such questions because of that, even if they're obvious to you all...:)

My comments to Gwarh still stands, as does my question;).

Quote from: soltakss;875885Probably beheading, the removal of someone's head.

No I was referring to anal beads... ;-)

Yes it was a type-o. I meant Beheading.

Quote from: soltakss;875885Probably beheading, the removal of someone's head.

I thought he meant "beating" though I kind of like the notion that someone really, just can't stand "beading."

I can kind of understand that. When the string breaks (and one day the string will break) those damn beads go everywhere. And you never can find them all.

Quote from: soltakss;875885Probably beheading, the removal of someone's head.

I thought "beating" but beheading makes more sense in context.

Quote from: AsenRG;875863And third, did you intend to imply that only villain characters have sex scenes, or was it an Unfortunate Implication of putting the villains next to the list of two things you'd rather not have to deal with;)?

No that was not my intention. That is I did not intend to imply only Villains get to have sex scenes. It was just a proximity/formatting thing.

I'm totally fine dealing with evil Villains, but role-playing a graphic and in-depth  torture scene creeps to close to sadism imo. I much prefer the vs. the more cartoonish "put him on the rack!" sort of goreless torture. Again it's due to the sadism connotations of the Former vs the Latter. To me it's like the "Saw' movies. For my taste it's just torture porn which I find distasteful and repellent.

I like Supernatural Horror far more than Serial Killer Torture Horror. But that's my tastes not what is right or wrong as another commenter said.

Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it? My last campaign had an all male table, and there was no mention of sex or erotic content on behalf of any of the players, either in set up or in play, despite there being opportunities. The game started in a villainous cut throat dive where there were exotic dancers on stage. Characters ignored them except as background. Later, they were in a clothing-light native village and after impressing the locals in various ways there was a feast during which it was implied that some of the tribeswomen would be rather free with their favours, and there was no interest in actually playing any of that out apart from to mention that one of the characters, who spoke the language and had critted his rolls for interaction and participating in a dancing ritual had woken up in the arms of two of the locals. Again, totally glossed over.
Contrast that with the set up for a new campaign. Here we had four female players and one male. Notably, all four of the women are pretty new to RPGs, so don't have preconceptions about how it's supposed to go. We were playing Beyond the Wall, admittedly, which is heavy on establishing grounded characters with relationships with each other and NPCs in their home village. Here we had several mentions of sex and relationships during character generation (which is very interactive and rather great in that game) including one character who was established as being in a lesbian love triangle, and another whose Entertainer background manifested itself as performing bawdy erotic puppet shows! And this was before we even started playing!

Note that I'm not talking about playing out sex scenes on camera. I'm not sure they wanted to go that far. But it's interesting to me that women who were RPG newbies were interested in bringing sex and love into the game from the start. Funnily enough, the one male player's character was completely asexual. Or, as some would call it, a regular D&D character ...

Quote from: markfitz;875940Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?

Anecdotally, that seems to be the case according to most posters in these threads.

My own contributions to the body of anecdata:

• In college, I played WFRP1 with a woman whose characters would explicitly seek out sex once every (real time) month or two.  She also decided to try on the GM's seat for a while, during which a barmaid made a very determined attempt to seduce my elven charlatan.
• In the early 2000s, I played WFRP2 with a woman who immediately decided that she wanted her character to be a Camp Follower as her starting career and made it quite clear that, by "Camp Follower", she meant "Bed Warmer".  (I don't recall whether she charged for her services or not.  It never came up in actual play.)

Perhaps also relevant is that the first woman had been gaming for under a year at the time and the second was trying RPGs for the first time with that campaign, so both were, as in your example, essentially new players.  They may have had some preconceptions, though, as both were involved with (long-term dating and married to, respectively) active role-players.

As long as the sex never hijacks my ADVENTURE GAME turning it into an "erotic exploration of gender relations and issues" or amateur elf erotica contests, fine. But that wouldn't be "letting sex spoil the game," it would be "playing with assholes." :D

Quote from: markfitz;875940Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?

Quote from: nDervish;876039Anecdotally, that seems to be the case according to most posters in these threads.

This really meshes up to my experiences and others game groups I've had experience with. Its another reason I roll my eyes so heavily at the white knighting the depicts women gamers as these fragile fainting flowers that will be driven screaming into the night as the slightest hint of sexuality.

Quote from: markfitz;875940Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?

From experience. Yes. Surprisingly more than expected. For all the online bitching and decrying of "sexist!". At the table women can and will get into some of the raunchiest encounters given a chance. And if not given a chance they may go out and make said chance. Ive about never seen at the table any male players get into even a fourth of the crazy stuff the female ones have.

Id lay good odds though on others having the exact opposite experience.

Quote from: markfitz;875940Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?

In my experience, yes.  Historically, about a third of my players have been women (over sixty, by this point), and I've never had a campaign that didn't have at least one female player.  

As long as they feel as if romance/eroticism isn't a vehicle for other players to try to get into their pants -- that being an important caveat -- many do want those styles of play.  Looking over my records, a little over half of the female PCs were involved in marriages or hookups (about 50:50).

Quite aside from that such themes are more acceptable in our culture to women than to men, I expect a factor is also the number of male players who are afraid that such interactions with NPCs run by male GMs carries a whiff of homosexuality around them.  I wonder, offhand, if female GMs could report more interest in their own campaigns.

I think it's pretty hard to generalise: people are people. One half of my current group are women: two of those are heavily motivated by ass kicking and looting anything that's not nailed down; the other one loves looting and finding creative solutions to emergent problems (potentially including the kicking of asses*) (*her current character is inspired by Prince George from Blackadder the Third, so she's terribly enthusiastic about most things, but maybe not terribly good at them). None of my current players seems to be interested in introducing erotic elements to the game.

Quote from: Gwarh;875910No I was referring to anal beads... ;-)

Yes it was a type-o. I meant Beheading.

That's nasty, I guess....:)

Thanks for confirming. I suspected it was a typo, since the dictionaries I checked didn't suggest anything that made sense. I just couldn't guess what - to me, beheading is part of combat.

Quote from: Gwarh;875915No that was not my intention. That is I did not intend to imply only Villains get to have sex scenes. It was just a proximity/formatting thing.

Cool! Just wanted to make that clear, because it's the Internet, and you seem fine, but it's not like I know you, right?

QuoteI'm totally fine dealing with evil Villains, but role-playing a graphic and in-depth  torture scene creeps to close to sadism imo. I much prefer the vs. the more cartoonish "put him on the rack!" sort of goreless torture.

My players probably wish I'd go for either of these approaches...but no:p. Instead, I've read books on actual questioning techniques, and I use police techniques when it's a reasonably sane villain:D.
Arguably, worked even on the player who is a RL cop. Though it was "hidden interrogation", and he didn't reveal anything of much value.
When the villain isn't likely to know these, I usually keep in mind the approach "if you start to actually hurt someone, you've lost". Psychological pressure, now, that's a different thing.

QuoteAgain it's due to the sadism connotations of the Former vs the Latter. To me it's like the "Saw' movies. For my taste it's just torture porn which I find distasteful and repellent.

I like Supernatural Horror far more than Serial Killer Torture Horror. But that's my tastes not what is right or wrong as another commenter said.

Yeah, I said it, too - de gustibus non est disputandum is a very good Roman proverb.

Quote from: markfitz;875940Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?

Notably, all four of the women are pretty new to RPGs, so don't have preconceptions about how it's supposed to go. We were playing Beyond the Wall, admittedly, which is heavy on establishing grounded characters with relationships with each other and NPCs in their home village. Here we had several mentions of sex and relationships during character generation (which is very interactive and rather great in that game) including one character who was established as being in a lesbian love triangle, and another whose Entertainer background manifested itself as performing bawdy erotic puppet shows! And this was before we even started playing!

Note that I'm not talking about playing out sex scenes on camera. I'm not sure they wanted to go that far. But it's interesting to me that women who were RPG newbies were interested in bringing sex and love into the game from the start. Funnily enough, the one male player's character was completely asexual. Or, as some would call it, a regular D&D character ...

Well, I'd say yes, by pure numbers.
But note how they're all new players, they're a majority (and so can count on social backing to stop any unwanted advances, which Ravenswing pointed correctly are a factor that prevents romance).
And they're probably going by examples in other media, where love triangles are normal.

Quote from: Omega;876121From experience. Yes. Surprisingly more than expected. For all the online bitching and decrying of "sexist!". At the table women can and will get into some of the raunchiest encounters given a chance. And if not given a chance they may go out and make said chance. Ive about never seen at the table any male players get into even a fourth of the crazy stuff the female ones have.

Id lay good odds though on others having the exact opposite experience.

If anyone has the exact opposite experience, it's not me;). This is a post I might have written.
Now, there are some male players that buck the trend, myself included. There are some female players that are totally not interested in romance, either. But the majority are.

Interestingly, it's exponentially more likely that a new player might be interested in romance - unless he or she already has an idea of "how RPGs are played". But those that start at my table (well into the double digits at this point)? Yeah, there's a greater share of male players who are interested in romance. Now, the female players still outnumber them, but not by that much.
I'm not trying to explain this trend, just sharing my observations. But it's very much a trend to me.

Quote from: Ravenswing;876128In my experience, yes.  Historically, about a third of my players have been women (over sixty, by this point), and I've never had a campaign that didn't have at least one female player.  

As long as they feel as if romance/eroticism isn't a vehicle for other players to try to get into their pants -- that being an important caveat -- many do want those styles of play.  Looking over my records, a little over half of the female PCs were involved in marriages or hookups (about 50:50).

Quite aside from that such themes are more acceptable in our culture to women than to men, I expect a factor is also the number of male players who are afraid that such interactions with NPCs run by male GMs carries a whiff of homosexuality around them.  I wonder, offhand, if female GMs could report more interest in their own campaigns.

I agree with your caveat.
Also, my wife is a female (obviously) GM, so I'm going to ask her about your question when she gets home;).

Amusingly, I also had a totally new male player who asked me "are you hitting on me"?
I answered "fuck no, I'm not into men! But the NPC is female, and she is into men - and you took an Appearance advantage. I will roleplay her reaction to that, and don't worry, I'm not going to start liking you after the game!"
Then the guy relaxed, and actually accepted to go out with the NPC. And that brought them to new adventures, of course - she was using him to get back to her lover, who wasn't thrilled at the news. That was resolved fast, but then they got new employment opportunities out of it, IIRC.
So romance and adventure aren't opposed in my games. Just as they weren't for John Carter, or the Arthurian knights, or the mythic heroes, I might add;)!

Quote from: Bren;874833The net intensifies fads.

And creates weird subcultures so specialized that they couldn't really exist without a worldwide communication/networking system.

Quote from: yosemitemike;875112It's an eye watering smell.  If you had encountered one, you would know.  I don't remember ever encountering on either but my family has always had cats.  If you had encountered someone who smelled like that, you would remember it.

Yeah, I have had cats several times (I currently have two) and it should be noted that it takes a serious level of failing to properly care for cats (or a very serious level of not keeping even the most basic level of home cleanliness) for a person to smell like cat urine.  Obviously, most cat owners don't.  Even slightly messy cat owners don't, or slightly neglectful cat owners.  You have to be seriously fucked up.

Quote from: Nexus;875135I always assumed "Catpiss man" was a colloquialism for someone with very bad hygiene and powerful offensive body odor not that they all literally smelled like cat urine?

It is meant in a more broad sense, yes, but that term originated from a story someone told about a specific guy who smelled like catpiss.

I always preferred the term Lawncrapper; though that one was not invented from any literal case of a person shitting on people's lawns.

Quote from: Omega;876121From experience. Yes. Surprisingly more than expected. For all the online bitching and decrying of "sexist!". At the table women can and will get into some of the raunchiest encounters given a chance. And if not given a chance they may go out and make said chance. Ive about never seen at the table any male players get into even a fourth of the crazy stuff the female ones have.

Id lay good odds though on others having the exact opposite experience.

The only player I know who has shown more than a passing interest in erotic elements in the game is a dude.

I have never noticed any group differences in preferences or play styles between male and female gamers.
I would expect such differences to show up in broader fields, like reading habits and the book marketplace. And indeed, sex differences do show up in reading habits.
But it may be that RPG hobbyists are such a small selection of people that talking about sex related differences in the hobby is like talking about sex related differences among fancy rat breeders.
Or maybe my experience signifies nothing. The sample group is laughably small and I don't really give a shit about abstractions like " male gamers" or " female gamers."

Quote from: Gormenghast;876479The sample group is laughably small and I don't really give a shit about abstractions like " male gamers" or " female gamers."

Good point. There are very few gamers who have so many players in their regular circle that there is any need for the simplification of categorizing them by gender. When considering my players I find it far more useful to treat each player as an individual rather than lumping together as elements in some set.

A lot of the "why do we tolerate violence in RPGs but not sex?" queries come from people who fail to see that while violence seems bad, it's contextually acceptable in the fiction we create, and is evocative of emotions and experiences of empowerment and success in ways that are all but impossible to engage with in real life without being arrested or shot.

Sex, on the other hand, is something you can engage with in real life if you put some effort in to it, and sinking that effort into a simulation seems downright weird*....plus if the sex starts to interpose with violence then it gets even more uncomfortable. It's not like there aren't groups out there that could get in to that, but it requires the right mix of compatriots. As it happens, more people (who are in to RPGs, anyway) can grokk violence as escapism but recognize that RPGs as a medium are not a good medium for sexual escapism. And in this day of the internet age, if you are somehow prohibited from actually seeking out a partner for such acts, you can readily find much better venues online. So....yeah....the idea that RPGs happen to be good mediums for violent escapism, at least better than for sex, makes sense. And those who seek the latter can (and probably will) find like-minded folk but as it happens, it's going to be a minority, because most people who get into that actually want real sex, or as close to it as they can get, not living vicariously through their barbarian elf. But Rule 34 says the latter does exist, so more power to them.




*Because after all the payoff for sex is not found in sitting around a table of guys explaining how your barbarian elf dude totally banged that princess. And if it is, then you have bigger problems than figuring out how to get the other guys at the table to listen to your exploits

Like I've said before this entire hobby boils down to adults playing Let's Pretend so its pretty damn weird to most people to begin with. If some enjoy including romantic, erotic or sexual elements in their play, that's up to them. And, its doesn't mean they have emotional, mental or sexual problems. Erotica is fun. Some people write it for fun. Sex and sexuality are elements of a character's personality and their world. For those that value that kind of immersion, exploring them makes the character feel more complete and real. There are many reasons why you might include these elements.,

And yeah, vicarious pleasure is one of them. Just like I enjoy imaging I'm a barbarian warlord hacking down monsters I might enjoy being James Bond seducing the sexy Russian femme fatale. I'm not more likely to actually kill an orc than I am to bed an Elvish princess but both might pleasant to imagine. And make for a fun time and entertaining "story".

At least that's how I feel about it.

Edit; my initial response was needlessly hostile. My apologies,.

Quote from: Bren;876494Good point. There are very few gamers who have so many players in their regular circle that there is any need for the simplification of categorizing them by gender. When considering my players I find it far more useful to treat each player as an individual rather than lumping together as elements in some set.

Right, Bren. That's just what I was driving at with the comment.

Not that I am suggesting that anyone else should not discuss his ideas about sex related differences among gamers. Not at all. That's not my place.

Quote from: markfitz;875940Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it? My last campaign had an all male table, and there was no mention of sex or erotic content on behalf of any of the players, either in set up or in play, despite there being opportunities. The game started in a villainous cut throat dive where there were exotic dancers on stage. Characters ignored them except as background. Later, they were in a clothing-light native village and after impressing the locals in various ways there was a feast during which it was implied that some of the tribeswomen would be rather free with their favours, and there was no interest in actually playing any of that out apart from to mention that one of the characters, who spoke the language and had critted his rolls for interaction and participating in a dancing ritual had woken up in the arms of two of the locals. Again, totally glossed over.
Contrast that with the set up for a new campaign. Here we had four female players and one male. Notably, all four of the women are pretty new to RPGs, so don't have preconceptions about how it's supposed to go. We were playing Beyond the Wall, admittedly, which is heavy on establishing grounded characters with relationships with each other and NPCs in their home village. Here we had several mentions of sex and relationships during character generation (which is very interactive and rather great in that game) including one character who was established as being in a lesbian love triangle, and another whose Entertainer background manifested itself as performing bawdy erotic puppet shows! And this was before we even started playing!

Note that I'm not talking about playing out sex scenes on camera. I'm not sure they wanted to go that far. But it's interesting to me that women who were RPG newbies were interested in bringing sex and love into the game from the start. Funnily enough, the one male player's character was completely asexual. Or, as some would call it, a regular D&D character ...

Reportedly, Vampire: The Masquerade brought allot of women into the hobby and that's is a game with allot of erotic and sexual connotations, subtext and outright material.

Quote from: RPGPundit;876446Yeah, I have had cats several times (I currently have two) and it should be noted that it takes a serious level of failing to properly care for cats (or a very serious level of not keeping even the most basic level of home cleanliness) for a person to smell like cat urine.  Obviously, most cat owners don't.  Even slightly messy cat owners don't, or slightly neglectful cat owners.  You have to be seriously fucked up.

This is correct. I've seen some serious levels of personal neglect. I was thinking of calling animal control on a few because it was ghastly.

I didn't because usually: a) the cats looked otherwise healthy amid the flotsam, b) those animals seemed to be the last good things left in their lives, and c) I really didn't want to get entangled with crazy anymore than necessary.

And then there's the hoarders... It's best just smile, nod, and then to run. They need more help and intervention than your mere acquaintence can ever hope to give. And people with so much time on their hands to not clean can get mighty vindictive when you threaten their precious. Run kids, run!

Quote from: RPGPundit;876447It is meant in a more broad sense, yes, but that term originated from a story someone told about a specific guy who smelled like catpiss.

I always preferred the term Lawncrapper; though that one was not invented from any literal case of a person shitting on people's lawns.

*sigh* ... you speak too soon. I told you, I've lived through nightmares. Those things are very real.

In fact there's a famous/notorious case of a mentally ill homeless woman by (iirc) 8th and Market in SF. Sweet as can be, walks to the street corner each dawn to lay a deuce. The local corner bagel shop tried to help her learn to use the store bathroom, but so far it's been no use.

Remember, we in California lived with the aftermath of Reagan closing most of the mental health hospitals and throwing them out into the street. And further we've caught several other cities and states bussing their homeless to SF and LA with one-way tickets so as to not have to deal with any hard cases. Along with my colorful stay in Saudi, this was my childhood.

There are people who up and go crazy and go crap on your lawns. See: the Joy of Meth.

There's also people who go crap in store aisle and dressing rooms. And it's not always the children who couldn't hold it. Retail in America is a special layer of hell. :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;876575*sigh* ... you speak too soon. I told you, I've lived through nightmares. Those things are very real.

In fact there's a famous/notorious case of a mentally ill homeless woman by (iirc) 8th and Market in SF. Sweet as can be, walks to the street corner each dawn to lay a deuce. The local corner bagel shop tried to help her learn to use the store bathroom, but so far it's been no use.

On the plus side, its healthy to be so regular.

I thought it was an anomaly to have people *explode* in the store bathroom, or forget their kids until they are leaking poo behind the PC games aisle. But, lo, I was wrong when online to share horror stories. This was in the halcyon afterglow of web 1.0, in the age of geocities' dying light and a post-Netscape world.

Apparently the rise of video sharing has opened new vistas of verifying these horror stories. I hesitate to guess it's probably its own Youtube channel by now. You don't need America's Funniest Videos anymore... Welcome brave, new world.

Quote from: markfitz;875940Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?

Generally, yeah I think that tends to be true. Plenty of exceptions but it's a tendency.

Quote from: S'mon;876581Generally, yeah I think that tends to be true. Plenty of exceptions but it's a tendency.

Yeah I could definitely buy this as true.  I suspect the difference is probably more pronounced in cases where the game group includes several women.  I know my wife and her group of friends are FAR more likely to get into some pretty personal discussions about "bedroom adventures" than myself and my buddies ever would.  It's a subject that basically never comes up between us in any way deeper than "whoa check out the hooters on her!"

Quote from: camazotz;876507A lot of the "why do we tolerate violence in RPGs but not sex?" queries come from people who fail to see that while violence seems bad, it's contextually acceptable in the fiction we create, and is evocative of emotions and experiences of empowerment and success in ways that are all but impossible to engage with in real life without being arrested or shot.

Sex, on the other hand, is something you can engage with in real life if you put some effort in to it, and sinking that effort into a simulation seems downright weird*....plus if the sex starts to interpose with violence then it gets even more uncomfortable. It's not like there aren't groups out there that could get in to that, but it requires the right mix of compatriots. As it happens, more people (who are in to RPGs, anyway) can grokk violence as escapism but recognize that RPGs as a medium are not a good medium for sexual escapism. And in this day of the internet age, if you are somehow prohibited from actually seeking out a partner for such acts, you can readily find much better venues online. So....yeah....the idea that RPGs happen to be good mediums for violent escapism, at least better than for sex, makes sense. And those who seek the latter can (and probably will) find like-minded folk but as it happens, it's going to be a minority, because most people who get into that actually want real sex, or as close to it as they can get, not living vicariously through their barbarian elf. But Rule 34 says the latter does exist, so more power to them.




*Because after all the payoff for sex is not found in sitting around a table of guys explaining how your barbarian elf dude totally banged that princess. And if it is, then you have bigger problems than figuring out how to get the other guys at the table to listen to your exploits

The above would seem to imply that the people who play games with more erotic themes are somehow compensating for lack of sex...:)
Yeah, that's an opinion I can only laugh at;).

Quote from: Nexus;876515Like I've said before this entire hobby boils down to adults playing Let's Pretend so its pretty damn weird to most people to begin with. If some enjoy including romantic, erotic or sexual elements in their play, that's up to them. And, its doesn't mean they have emotional, mental or sexual problems. Erotica is fun. Some people write it for fun. Sex and sexuality are elements of a character's personality and their world. For those that value that kind of immersion, exploring them makes the character feel more complete and real. There are many reasons why you might include these elements.,

And yeah, vicarious pleasure is one of them. Just like I enjoy imaging I'm a barbarian warlord hacking down monsters I might enjoy being James Bond seducing the sexy Russian femme fatale. I'm not more likely to actually kill an orc than I am to bed an Elvish princess but both might pleasant to imagine. And make for a fun time and entertaining "story".

At least that's how I feel about it.

Edit; my initial response was needlessly hostile. My apologies,.

That, on the other hand, is pretty much spot on.

Quote from: Gormenghast;876525Right, Bren. That's just what I was driving at with the comment.

Not that I am suggesting that anyone else should not discuss his ideas about sex related differences among gamers. Not at all. That's not my place.

The question was "Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?"

Exactly why you two feel compelled to take it as a personal attack on women is anyones guess.

Quote from: Omega;876665The question was "Here's another thought about erotic content in gaming: are women more into it?"

Exactly why you two feel compelled to take it as a personal attack on women is anyones guess.

I reported that I did not see a difference in my gaming circles and experiences between men and women.
If your experience differs, that is cool. Tell me about it.

I have no idea how you arrived at the mistaken conclusion that I have interpreted anything anyone has written in this thread as an " attack" upon "women."

I wonder if you somehow think you are dealing with a white knight? A feminist?
LOL
Way off, son.


I suspect Bren has quite different views, but you will need to ask him.

Quote from: Omega;876665Exactly why you two feel compelled to take it as a personal attack on women is anyones guess.

WTF gave you that impression?

My objection has nothing to do with women, qua women. I find categorizing people by arbitrary phenotypical characteristics pointless when the number of people at issue is small. Why not treat people as individuals? What is gained by characterizing a handful of people as male/female, straight/gay, college educated/or not, democratic/republican, christian/or not, old/young, tall/short, fat/thin, etc?

In the situation described, there are more possible and relevant categories than there are people to categorize. It seems stupidly and inefficiently reductionist to stick them in categories when the total number of people at issue is small enough to treat them as individuals instead of as members of many different classes or categories. Do you see some value in treating a handful of people not as individuals, but as a particular instantiations of multiple classes?

Quote from: RPGPundit;876446Yeah, I have had cats several times (I currently have two) and it should be noted that it takes a serious level of failing to properly care for cats (or a very serious level of not keeping even the most basic level of home cleanliness) for a person to smell like cat urine.  Obviously, most cat owners don't.  Even slightly messy cat owners don't, or slightly neglectful cat owners.  You have to be seriously fucked up.

Step 1: Let your cats piss on you.

JG

I'm still wondering where all this so called OSR eroticism people keep talking about is.

Quote from: cranebump;871638I suppose some amount of eroticism is okay, seeing as how we have a vinyl mat to protect our dining room table. Just be quick about it, and don't spill any drinks.:-)

Quote from: markfitz;875547It occurs to me that maybe all of classic D&D is one huge metaphor for the fears of pre adolescent boys about sex ...

"You arrive in front of the Mysterious Chasm armed with your trusty +2 Phallic Symbol. What do you do?"

"Check for traps!"

These quotes are best pony.

Quote from: AsenRG;875065A single-digit number of individuals can't be allowed to shape a whole segment of the roleplaying hobby.

But this one comes pretty damn close.

Quote from: Gwarh;875749I personally find it uncomfortable at best and honestly downright creepy.

That's why we have discussions before play, and the X card during play, to establish boundaries.

Quote from: Nexus;874866I've found autistic to be a very mixed bag.

Well why wouldn't they be?

Quote from: Bren;874802If it's truly a spectrum, isn't everybody on it somewhere?

Quite possibly.

Quote from: Nexus;874888One that seems to stand is the autistic people I've personally met that acknowledge their condition and work with people tend to be much easier to deal with than the ones that seem to feel its everyone else's that has a problem. Or that have have brought into the idea that their condition makes them superior not just different.

This goes for any 'condition' which makes interacting in society at large more difficult, because what ends up happening is these people form separate societies around their condition with a set of values based on that condition. Gay culture is like this. Deaf culture is like this. Hell, gamer culture is like this. So I see no reason to believe Autism culture would be any different.

Quote from: TristramEvans;874821Because actual autistic people are, on the whole, more courteous, polite, intelligent, imaginative, and engaging than an atypical NT.

No they're not. Autism is not synonymous or antonymous with any of these traits. At all.

Quote from: Omega;874327Never seen anyone autistic.

It's more likely you have but didn't notice, because we're all over the place.

Quote from: Bren;874833just because one finds someone else objectionable that doesn't give one the right to be an ass towards them. But some people seem to feel a burning need to create some category of untouchable people that the rest of us (whoever "us" is) are allowed to treat terribly and towards whom it is OK to be an ass. I see that as part of the nerd pecking order urge of the insecure.

Do you believe the pursuit of social status is fundamentally a product of insecurity?

Quote from: AsenRG;874767Well, I'll take your word for it - since I haven't been to the US yet.

Then better get here quick before we stop letting people in :D

Quote from: Lunamancer;872088Okay, so everyone gets to decide for themselves... except for the guy who wrote it, and only after you decided to put your deceptive spin on it. Because it's not like you were just deciding for yourself what it meant. You were trying to dictate what it meant.

The problem is your statements are almost always value assessments disguised as facts, which is what Bren, AsenRG, and I are effectively calling you on. I know this because of your continual use of the word 'purpose', which is meaningless outside a specific set of values.

Quote from: Lunamancer;871460I think you left out the most important part. The purpose or goal to the encounter.

And who decides the purpose of an encounter?

Quote from: Lunamancer;871460But if the purpose to the player is to gain valuable information (or better stats for offspring), that's going to be an entirely different thing if the goal is to produce erotica or simply role play the character with no bearing at all on tangible effects on the game.

I suspect by tangible you actually mean 'legitimate', and are once again making a value rather than categorical assessment.

Quote from: Lunamancer;871883The reason it matters is because if we're playing the scene out, say, for the sake of information gathering, everyone on the table is clear that we're doing it for information gathering, not for the sake of perversion.

This is why sharing a creative agenda during play is so important. However, that still doesn't mean a playstyle with different priorities than yours is 'perverse'.

Quote from: Lunamancer;871883I would disqualify "role play" as a qualifying purpose for reasons that would require a metaphysical discussion on free will vs determinism to spell out. The simple version is that there is no one correct way to role play the character. You could just as easily choose not make time with the harlot without breaking character. To the extent that we are role playing sentient, willed beings, role playing can never be a sole purpose. It's always coterminous with some other purpose.

Are you saying the very act of roleplaying a sentient being also means you must account for their values and pursue their desires in the process, thereby roleplaying can never be the sole purpose?

Quote from: Lunamancer;872030Actions have purpose--to bring about the end. Scenes likewise have purposes because playing them out is an action.

An act can be an end in itself. Lots of non-programmers don't understand that I (at least use to) program not to solve another problem (though this was often accomplished in the process) but because I enjoy programming. For some the purpose of a scene in play is the scene itself. For others the purpose is to gather information or earn XP. And conflicts can arise when players play at cross purposes.

That was the primary purpose of GNS theory, not to design games around an agenda, but to help players identify and agree on one so conflicts over play priority could be avoided.

Quote from: Lunamancer;87203095% of all information, theories, schools of thought, journalism, etc in the financial industry is false. Once you've seen that, you realize it's probably true that 95% of schools of thought on just about anything is patently false. It's just that when it comes to games of make-believe, things are a lot more forgiving. Doesn't mean I should give a shit what they would disagree with.

That's a very specific percentage for an extremely broad premise and considerable leap of logic. Perhaps you can share your sources :)

Quote from: Alzrius;871793Reading Gold Digger was like reading about somebody's Monty Haul campaign where the characters all started at 20th level and got XP bonuses for making wisecracks.

Aaand I have my next campaign premise :D

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876741the X card during play

What the fuck?  There are people that actually use that shit?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876741

Quote from: Bren;874833...just because one finds someone else objectionable that doesn't give one the right to be an ass towards them. But some people seem to feel a burning need to create some category of untouchable people that the rest of us (whoever "us" is) are allowed to treat terribly and towards whom it is OK to be an ass. I see that as part of the nerd pecking order urge of the insecure.

Do you believe the pursuit of social status is fundamentally a product of insecurity?

Fundamentally? No. I doubt there is a single reason for the pursuit of social status. I would expect a constellation of reasons. Insecurity is one of the possible reasons. My comment was directed to a specific subset of people pursuing social status who "feel a burning need to create some category of untouchable people." It shouldn't be read as applying to all persons or all pursuits of social status.

I get what those who were saying that we shouldn't make generalisations about "all women this" or "all men that" were saying, and I also totally understand that they DIDN'T respond as if this was an attack on women. That wasn't their point.

While I do believe that there are more differences between individuals, especially when considered in small groups, than there are massive commonalities, and everyone should be judged as an individual, I do also think that there are cultural reasons that we can observe certain behaviours as being more common among certain groups than others. Obviously not all women gamers are like this or like that, but I do feel that there's an observable difference in the level of investment in the interpersonal relationship aspect of RPGs in many women I've gamed with.

This might help explain the fact that WoD seemed to bring many women into the hobby. Those games had much more of a focus on the social, as well as just the sexual, than most previous games. Maybe the taste I've seen among women for more sexual content is a subset of a taste for more relationship focus.

But I've also noticed that among groups of women, discussion of sex tends to be more detailed than it is among groups of men. With my female friends I find discussion more easily moves to discussion of sex and relationships, whereas with my male friends I have to push a little to get to that, which is something I am interested in from them too, and therefore seek.

Perhaps there's something about intimacy there. Male intimacy often seems to pass through an external object or pursuit that can be shared, whereas female intimacy is more straight ahead. Again, I don't mean this is the case for everyone, but our cultural norms on what is "guy stuff" and what is "girl stuff" must have an impact on how we relate to each other. You only have to look at Hollywood marketing of more male external action oriented films versus more female relationship oriented films to see this in action.

In gaming, it seems to hold true that many women are more interested in the interpersonal details of play and men in the more action or competition oriented details (such as combat). Hence perhaps women's higher interest in the erotic in games?

Quote from: markfitz;876940I get what those who were saying that we shouldn't make generalisations about "all women this" or "all men that" were saying, and I also totally understand that they DIDN'T respond as if this was an attack on women. That wasn't their point.

Thanks.

QuoteThis might help explain the fact that WoD seemed to bring many women into the hobby.

I"ve noticed people say that a lot. I think maybe it is a generational thing. I had hardly any female players in the 1970s, but a fair number and high percentage of female players starting in the 1980s, well before Vampire the Masquerade, and continuing through today. But I've never played WoD. I don't think anyone I've regularly played with has played WoD (other than a 1-shot at a con). So if the women (or men) that you game with were introduced to RPGs by WoD or played a lot of WoD you already have a gamer population that is different from the population I have and that difference may be more relevant to the type of gaming people prefer than their gender.

Historically (and anecdotally), the two players I've known who were most interested in relationships, romance, or anything approaching erotic content were (first) a guy and (second and much later) a gal. They are also the two players who were most interested in taking a lot of time in play interacting with NPCs - sometimes far preferring interacting with NPCs to interacting with fellow PCs.  I don't think their gender had much to do with their preferences, rather I see preferences as one part of their individual personalities.

But if you find that with the people you game with gender is a useful proxy for gaming preference who am I to argue.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;876741No they're not. Autism is not synonymous or antonymous with any of these traits. At all.

Nothing is synonymous with any personality trait, but my experience has led to estimation based on the likelihood from an averaged aggregate. Over the course of my lifetime, what it comes down to is any autistic person I engage with is more likely, by a large factor, to be  good-natured, intelligent, and imaginative, than the average person.

In my experience the average person tends to be self-absorbed, obsessed with what other people think of them, inane, uneducated, lacking in imagination and problem-solving skills, judgemental, insecure, passive aggressive and petty. This is, from what I can tell over the course of an extremely well-travelled near 40 years, the default condition of humanity. The lowest common denominator = the vast majority of the species.

 What changes this is when one examines certain social groups from a more narrow focus. Certain social groups have a higher percentage of people not adhering to the general status of "normal fucktard".

For example, being a genuinely good person who cares for other unconditionally and without judgement is not synonymous with down syndrome. Its not an associated symptom, or something caused by it. But that describes every person with DS I've ever met barring less than a percent.

As such, talking about autistic people (and by that I mean people genuinely diagnosed with autism in their childhood, not self-diagnosed online jackasses, adults who have "decided"- with or without the help of a medical professional - that they have some sort of autism, or those who exist on the far extremes of the spectrum, from those incapable of communicating or functioning in the outside world on one end, to the person with "mild autistic tendencies" that could just as easily be diagnosed as bi-polar, schizoid, or sociopathic depending on the doctor), such a vast majority fit the stereotypical behaviour traits I noted that 9 times out of ten its a functionable stereotype.

I think Europeans in OSR games/campaigns is ok.

Quote from: markfitz;876940I get what those who were saying that we shouldn't make generalisations about "all women this" or "all men that" were saying, and I also totally understand that they DIDN'T respond as if this was an attack on women. That wasn't their point.

While I do believe that there are more differences between individuals, especially when considered in small groups, than there are massive commonalities, and everyone should be judged as an individual, I do also think that there are cultural reasons that we can observe certain behaviours as being more common among certain groups than others. Obviously not all women gamers are like this or like that, but I do feel that there's an observable difference in the level of investment in the interpersonal relationship aspect of RPGs in many women I've gamed with.

This might help explain the fact that WoD seemed to bring many women into the hobby. Those games had much more of a focus on the social, as well as just the sexual, than most previous games. Maybe the taste I've seen among women for more sexual content is a subset of a taste for more relationship focus.

But I've also noticed that among groups of women, discussion of sex tends to be more detailed than it is among groups of men. With my female friends I find discussion more easily moves to discussion of sex and relationships, whereas with my male friends I have to push a little to get to that, which is something I am interested in from them too, and therefore seek.

Perhaps there's something about intimacy there. Male intimacy often seems to pass through an external object or pursuit that can be shared, whereas female intimacy is more straight ahead. Again, I don't mean this is the case for everyone, but our cultural norms on what is "guy stuff" and what is "girl stuff" must have an impact on how we relate to each other. You only have to look at Hollywood marketing of more male external action oriented films versus more female relationship oriented films to see this in action.

In gaming, it seems to hold true that many women are more interested in the interpersonal details of play and men in the more action or competition oriented details (such as combat). Hence perhaps women's higher interest in the erotic in games?

Yes, good post, I agree with everything you've written. Also there is nothing wrong with generalisations & categorisations, they are vital to understanding the world - as long as you remember there can always be exceptions. Refusing to make generalisations because there are exceptions feels very "Ignorance is Strength!" 1984-ish to me.

Quote from: S'mon;877019Yes, good post, I agree with everything you've written. Also there is nothing wrong with generalisations & categorisations, they are vital to understanding the world - as long as you remember there can always be exceptions. Refusing to make generalisations because there are exceptions feels very "Ignorance is Strength!" 1984-ish to me.

Generalizations are useful as a way of managing information. My point was not avoid all generalizations it was that for the typical player group of say 4-6 players, generalizing those 4-6 people by gender (or age, religion, level of education, etc.) is unnecessary (and typically adds no value) since you are dealing not with hundreds, thousands, or millions of people you don't personally know; you are dealing with only 4-6 people who you do know and about whom you likely know far more than just their gender.

For example, let's say you have 6 players: 3 men (Bob, Steve, and Pete) and 3 women (Elizabeth, Kathy, and Marcia). Most of the men (i.e. Bob and Steve) if left to their own devices, would never introduce any romantic or erotic content, while Pete is interested in some romantic or erotic content. On the other hand most of the women (i.e. Elizabeth and Kathy) introduce or are interested in introducing such content in play. Marcia, however, is not.

How does it help in analyzing the preferences of my players to generalize that men don't want romance and women do?

Quote from: Bren;877043Generalizations are useful as a way of managing information. My point was not avoid all generalizations it was that for the typical player group of say 4-6 players, generalizing those 4-6 people by gender (or age, religion, level of education, etc.) is unnecessary (and typically adds no value) since you are dealing not with hundreds, thousands, or millions of people you don't personally know; you are dealing with only 4-6 people who you do know and about whom you likely know far more than just their gender.

In that case generalisations will only be useful until you actually meet the individuals - I can prep better knowing I'll have 4 50-60 year old Dragonsfoot grognards, or 4 20-22 year old male UK University students, or 4 40-45 year old Americans of mixed sex from Ashville, or 3 20-30 year old female nurses, than if I knew nothing. Once I actually meet the players then I can get to know them as individuals.

Quote from: James Gillen;876708Step 1: Let your cats piss on you.

JG

I once had a cat, nervous about my leaving on a trip, pee on my suitcase after I'd started packing. It was quite a problem, but a good amount of cleaning took care of it.

So it requires not only a cat pissing on you (or your clothes) but you doing nothing to clean yourself after.

Quote from: S'mon;877144In that case generalisations will only be useful until you actually meet the individuals - I can prep better knowing I'll have 4 50-60 year old Dragonsfoot grognards, or 4 20-22 year old male UK University students, or 4 40-45 year old Americans of mixed sex from Ashville, or 3 20-30 year old female nurses, than if I knew nothing. Once I actually meet the players then I can get to know them as individuals.

From my experience that is a really odd, edge case example. I've never, ever been in a situation like that. I can't imagine ever wanting to play with 3-4 random strangers about whom I knew absolutely nothing other than age, gender, education or occupation. I suppose some sort of online meetup with random strangers could give you that situation if you didn't do anything to pre-screen people.

In which case, how much romance/erotic content, how much combat to include, whether PVP was OK or verboten, and other things, would be part of the pitch I was making so they have some inkling of what they are signing up for or I would wait to make all those decisions until after meeting the people and learning a bit more about them. So I'm still not seeing where assuming women like romance and men don't is helpful when dealing with actual, real people sitting across the table from you.

I think there are bound to be some women who will like erotic stuff in RPGs more, and a lot who really really won't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;877160I once had a cat, nervous about my leaving on a trip, pee on my suitcase after I'd started packing. It was quite a problem, but a good amount of cleaning took care of it.

The material and the time elapsed before observation and cleaning matters. But I'm guessing you haven't had a cat spray your carpet.

On the plus side, the new wood floor looks really nice in the dining room turned library.

Quote from: TristramEvans;876994Nothing is synonymous with any personality trait, but my experience has led to estimation based on the likelihood from an averaged aggregate. Over the course of my lifetime, what it comes down to is any autistic person I engage with is more likely, by a large factor, to be  good-natured, intelligent, and imaginative, than the average person.

In my experience the average person tends to be self-absorbed, obsessed with what other people think of them, inane, uneducated, lacking in imagination and problem-solving skills, judgemental, insecure, passive aggressive and petty. This is, from what I can tell over the course of an extremely well-travelled near 40 years, the default condition of humanity. The lowest common denominator = the vast majority of the species.

And that's why Donald Trump was doing so well up til now.  :D

JG

Quote from: Bren;877043Generalizations are useful as a way of managing information. My point was not avoid all generalizations it was that for the typical player group of say 4-6 players, generalizing those 4-6 people by gender (or age, religion, level of education, etc.) is unnecessary (and typically adds no value) since you are dealing not with hundreds, thousands, or millions of people you don't personally know; you are dealing with only 4-6 people who you do know and about whom you likely know far more than just their gender.

For example, let's say you have 6 players: 3 men (Bob, Steve, and Pete) and 3 women (Elizabeth, Kathy, and Marcia). Most of the men (i.e. Bob and Steve) if left to their own devices, would never introduce any romantic or erotic content, while Pete is interested in some romantic or erotic content. On the other hand most of the women (i.e. Elizabeth and Kathy) introduce or are interested in introducing such content in play. Marcia, however, is not.

How does it help in analyzing the preferences of my players to generalize that men don't want romance and women do?

Yeah I think I see the problem here. I'm not talking about making the generalisation and then applying it usefully to my players. I'm talking about moving from the particular to the general, observing a certain thing among my players, without prejudice, and then winding out loud if it applies more generally in other people's experience.

I had seen this among female players, and it doesn't then become a rule and inform my gaming choices, but rather just an anecdotal phenomenon of interest. I just wondered if other people had experience to confirm or contradict my own, with a view just to seeing how culturally constructed gender norms interact with our elf games.

Does that make more sense now? I'm not looking to establish a law, but rather to widen the net of observation.

Quote from: James Gillen;877176And that's why Donald Trump was doing so well up til now.  :D

JG

I'd laugh if it wasn't such a horrifying reality

Quote from: Omega;877018I think Europeans in OSR games/campaigns is ok.

As long as they're autistic.

Quote from: Bren;877161From my experience that is a really odd, edge case example. I've never, ever been in a situation like that. I can't imagine ever wanting to play with 3-4 random strangers about whom I knew absolutely nothing other than age, gender, education or occupation. I suppose some sort of online meetup with random strangers could give you that situation if you didn't do anything to pre-screen people.

I just read in another thread that you've ran games on conventions, Bren:)? Well, that's when you can't pre-screen people, unless your conventions are run differently!

Quote from: James Gillen;877176And that's why Donald Trump was doing so well up til now.  :D

JG

Quite possibly true, though slightly off-topic:D!

Quote from: Bren;877161So I'm still not seeing where assuming women like romance and men don't is helpful when dealing with actual, real people sitting across the table from you.

I wouldn't just assume it, but if I knew I was GMing for a group of Goth chicks who were into Vampire I might throw out some slightly different stuff than for a group of male WH40K fans. Nothing beats getting to know the individuals, of course.

Long term open player driven games let the campaign build on player preference, but one-shots or Adventure Paths are going to suit some players better than others.

Quote from: markfitz;877202Does that make more sense now? I'm not looking to establish a law, but rather to widen the net of observation.

Sure. :)

Quote from: AsenRG;877239I just read in another thread that you've ran games on conventions, Bren:)? Well, that's when you can't pre-screen people, unless your conventions are run differently!

Fair point. There's not a lot of pre-screening you can do in those cases. You can call the cops if they show up in a bloody T-shirt holding a butcher knife or kick their ass out of your game if they act like an asshole, but not much else.

What I meant to say was that I can't imagine wanting to sign up random people and then try to prep for them based on superficial knowledge like age, gender, education, or occupation. In those situations I've run a scenario that I thought was generally suitable rather than trying to tailor it in some way just because I knew there would (or would not) be women or grad students in attendance.

Quote from: S'mon;877244I wouldn't just assume it, but if I knew I was GMing for a group of Goth chicks who were into Vampire I might throw out some slightly different stuff than for a group of male WH40K fans. Nothing beats getting to know the individuals, of course.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't know that I agree. The vast majority of what I run is long-term campaigns (years long and scores or hundreds of sessions) so I usually have the luxury to wait and see what they want and enjoy. Also I ask people what they want and observe what they seem to enjoy and try to give them some of all that in play.

Besides, maybe the Goth chick really enjoys tactics and would like a game with challenging combat as a change of pace rather than more of the same old diet of angsty, brooding characters who sit around brooding and talking about their angst. Plus there is no way I am running Vampire or WoD. Maybe the 40K guy wants to play something optimistic and heroic for a change rather than one more iteration of "it's a crap sack world" and "we're screwed...again." Plus there is no way I am running Orcs in Space.

I played with some Goth chicks a couple of times. My friend was GMing. I didn't notice much difference in what they enjoyed in play from non-Goths or non-chicks. But then we were all playing FASA Star Trek. So maybe it wasn't the right forum for extra Gothy-ness. I'm sure I must have played with people who like 40K, but if so, I don't recall that it came up in game conversation.

QuoteLong term open player driven games let the campaign build on player preference, but one-shots or Adventure Paths are going to suit some players better than others.

True. That's one reason that one-shots should have a pitch to help people self-select. And let's be honest, signing up to run or play in a one-shot with people you don't know is a bit of caveat emptor. If you don't get an experience that closely matches what you want out of a game you shouldn't really be too surprised. One-shots are the game equivalent of a buffet - a chance to try something different to see if you like it without being stuck ordering it and eating it for your whole meal.

Quote from: Bren;877287I hear what you are saying, but I don't know that I agree. The vast majority of what I run is long-term campaigns (years long and scores or hundreds of sessions) so I usually have the luxury to wait and see what they want and enjoy. Also I ask people what they want and observe what they seem to enjoy and try to give them some of all that in play.

I'll mention one mistake I made by not tailoring to possible player preference - I was running a sword & sorcery themed 4e setting (using Goodman Games modules) as an introductory campaign for new players. One female player had major issues with S&S stuff, notably that the pic on her female warlord pregen PC had partial armour leaving midrift exposed - in fact a lot of (mild, PG) Conanesque sword & sorcery tropes she seriously took against, I think perhaps from personal experience (ie she was genuinely 'triggered'). After that experience I would tend not to use sword & sorcery tropes for a generic introductory campaign - especially one with female players. Whereas (eg) Forgotten Realms style high fantasy seems to be safe.

Now, most female players are ok with swords & sorcery, some love it, but it's something for me to be aware of now. Likewise any sort of quasi-realistic medieval sexism is best avoided if you don't know your female players. And adult content in the Game of Thrones style should perhaps be avoided with older (especially male) players - again most will be fine with it, but some will be offended.

These are just rules of thumb that IME tend to be useful, they are not universalisations, and if you know all your players well you can tailor to them specifically.

Quote from: Bren;877287Sure. :)


Fair point. There's not a lot of pre-screening you can do in those cases. You can call the cops if they show up in a bloody T-shirt holding a butcher knife or kick their ass out of your game if they act like an asshole, but not much else.

What I meant to say was that I can't imagine wanting to sign up random people and then try to prep for them based on superficial knowledge like age, gender, education, or occupation. In those situations I've run a scenario that I thought was generally suitable rather than trying to tailor it in some way just because I knew there would (or would not) be women or grad students in attendance.

Well, I've run a game for people I simply didn't know. And it was tailored, since they weren't people I met at a convention and it wasn't planned as a one-shot - my sister simply dropped with two couples of her college buddies on the second session after I introduced her to RPGs:D! She's almost 10 years my junior, BTW.

No, I hadn't even seen any of them before:). I talked with them like 15 minutes before beginning, too.

Even more than "what they would like", going off "this kind of players tend to like X, to assume Y is in play, and to assume Z isn't in play" allowed me to both customize, to address the point that no, Y isn't in play (balanced fights and resurrections, if you're wondering) and that yes, Z is possible (achieving results fast without grinding, or even getting into fights).
I'd call the fact that they wanted to play a second session a success;).

Quote from: AsenRG;877413Even more than "what they would like", going off "this kind of players tend to like X, to assume Y is in play, and to assume Z isn't in play" allowed me to both customize, to address the point that no, Y isn't in play (balanced fights and resurrections, if you're wondering) and that yes, Z is possible (achieving results fast without grinding, or even getting into fights).

Knowing players' past play experience is definitely very useful - often more useful than asking players "do you expect balanced fights?" is knowing whether their sole previous experience was (eg) 3e D&D, and whether they liked it or not. I'm always amazed how radically differently Old School/pre-3e, 3e, and 4e D&D players approach 5e D&D, like it was 3+ different games.

Quote from: S'mon;877477Knowing players' past play experience is definitely very useful - often more useful than asking players "do you expect balanced fights?" is knowing whether their sole previous experience was (eg) 3e D&D, and whether they liked it or not. I'm always amazed how radically differently Old School/pre-3e, 3e, and 4e D&D players approach 5e D&D, like it was 3+ different games.

Yeah, the only problem was that I didn't know that:). What I did know was that they've read some fantasy that I'd never heard of*, obviously gender, which ones were couples, which ones were in Sofia University, what music they liked, and what they all thought about the then Prime Minister.
As I said, I had 15 minutes of casual conversation with them;).

And you're right about the different approaches, but in the same vein, there are also the different ways GURPS, Fate and other players would approach D&D5e.


*Turned out to be what I call "trash fantasy", due to my opinion on it:D. Thing is, I didn't know even that at the time, and found out after the session by checking it in Google.

Quote from: Bren;877165The material and the time elapsed before observation and cleaning matters. But I'm guessing you haven't had a cat spray your carpet.

On the plus side, the new wood floor looks really nice in the dining room turned library.

In Uruguay, houses don't usually have carpets. It's all hardwood or stone floors.

Quote from: RPGPundit;878254In Uruguay, houses don't usually have carpets. It's all hardwood or stone floors.

You're fortunate that both are less porous and absorbent than carpet.

Quote from: Bren;878272You're fortunate that both are less porous and absorbent than carpet.

Yup, I figure. And that my cats usually make use of the litterbox, which I clean daily.