PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[rounser]

This wasn't an ad hominen attack. I said 'an act can appear petty', and I stand by that.

Calling someone petty is playing the man and not the ball. Of course it was an ad hominem attack, you're not trying for understanding here, just calling the other side names when you can't make sense any other way.

 

[Remathilis]

Dunno, I can't see how allowing rape and allowing dragonborn in your campaign are equivalent. I don't get uncomfortable trying to describe dragonborn. I don't know anyone who had a bad dragonborn situation, and I don't think small children and the elderly need be shielded from graphic depictions of dragonborn.

While in theory they could be used as examples of aesthetic choices, I fail to place them on the same level.

Now, the more appropriate question (and the little more grandma-friendly) is how should players and DMs react to the removal of expected game elements (races, classes, magic) and what compromises should be reached so that both parties reach a mutually agreeable place?

Remathilis, who hopes to never type "dragonborn" and "rape" in the same sentence again...

 

[Mallus]

Of course it was an ad hominem attack, you're not trying for understanding here...

Please don't tell me my intent, eh?... danke. I just don't think it's sensible behavior to get so riled up over the inclusion of a specific race or class that it ruins the entire campaign experience. That seems like an overreaction. Moreover, it's behavior that I've never seen defended outside of RPG discussions --see my party/music analogy.

All I'm advocating is to chill out a bit, don't get so worked up over your preferences, live and let live...

 

[Mallus]

I don't get uncomfortable trying to describe dragonborn. I don't know anyone who had a bad dragonborn situation, and I don't think small children and the elderly need be shielded from graphic depictions of dragonborn.

You sir, have never seen my Dragonborn paladin .

We're working on the Story Hour now...

 

[Kitirat]

I want to jump in here for a moment and talk about a 3.0 game I ran about6 or 7 years ago.
...
I can understand somethings push the wrong buttons, I really can, but to say "I can't play in a game with dragonborn" and then to defend that with "Well you don't want to play in a game with a rapest" is just beyond crazy...

As a note, from my experience, Rape is the #1 no no in a D&D or any roleplaying game, especially if there is a woman in the game or anyone has a daughter. Grewsome deaths, torture, pretty much everything thing goes except this, which is just too touchy a topic. I think it is because of how real and frequent rape is as compared to murder in peoples lives. 1 in 10 to 1 in 8 women have been raped, so most everyone knows someone it has happened too and the contempation of it occuring to a child tends to makes fathers go justifyably anger.

As far as half-orcs and half-dragon, etc, backstory is one thing; "rapes not occuring in this campaign" tend to be a bit softer; though the hardest core I'd suggest going even then is more along "semi-consentual sex" via magic influence, being a slave, hypnotized, etc. i.e. there is a big difference between the person "giving in" for some reason (save a loved one, magic, possessed, etc) then being forcibly raped. A BIG difference. I personally simply will never go there, EVER.

 

[Scribble]

I think a lot of "internet discussions" and maybe even real life discussions always try to paint things into a much more binary fashion then they actually are.

Is this action "petty" yes or no?

When in reality things are much more complicated then that. To me a lot of it depends on the particular group, as well as the motivation of the person in question.

Sometimes I see people doing things like "leaving" the group not because a particular element truly "ruins" their fun, but because they know they can play "Well fine- I'm going home," as the ultimate trump card, and avoid any type of comprimise or further discussion. This forces his friends to decide to either choose his companionship, or the element in question. (And since he knows his friends will most likely choose his companionship... this makes it a petty action.)

But you really can't apply that to EVERY situation. Sometimes you just have to know the person to know when they're honestly just not going to enjoy it, or it really offends them in some way, as opposed to when they're just playing the trump card.

 

[Remathilis]

You sir, have never seen my Dragonborn paladin .

We're working on the Story Hour now...

Oh my!

 

[Fenes]

As I said - someone said that there was no single thing that would be a game breaker, and I think I proved him wrong since so many agree that some things are enough for them to stop a game.

Unfortunately, those people are still stuck on "as long as I like it/tolerate it everyone has to like it/tolerate it or he's a prim donna".

Personally, I won't play with Dragonborn, I won't run a game with Dragonborn. It's not an expected part of D&D for me either - I play 3E.

Now, call me prima donna for that? Or some other choice names for not playing like you do, or playing another edition?

 

[Obryn]

As I said - someone said that there was no single thing that would be a game breaker, and I think I proved him wrong since so many agree that some things are enough for them to stop a game.

I don't think anyone was arguing that point, really. Also, do you think it's fair to equate "Bob won't play in a game with elves" with "Bob won't play in a game where characters rape barmaids."

Unfortunately, those people are still stuck on "as long as I like it/tolerate it everyone has to like it/tolerate it or he's a prim donna".

I have to wonder at this point - are you deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying because you think it makes your argument stronger?

Personally, I won't play with Dragonborn, I won't run a game with Dragonborn. It's not an expected part of D&D for me either - I play 3E.

And I think that sounds unreasonable and a little too intense for me and my group, based on what you're saying here. I think this is a minor issue, and therefore I would tend to think anyone who doesn't is blowing it out of proportion. As is my right, as a DM and as a player. Other groups will, undoubtedly, have different perspectives than I do. Again, what are we arguing about here? Are you insisting that I should want to play with you (or someone else) no matter what? Doesn't that seem contradictory to you?

Now, call me prima donna for that? Or some other choice names for not playing like you do,

Being a prima donna is not about what you like or don't like. It's about your attitude when bringing it to the table. I prefer to play with people who have reasonable, and even easygoing personalities. If you don't fit this, I probably wouldn't want to play with you. Should I?

or playing another edition?

Oh, come on. Nobody went there.

-O

 

[Remathilis]

Personally, I won't play with Dragonborn, I won't run a game with Dragonborn. It's not an expected part of D&D for me either - I play 3E.

Cough, Cough, Cough, Cough.

You were saying?