Players 'distressed' by gang-rape role-playing game

I've actually found myself in a game not too far-removed from this at a convention. The scenario was vaguely described on the sign-up sheet as a "monster camp" scenario, though it did specify the inclusion of adult themes. This turned out to be a metaphor for religious "straight camps", with the GM using the scenario of players as classic monsters (vampires, werewolves, etc.) who didn't want to be monstrous, and were being sent to a camp run by monsters to "normalise" them into their stereotypical roles, as a way of exploring the ramifications of societal rejection of non-standard sexualities.

And, as bizarre as that sounds, for the first half of the game it was mostly light-hearted and comedic. But by the end of the scenario it got seriously messed up, to the point of including sexual assault against some of the player characters - including my own.

I didn't feel like reporting it at the time, but it was a decidedly unpleasant experience to play through.

lowkey13 said:

I'm assuming a charitable reading of the comment is that adult situations should only be done with the full knowledge, understanding, and prior consent of the group.

That said, I also have a hard time understanding the "right" group for the type of scenario that the title is describing. A group without me, certainly.

Click to expand...

Here's a scenario: the DM and all the players are survivors, and *with that as common ground*, they voluntarily - with advance knowledge - choose to play a party of survivors who become level 1 adventurers, and form a party, specifically to protect their community from further abuses. It would still be tricky territory; but if everyone involved actually cares about the well-being of everyone else involved, it could be worthwhile.

Just to annoy lowkey13, at least one of the PCs starts as paladin, intent on taking the Oath of Vengeance when they hit level 3.

I participated, for a while, in a group for abuse survivors. Within the intent and commitment to avoid further harm to each other, there was sometimes room for rather grim humor. Sometimes.

I still don't see this group as an event within an all-ages, general-audience gaming conference, assembled on a walk-in basis.

*Deleted by user*

Apu is a very loved character from the Simpsons cartoon for decades and now he is not politically correct.

When you try to use speculative fiction like a propaganda weapon, a RPG or a Hollywood super-production people notice it and sometimes this is really annoying.

Some horrible things is better only to happen off-screen.

After a hard week of work or studying somebody want to have fun and rest, or to recover the past innocence of the childhood, not uncomfortable horror stories.

CapnZapp said:

This would help insofar that at any con rated PG (which would be all of them unless you know otherwise) the use of the M card would be prohibited.

Click to expand...

I've not sure I've ever seen a con rated anything let alone "PG", certainly the content of the con's I've attended, are normally 12A's at best if we were to use cinema ratings for content, and most have 18+ games.

Umbran said:

I don't think this actually addresses the same problem as the X-card, at all.

Click to expand...

It does address the same problem, "someone at the table finds some part of the game inappropriate/distressing for them".

I think it is a good idea for a GM to put up front if they intend their game to include material that some would find inappropriate*.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think this is something most people agree on. The M Card calls that out explicitly, but it has become more common for convention games anyway.

But that's not nearly the same thing as giving a player a way to quickly communicate, without having to enter into discussions, that they have a problem.

Click to expand...

No it isn't the same, but is does address the same problem, "someone at the table finds some part of the game inappropriate/distressing for them", first by having a clear warning of content, so someone is less that will become distressed is less likely to sit at the table in the first place. Then by people at the table agreeing to remove themselves with the least disruption to the game, if they don't wish to continue to be involved.

Case in point - the last time an X-card got invoked in my presence was not because of the "mature" content of the game, but because the loud vocal tones used at the table triggered (in the diagnosed PTSD sense, not the "I found it inappropriate/offensive" sense) a player who had suffered abuse as a child. The scene was not about abusing a child - PTSD triggering is often about sensory input, not content

Click to expand...

So in this case the player in question limited everyone else at the table to not speaking in loud voices, something common in RP situations. With the M card this person could have left the table, and everyone else could continue their over-acting and enjoying themselves.

This player did *NOT* want to go into their history of abuse with random strangers at a convention table. The X-card saved the session for them.

The M-card would have done nothing for them.

Click to expand...

Yet you seem to have found out the reason so clearly some discussion about it occurred. The M Card would mean they could leave the table without disclosing anything (just like the X-Card), but allow others to continue the game unhindered, by a restriction 1 in 7 (I am assuming a pretty standard convention game) of the players wants to put on the whole table.

*I also think the level of "mature" we are talking about in the OP is just not appropriate for open table games at general fandom conventions, period.

Click to expand...

True and as I stated earlier, no manner of "safety tools" are going to help when you have a GM that is intent on ambushing the players for shock value.

LuisCarlos17f said:

Apu is a very loved character from the Simpsons cartoon for decades and now he is not politically correct.

Click to expand...

Some people at UK Expo had unpleasant experience. Do you see this as an opportunity for promoting your agenda about what is and isn't politically correct?

If you want to watch "Song of the South" in the privacy of your home, then go for it, have fun. If you wanna play F.A.T.A.L. and/or Custer's Revenge with your friends, then go for it, have fun. But please don't use this particular thread to tell us all about your bold decisions to enjoy things which other might find offensive.

MarkB said:

I've actually found myself in a game not too far-removed from this at a convention. The scenario was vaguely described on the sign-up sheet as a "monster camp" scenario, though it did specify the inclusion of adult themes. This turned out to be a metaphor for religious "straight camps", with the GM using the scenario of players as classic monsters (vampires, werewolves, etc.) who didn't want to be monstrous, and were being sent to a camp run by monsters to "normalise" them into their stereotypical roles, as a way of exploring the ramifications of societal rejection of non-standard sexualities.

Click to expand...

Just a guess but this sounds like Monsterhearts to me, or at least that would be a great system to try out that game concept.

And, as bizarre as that sounds, for the first half of the game it was mostly light-hearted and comedic. But by the end of the scenario it got seriously messed up, to the point of including sexual assault against some of the player characters - including my own.

I didn't feel like reporting it at the time, but it was a decidedly unpleasant experience to play through.

Click to expand...

Why can't some game experiences be "decidedly unpleasant"?

If you are dealing with unpleasant issues like "straight camps", wouldn't you expect there be decidedly unpleasant issues occurring?

See this is where I have an issue with the X-Card, use of an X-Card in a game like this by one player that doesn't like an unpleasant situation, kills the whole concept of the scenario for everyone else that might actually be interested in exploring these unpleasant issues in the safety of fictional roleplay game. An the M-Card however allows play to continue for those that are interested in exploring difficult and somewhat distressing topics.

Bagpuss said:

Why can't some game experiences be "decidedly unpleasant"?

Click to expand...

Because the default assumption when joining a game is that you’re doing it to have fun. Sure, if you’re running a game and state you’re planning to run an unpleasant game, that’s fine. Good luck getting players. But at a Con? Without explicitly warning people first? No. That’s just abusing your position as a GM to force your edgelordness onto unsuspecting victims. Strikes me as the kind of thing someone does because no one who knows him will actually play with him anymore.

Class example of someone not considdering the where they are running a game, and for whom. The venue reacted as they should and needed to, in response to the incident.

In general, I can't say that I'm opposed to using controversial things in an RPG game, but as the GM you really have to know your audience (and venue), if you want to pull off something as controversial as a gang-rape of a character (group). IMO you can get away with it, if you do it right, but you need a really mature group of players with a serious "firewall" between themselves and their characters, and you can't have anyone involved who's been subjected to something similar in real life. Personally I'd find it to be an interesting challenge to try and work out how a character I played, might react to becoming gang-raped, but I do in no way expect that very many other people might view such an in-game character experience in the same way. Such material is NOT for everyone, and it sure as hell isn't suitable content for a public venue like a Con!