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

Bedrockgames · Jun 11, 2019

Hussar said:
Heh, irony is a wonderful thing.

@Bedrockgames is complaining that folks are rushing to judgement and we're negatively impacting this guy's life without learning the facts all the while not bothering to actually spend any time learning the facts that are IN THIS THREAD. That's a whole lot of irony right there.

So, folks, the moral of the story is, actually do a bit of due diligence before cramming your foot in your mouth and looking like a ninny.

Hussar, I don't think I look like a ninny at all. I am talking about the situation in general and the posts I have seen where it looks like people are getting far too comfortable with things like public shaming, with global bans from cons for one incident (which I think isn't as cut and dry as people are making it). And again, this is a 200+ post thread with lots of filler and bickering. If there is a crucial piece of information you want me to see link to it, or point it out like Riley did. Don't just declare there is some key info buried in a 200+ thread. But see my response to Riley. This is a complicated scenario, I've said repeatedly I am taking my time formulating my opinion (both in terms of finding facts, but equally important, in terms of just thinking about it and forming a judgement).

lowkey13 · Jun 11, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Bedrockgames · Jun 11, 2019

lowkey13 said:
From the post that you were provided
http://millionwordman.blogspot.com/2019/06/on-inappropriate-content-in-games-and.html

(edited for length, emphasis supplied by me):

So, there was a quick (and thorough) investigation.

The charges were not disputed.

The Convention immediately removed him, but did not otherwise release his name.

The person doing the investigation cautioned about social media (h/t @billd91 !!!)

What is there not be certain about? This is all at the link that @Riley37 provided to you.

The GM has given a different amount though if Riley's quote is true.

I am talking about the quoted section Riley mentions where it says:

That post includes a link, and it also quotes a player in that game, recounting how Rolfe told the players that the PCs had been "raped for many many hours. Then he introduced our rapists, who weren’t even part of the story (not that that would have made it better or anything). They then told us they wanted to see us run, that they would give us 10 mins before catching up to us and raping us again and again."

This is the part I could not find in the blog entry or the post (not saying it isn't there, I just didn't find it on a quick initial reading). Like I said, planning to read it in more depth when I get back

Guest 6801328 · Jun 11, 2019

Bedrockgames said:
Hussar, I don't think I look like a ninny at all. I am talking about the situation in general and the posts I have seen where it looks like people are getting far too comfortable with things like public shaming, with global bans from cons for one incident (which I think isn't as cut and dry as people are making it). And again, this is a 200+ post thread with lots of filler and bickering. If there is a crucial piece of information you want me to see link to it, or point it out like Riley did. Don't just declare there is some key info buried in a 200+ thread. But see my response to Riley. This is a complicated scenario, I've said repeatedly I am taking my time formulating my opinion (both in terms of finding facts, but equally important, in terms of just thinking about it and forming a judgement).

But you are also, sometimes subtly, downplaying the incident. It wasn't "in game rape". It was advertised for 'mature' audiences. The GM was just "clueless". Etc.

I/we may be misinterpreting your point, but it's easy to read this as "Oh, it's just make-believe rape. What's the matter? Can't take a joke?"

Bedrockgames · Jun 11, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
But you are also, sometimes subtly, downplaying the incident. It wasn't "in game rape". It was advertised for 'mature' audiences. The GM was just "clueless". Etc.

I/we may be misinterpreting your point, but it's easy to read this as "Oh, it's just make-believe rape. What's the matter? Can't take a joke?"

I am not downplaying it. I am saying I can see rape or humor intended to imply the possibility of rape in a game, being considered mature content (correction 18+). Not saying people have to be onboard with it. I am just saying this was advertised as 18+. If I go to a movie and it is advertised as 18+, I wouldn't be totally surprised if there was a rape joke or a rape scene. I wouldn't automatically expect it either. I just wouldn't be that surprised. I certainly think it is inadvisable to spring that sort of thing on players (particularly at a con where no one knows each other). And I personally don't see the appeal of it all. But I don't know that it isn't a simple misjudgment on this persons part. On the blog linked, he is described as having an impeccable record up to this point. It very well could have been a misguided attempt at tackling a serious theme, it could have been adolescent humor. I don't know. I just don't know that it requires a global reaction from the whole gaming community (and like I said before, the con can do what it wants about him in my opinion).

billd91 · Jun 11, 2019

lowkey13 said:
So, what does all of this mean in the instant case? I happen to agree that the rise of social media, like the rise of all other forms of mass communication (printing press, telegraph, radio, TV, telephone, etc.) will necessarily change the way people interact, and that, especially early on, it can get confusing. I also agree that we should be careful - "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth is still putting on its shoes."*

But that only means that we exercise our own judgment. Not that we abdicate our responsibility to ensure that, inter alia, conventions are safe places for all gamers to attend.

Indeed. And given the fact that the GM in question doesn't seem to be learning any lesson from the ban, then that punishment fits that infraction. The process there is functioning reasonably appropriately, even if it got started indirectly. And I think the overall community is strengthened by knowledge of cases in which these processes work.

Doesn't stop me from worrying about some of various social media campaigns/mobs though.

lowkey13 · Jun 11, 2019

*Deleted by user*

MGibster · Jun 11, 2019

We're not just talking about one incident. While the example in the OP might be a particularly egregious example of bad behavior this kind of thing has been part of our little hobby for a long time and it drives people away. A lot of us probably have anecdotes about new gamers feeling unwelcome either because of creepy behavior, lack of hygiene, or a club like atmosphere making it clear they're an outsider.

Riley37 · Jun 11, 2019

billd91 said:
As long as we're going to refer back to John Dodd's statement - he also pointed out that 12 of the more than 20 people who contacted him about the incident had misidentified the GM in question. Hence his exhortion to determine and work with reliable information rather than internet rumor.

IMO this makes BRG's refusal to accept John Dodd's assessment, even less understandable. How can BRG maintain "I don't know", how can BRG cast doubt on Dodd's decision, even after reading Dodd's account of his process?

I have a speculative answer to that question, and it's not pretty. It's also been raised, as a general point rather than as a specific accusation against BRG, earlier in this thread.

billd91 said:
it's hard to avoid playing a game of telephone as the story moves around, farther and farther from the parties who were directly involved.

You say it's hard. I say it requires some effort. We can sort out the primary sources from the secondary sources. We can distinguish between the secondary sources which refer to the primary sources, and advance carefully from there, versus the secondary sources which jump to conclusions. We can account for the biases of sources (for example, James Desboroughs has a very specific history with the topic of rape in TRPGs). Once we do that, sticking to the facts isn't a matter of chance; it's a matter of rigor.

Dodd could have prevented confusion about who was the GM of the "Things from the Flood" game with the "lads on holiday" description - he could have nipped confusion in the bud - if he hadn't concealed Kevin Rolfe's name. The best prevention AND cure for misinformation, is accurate, complete information. If Dodd thought that he could prevent the world from discovering who was the GM in question, *at an event with a published schedule*, then he badly over-estimated his control over other people's access to information. "Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."

Bill, if you are advancing an agenda which is more about social media in general, than about this incident in particular, then may I remind you of your mod warning, a few pages ago: this thread is about how people in the hobby treat each other, or words to that effect.

Guest 6801328 · Jun 11, 2019

MGibster said:
We're not just talking about one incident. While the example in the OP might be a particularly egregious example of bad behavior this kind of thing has been part of our little hobby for a long time and it drives people away. A lot of us probably have anecdotes about new gamers feeling unwelcome either because of creepy behavior, lack of hygiene, or a club like atmosphere making it clear they're an outsider.

That's another sub-text from some of these people: "If people are feeling unwelcome/uncomfortable about being in the gaming community because of bad behavior, and they decide not to participate, that's too bad but it's their choice. They could just tough it out if they really cared. But to ban the people who are driving them away is taking away their rights."

Sorry, but given the choice between those two things, I'm all for weeding out the jerks. The jerks got their way for the first 40 years of the hobby. Time for a change.