Search results

Interview with one of the players here. Player's description of what happened:

If that happens, that con might have something to answer for. But why are you going on about this? It’s completely irrelevant. No con has incorrectly banned a GM for something he didn’t do and slander his name.

Cons have had policies like that for years, most of which were never enforced properly. That such policies have been improved upon and actually implemented properly is down to the climate you’re complaining about. And it’s hardly universal yet - many, if not most, cons today are still pretty...

No, actually, they don’t. Because if the people actually involved complain, nothing happens. If they complain, they risk harassment themselves. And most of the time they don’t complain, because of the previous two points. A lot of the time they just stop going to cons, and probably stop...

In other words a return to the climate in which the details never get out, the press never get wind of it (or ignore it if they do) and nobody gets called out for inappropriate content.Because that was how things used to go, under the old climate. Under the new one, a GM who ran an inappropriate...

Basically that. It’s guys being ‘lads,’ meaning: dumb, crude, violent and misogynistic. It’s mostly middle-class teens who want to appear ‘tough.’ To a lad, the best things in life are drinking, watching football and shagging (often in that order). It’s the embodiment of toxic masculinity.

No, Bagpuss, who decried the current climate (in which people who run rape scenarios at cons get called on their :):):):)).

Yes? That’s not exaggerating at all. It’s a perfectly rational reading of some posters comments.

The scenario featured the gang rape of a group of 18 year old boys. That it happened off-camera does not make it acceptable. That it was an 18+ game does not make it acceptable. The appropriate response to a GM doing this is to ban him from running games at your con, which is what happened. And...

I think the GM getting banned is down to social media improving how institutions (like game cons) handle these issues. Just a few years ago I think the con organizers would have laughed this off - regardless of what their official policies were. Nowadays they know that letting someone get away...

Perhaps you need to work on your own reading comprehension a bit more? You complained that C7 were scamming their customers because they were releasing an old adventure for $750. This is, as anyone who actually read the announcement should know, not true. They are releasing a revamped an...

Just for some context: someone tweeted the event description.

Baffled more than bothered. You’re complaining about people being given the option to buy a limited edition of a product. I cannot comprehend why you would have an issue with it.

I think his explanation for what happened confirmed that what the players said was true and that the con was right to kick him. ‘If only I’d remembered to cover the characters in poo’ is both the weirdest and lamest defense I’ve ever seen.

You seem weirdly bothered by the fact that they’re releasing something you don’t want.

Which is why you buy the version going for half that.

Of course it’s really expensive. Which is why you buy the standard edition instead.

This is a limited edition of a huge campaign + 5 supplements. They’re not going to be making much money on it. They’re doing it because the (correctly) anticipated that fans of the campaign would want it. They’re also releasing a regular edition of the books that will be €30 - €40 each.

Thankfully the organizers of UKGE (and, I would suspect, most other cons) don’t agree with you, and expect GMs to maintain certain standards of decency even for 18+ games.

I believe he has a Kickstarter for a game that’s 4 years late.