"All halflings are heterosexual."

[Driddle]

(Flex, I fixed my last line. Revised judgment call.)

 

[Mystery Man]

I don't ban anything because for some reason there is a sign on my forehead the only my players can see that says "Please treat any and all of his opinions/comments/rules with a smartass reply of any kind at any opportunity."

 

[Arnwyn]

No one with a high Charisma modifier ever expresses an interest in manipulating an admirer? Sharing backstory love interests over the campfire never comes up? No one has ever been motivated to seek revenge because goblins killed a spouse?

Nope. We're more interested in the myriad of other adventure opportunities that don't involve sexuality.

Seems very strict. And to me, boring.

No doubt some would dislike our game. And that's a good thing - since they wouldn't be invited anyways.

 

[Rackhir]

Dude, c'mon. Sepulchrave's Story Hour (which I know you read). The entire Story Hour and all its events have snowballed out from a single turning point that had a whole lot to do with a paladin's sexuality. Would things have gotten to where they have if Eadric were gay? Or if his player and Sepulchrave had felt that romantic subplots had no place at the gaming table?

The sexuality of characters is pretty relevant to the games I tend to run and be involved in, because romantic subplots are frequently as important (or even more so) than subplots about wealth, revenge, piety, patriotism or the other various reasons characters have to go on adventures. This is not true of all characters, mind — they tend to be as varied as people, and some characters are basically uninterested in the whole romantic/sexual thing. Most often the romantic subplots tend to play out over email or away from the gaming table proper, but that's more for practical considerations like maximizing group gaming time than anything else. I certainly agree that I wouldn't want to play out a romantic subplot with some of the gamers out there, the ones that thrive on shock value or immaturity — but I don't want to game with those guys no matter the subject matter.

Then say, "Sexual orientation plays no role in my game." Don't single out gays as being somehow "about sex" and heterosexuals as not.

The Spectrum Rider

If you are making an issue out of the point then you are dragging sex into it. Most D&D campaigns are not about going out and getting laid. I don't feel compelled to make an issue of the sexuality of my characters, because sex isn't the focus of the campaign.

The reason why bringing up homosexuality tends to be interpreted as being "about sex", is that sex is the difference between the straight and gay. If sex is not going to be the primary focus of things, then its not an important issue. I'm not saying that it's something you have to hide in the closet, but it isn't significantly more important than the characters hair color or handedness.

If some romantic entanglement comes up well that a RPing issue not a gaming issue. I was not saying that romantic entanglements have no place or effect on a campaign. That would be silly. My point about that and the XXX/Adult stuff, is that unless you are going to get into the mechanics of the sex act, there are no functional differences between courting a man or a woman. There are certainly RPing differences, but unless you plan on getting into the details of what happens once one beefcake fighter seduces the other beefcake fighter it doesn't really matter.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I just thought of something; maybe the DM was detailing the racial societies based on their respective progenator deities. Halflings, being the creation of Yondalla, would have a very community-based society and instinctive urges related to strong families and fertility; Moradin perhaps made the dwarves fairly rigidly in his own image (I think he's got a wife); Garl Glittergold might have made gnomes, *ahem* adventurous in this regard, etc. If so, it'd be perfectly reasonable for all halflings to be heterosexual.

 

[barsoomcore]

I honestly couldn't imagine running a game in which romantic/sexual interactions played no part. People get attracted to each other. Sometimes it's a big deal, sometimes it's not. It's certainly not anything that makes the various people I play with uncomfortable. I mean, yeah, if I start actually macking on one of my players it might make my group uncomfortable (especially my wife), but if I say, "The priestess is giving you a bit of an eye. You think she might be interested in you." -- then maybe something interesting will happen out of that.

Characters on Barsoom have fallen in love, been pursued by ardent suitors, been asked flat-out for sex, been rejected, been hated, all sorts of stuff. It's a big part of the story. It's not some weird uncomfortable thing, nor is some kind of adolescent "getting off" -- it's just making up a story. Sometimes you're killing things, sometimes you're trying to talk your way out of an awkward situation.

We're grown-ups. It's not that big a deal, one way or the other.

 

[Driddle]

Maybe the DM was detailing the racial societies based on their respective progenator deities. Halflings, being the creation of Yondalla, would have a very community-based society and instinctive urges related to strong families and fertility...

Careful there, JQ. You almost imply that paired halfling women couldn't have a "strong family."

Fertility? Maybe an issue in your example. But not what constitutes a "family."

 

[Driddle]

I keep playing the original scene over in my head (my first post on the thread), and I just can't think of a single good reason for a DM to issue such a campaign rule. Not one.

If the issue is important to a player -- for whatever reason -- then a good DM will work around it. He can downplay the opportunities for relationships, he can omit social scenes, he can even remind the players that the game won't dwell on "adult" interactions (i.e. bedroom scenes). But prohibiting a sexual orientation is akin to ruling out hair or eye color, or variations in height, or speech patterns. The question keeps coming back to me, "Would It Really Make A Difference?"

 

[fusangite]

If the issue is important to a player -- for whatever reason -- then a good DM will work around it.

You are assuming that the DM's responsibility is to this one player and not to the group as a whole. I don't see a whole lot of point in creating a gaming group where one player has a particular playing style and set of interests not shared by the others; it is a recipe for neither the majority nor the minority being happy.

You seem to be assuming that the DM was making this ruling as an aspect of defining the world in which the PCs were situated. I would suggest that an alternative interpretation here is "If exploring issues of sexuality is an important thing in your enjoyment of D&D, perhaps another group would be more to your tastes."

He can downplay the opportunities for relationships, he can omit social scenes, he can even remind the players that the game won't dwell on "adult" interactions (i.e. bedroom scenes).

I suppose the GM could spend his and his other players' time on thwarting the agenda of one particular player. Or, in the alternative, he could indicate to the player from the outset that he had no interest in occupying any of his time or that of his players on a project that was not of interest to them.

But prohibiting a sexual orientation is akin to ruling out hair or eye color

If I were running a game set in an African or Asian-style setting you can bet I would prohibit blonde and red hair. And if a player was willing to quit over me not allowing him to have hair that clashed with the setting, I and the rest of my group would see this departure as a positive development.

So, great example Driddle! If you care about setting in the way that I do, you're far more likely to prohibit particular hair colours that particular sexual orientations.

The question keeps coming back to me, "Would It Really Make A Difference?"

This statement could be equally applied to the player. If it weren't going to make a difference, why would she insist on it?

 

[Arnwyn]

I keep playing the original scene over in my head (my first post on the thread), and I just can't think of a single good reason for a DM to issue such a campaign rule. Not one.

*shrug* Because it makes that DM uncomfortable (for whatever reason), or that DM really is a homophobe? Call him/her whatever you want, those are his/her feelings... People are people, and everyone has different feelings on particular issues, whether they're rational/legitimate or not. Anyone who would consider it an issue just isn't a good fit with that DM.