log in or register to remove this ad

 

How to Tell if Your Fun is Wrong

I don’t have a dog in this fight but one of the best games I’ve DM’d was Way of the Wicked by Fire Mountain Games.
<snip bad characters doing bad things>
Who decides what a reasonable person thinks is acceptable?
As others have said, it's not something that can be nailed down simply; that would defeat its purpose. It's a composite of common knowledge, community standards of conduct, the limits of what we expect a typical adult human being to be able to think or do (e.g. we don't expect a typical human adult to be able to see through walls or factor a seventeen-digit number in less than one second, but we do expect them to avoid unnecessary risk and consider alternative courses of action), and other relevant factors. As with many "tests" in legal proceedings, it inherently cannot be pinned down to an explicit formula, because that would create both exploits and overreach.

As for Way of the Wicked:
Were your players on board for the stated premise and accepting of the concept as delivered? It sounds like yes, which means they were engaged.
Were your players there by consent, and able to withdraw or address concerns with reasonable speed as they arose? It sounds like yes, which means they were willing.
Were you and your players treating one another with respect and not deriving joy from causing harm to one another, or other peripheral participants? It sounds like yes, which means they were being (within reason) positive.

Your group roleplayed horrible people doing horrible things. That is, and should be, pretty clearly distinct from using speech or performing actions that apply to real, living people, whether present or not. Such gaming naturally isn't for everyone, in exactly the same way that games with a highly sexual or graphically-violent tone are not for everyone. A reasonable person would be presumed to either be on board (and thus the game is for them), or be able to depart once they realized they weren't on board--and failure to let them do so would be demonstration of at least one of the above things failing to be upheld (positivity, willing consent, sincere engagement).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


TheSword

Legend
As others have said, it's not something that can be nailed down simply; that would defeat its purpose. It's a composite of common knowledge, community standards of conduct, the limits of what we expect a typical adult human being to be able to think or do (e.g. we don't expect a typical human adult to be able to see through walls or factor a seventeen-digit number in less than one second, but we do expect them to avoid unnecessary risk and consider alternative courses of action), and other relevant factors. As with many "tests" in legal proceedings, it inherently cannot be pinned down to an explicit formula, because that would create both exploits and overreach.

As for Way of the Wicked:
Were your players on board for the stated premise and accepting of the concept as delivered? It sounds like yes, which means they were engaged.
Were your players there by consent, and able to withdraw or address concerns with reasonable speed as they arose? It sounds like yes, which means they were willing.
Were you and your players treating one another with respect and not deriving joy from causing harm to one another, or other peripheral participants? It sounds like yes, which means they were being (within reason) positive.

Your group roleplayed horrible people doing horrible things. That is, and should be, pretty clearly distinct from using speech or performing actions that apply to real, living people, whether present or not. Such gaming naturally isn't for everyone, in exactly the same way that games with a highly sexual or graphically-violent tone are not for everyone. A reasonable person would be presumed to either be on board (and thus the game is for them), or be able to depart once they realized they weren't on board--and failure to let them do so would be demonstration of at least one of the above things failing to be upheld (positivity, willing consent, sincere engagement).
Lets set aside the issue of consent. If it’s non-consensual it is by default wrong before you even roll a dice. More interestingly It has already been suggested that irrespective of consent and willing participants, some activities are wrong.

You’re suggestion seems to be if it applies to real living people then it crosses a line. I can think of many many comedians that tell jokes about real people. Is watching them wrong.

Others have suggested that it doesn’t need to be about specific people for it to be wrong. Some things are just plain unacceptable.

My point was that one persons unacceptable is another persons run-of-the-mill. There are tables that wouldn’t enjoy human sacrifice in WotW. Others would take it in their stride. Many people like a villain, and most of us like watching them.

I’m familiar with the idea of the hypothetical reasonable man. I have my law degree too. It’s a good system for establishing what would be reasonably foreseeable for a tort. It’s a terrible way to determine matters of taste. Which is what this really boils down to. Personal taste.
 
Last edited:

Lets set aside the issue of consent. If it’s non-consensual it is by default wrong before you even roll a dice. More interestingly It has already been suggested that irrespective of consent and willing participants, some activities are wrong.
So, you agree, then, that there are certain behaviors one can engage with at the gaming table that are by default wrong, no matter what? Because that was the whole point. If you concede there's at least one, you've given me the only point that matters. Everything else is just enumeration.

You’re suggestion seems to be if it applies to real living people then it crosses a line. I can think of many many comedians that tell jokes about real people. Is watching them wrong.
Comedy and parody are distinct from roleplaying, and should be subject to different limits. But even then, do you not agree that certain kinds of comedy targeting individual people are unacceptable? For example, mocking the habits of the recently-deceased, especially if they died by suicide. Robin Williams comes to mind. Or mocking the struggles of people with mental disabilities, for a different example.

Consider how harmful, and coercive, the "oh lighten up"/"if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"/"god, such a prude, where's your sense of humor" defense is. That is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Others have suggested that it doesn’t need to be about specific people for it to be wrong. Some things are just plain unacceptable.
I mean, yes? Imagine telling jokes using racial epithets at the table. That's hardly going to be an acceptable thing...pretty much anywhere. Again, this is why we have a "reasonable person" standard, instead of laying out a laundry list of unacceptable things. No list can ever be absolutely perfect, and no matter how much work you put into the list, SOME people SOMEWHERE are GOING to game it to hell and back, whether "dancing on the line" type or "hah, I can censor you because what you said technically violates the letter of the rule!" type.

My point was that one persons unacceptable is another persons run-of-the-mill. There are tables that wouldn’t enjoy human sacrifice in WotW. Others would take it in their stride. Many people like a villain, and most of us like watching them.
Again, I don't think this is the case. For many things, yes, certainly. But some things really are beyond the pale in almost all circumstances. I mean, you yourself just said that coercing people into playing something is verboten in all cases; you admit there's at least one behavior that is genuinely unacceptable at ALL tables, no matter what. If there's at least one, you can't argue that for all things, some tables would accept it and other tables wouldn't. There could be others.

I’m familiar with the idea of the hypothetical reasonable man. I have my law degree too. It’s a good system for establishing what would be reasonably foreseeable for a tort. It’s a terrible way to determine matters of taste. Which is what this really boils down to. Personal taste.
And if this were about matters of taste, I agree. But it's not. Using racist epithets to speak about your actual, living friends is not a matter of taste--especially if you don't have any (figurative or literal) skin in the game, so to speak. Perpetuating harmful stereotypes--like Pathfinder's Vistani, who were pretty blatantly written with every harmful stereotype of Roma people--is, some argue, another such thing that is not a matter of taste, but rather a general behavior that isn't acceptable: being actually harmful toward real people.
 

TheSword

Legend
So, you agree, then, that there are certain behaviors one can engage with at the gaming table that are by default wrong, no matter what? Because that was the whole point. If you concede there's at least one, you've given me the only point that matters. Everything else is just enumeration.


Comedy and parody are distinct from roleplaying, and should be subject to different limits. But even then, do you not agree that certain kinds of comedy targeting individual people are unacceptable? For example, mocking the habits of the recently-deceased, especially if they died by suicide. Robin Williams comes to mind. Or mocking the struggles of people with mental disabilities, for a different example.

Consider how harmful, and coercive, the "oh lighten up"/"if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"/"god, such a prude, where's your sense of humor" defense is. That is the kind of thing I'm talking about.


I mean, yes? Imagine telling jokes using racial epithets at the table. That's hardly going to be an acceptable thing...pretty much anywhere. Again, this is why we have a "reasonable person" standard, instead of laying out a laundry list of unacceptable things. No list can ever be absolutely perfect, and no matter how much work you put into the list, SOME people SOMEWHERE are GOING to game it to hell and back, whether "dancing on the line" type or "hah, I can censor you because what you said technically violates the letter of the rule!" type.


Again, I don't think this is the case. For many things, yes, certainly. But some things really are beyond the pale in almost all circumstances. I mean, you yourself just said that coercing people into playing something is verboten in all cases; you admit there's at least one behavior that is genuinely unacceptable at ALL tables, no matter what. If there's at least one, you can't argue that for all things, some tables would accept it and other tables wouldn't. There could be others.


And if this were about matters of taste, I agree. But it's not. Using racist epithets to speak about your actual, living friends is not a matter of taste--especially if you don't have any (figurative or literal) skin in the game, so to speak. Perpetuating harmful stereotypes--like Pathfinder's Vistani, who were pretty blatantly written with every harmful stereotype of Roma people--is, some argue, another such thing that is not a matter of taste, but rather a general behavior that isn't acceptable: being actually harmful toward real people.
Whether something is offensive or not, is exactly what taste is about. Let’s be clear, talking about what WOC publishes, or what happens in a game store or convention is easy. Those are public affairs... what happens at someone’s kitchen table isn’t so easy.

There are many comedians that push boundaries along taste and decency. If you go to a three comedian billed comedy club with a MC in any given city in England, I guarantee at least one of them will tell a joke that you wouldn’t repeat. There are many jokes that I would find distasteful. Then again I recognize that I shouldn’t be the person who decides if they get told or not.

The problem with the average man on the clapham omnibus being the person who decides what is acceptable taste or not is that if that were the case Queer as Folk wouldn’t have been scheduled on TV in the mid 90’s and Graham Norton wouldn’t have been allowed to present a major TV show then. Because the average man on the bus in the 90’s thought open homosexuality was distasteful.

These things work both ways.

I’m not saying there aren’t things that I would horrified to see presented in a game. I just don’t think deciding what they are is as simple as some people on here suggest. The price of free speech, is that you sometimes have to put up with some things you don’t like.

At that point we’re back to consent, and choosing who you play with.
 


Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
First off, I want to make it clear, fun cannot be wrong unless it is directly at the expense of someone else. This is true for D&D playstyles, and every other situation where the intent is to have fun. Futhermore, as D&D is a game, where the intent is to have fun, this means that there is no wrong way to play D&D if everyone at the table is having fun, and they are not directly harming anyone outside of the table, no matter how abnormal their playstyle may seem to you.
I'm good with this if you move one threshold. D&D is a team game. "Harm ye none" is not quite good enough. A player that does not add at all to the fun of other players, such that the others would have more fun without them there because (a) they add nothing and (b) everyone else aren't splitting their attention to give that person fun, then they are still doing the game wrong.

It is the responsibility of everyone at the table to contribute to the fun of others.
 

I'm good with this if you move one threshold. D&D is a team game. "Harm ye none" is not quite good enough. A player that does not add at all to the fun of other players, such that the others would have more fun without them there because (a) they add nothing and (b) everyone else aren't splitting their attention to give that person fun, then they are still doing the game wrong.

It is the responsibility of everyone at the table to contribute to the fun of others.
Yes, I agree completely. If one player isn't contributing to the fun, or is taking away from the fun (typically because of different playstyles or problematic behavior), it is the responsibility of the player causing this issue to find a group that is better suited for them. If they can't find another group, and the original group is willing, a compromise would be necessary to make sure everyone is still having fun and contributing to the overall fun of the game.
 

GrahamWills

Adventurer
The definition of direct harm was probably poorly defined in the OP, which is my bad. What I would define as "direct harm" is real harm and indirect harm would be imagined harm ...
If others assumed "direct" and "indirect" to be "at the table" and "not at the table", that's my bad, and definitely not what I intended to say. Does this clear things up? I am aware of how the definition is a bit iffy, but this is more a case of "you know it when you see it" than "strict, always objectively true signs".
yes that cleared it up -- I did have that misconception of your intent, so thanks for the clarification! And I completely agree with the looser definition; hard and fast rules for "what causes people pain" doesn't seem a reasonable thing to expect.

With your clarification in mind, I'd say your your distinction between "real" and "imagined" harm is close enough to my statement that a "a reasonable person would be harmed". If only unreasonable people would be harmed, the harm would not seem real; and vice versa, so I think we're in good agreement.
 

GrahamWills

Adventurer
The problem with the average man on the clapham omnibus being the person who decides what is acceptable taste or not is that if that were the case Queer as Folk wouldn’t have been scheduled on TV in the mid 90’s and Graham Norton wouldn’t have been allowed to present a major TV show then. Because the average man on the bus in the 90’s thought open homosexuality was distasteful.
Although you raise an important point on what is "tasteful" or offensive, this is not actually what we are talking about. There is a big difference between "in bad taste" and "causing real hurt to others" which is what we are discussing as the unacceptable limit of fun in a game.

Queer as Folk is an excellent talking point. I believe it first aired at the end of the 90's rather than the mid, but that's beside then point. As far as I can see from reviews and commentary from the time, the average person actually quite liked it, but again, the question of "taste" is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is "did it cause hurt?" and, since it portrayed the gay community, it's interesting to see that the reactions from them were mixed. Some felt it was great to see their culture portrayed that way, others that it showed "ridiculous and dangerous stereotypes". I can't speak to what the average gay UK person would have felt as I'm not a member of that community, but it doesn't appear from my reading that they were definitively hurt by it. But I'm quite willing to believe I'm totally wrong, and if they were hurt by it, then yeah, its would have been better to have done it differently.

I understand that you are trying to frame "badness" in roleplaying games as purely a matter of taste, but I'm not aligned with that way of thinking. I agree with you that judging taste by a "reasonable man" criterion would be quite dodgy, and maybe I am an optimist, but I think most people are capable of saying "that is awful, in bad taste and I hate it, but it doesn't actually hurt anyone so I guess ... go ahead", and so I'm good with a group consensus on what can cause hurt. Yeah, it can fail, and I'm sure people can bring up examples, but it seems a better plan than saying that we're not even going to try.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Although you raise an important point on what is "tasteful" or offensive, this is not actually what we are talking about. There is a big difference between "in bad taste" and "causing real hurt to others" which is what we are discussing as the unacceptable limit of fun in a game.
What is "real hurt"?

Queer as Folk is an excellent talking point. I believe it first aired at the end of the 90's rather than the mid, but that's beside then point. As far as I can see from reviews and commentary from the time, the average person actually quite liked it, but again, the question of "taste" is not relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is "did it cause hurt?" and, since it portrayed the gay community, it's interesting to see that the reactions from them were mixed. Some felt it was great to see their culture portrayed that way, others that it showed "ridiculous and dangerous stereotypes". I can't speak to what the average gay UK person would have felt as I'm not a member of that community, but it doesn't appear from my reading that they were definitively hurt by it. But I'm quite willing to believe I'm totally wrong, and if they were hurt by it, then yeah, its would have been better to have done it differently.
I'm steering clear of the non-D&D landmines as I can't really discuss topics like that here.

I understand that you are trying to frame "badness" in roleplaying games as purely a matter of taste, but I'm not aligned with that way of thinking. I agree with you that judging taste by a "reasonable man" criterion would be quite dodgy, and maybe I am an optimist, but I think most people are capable of saying "that is awful, in bad taste and I hate it, but it doesn't actually hurt anyone so I guess ... go ahead", and so I'm good with a group consensus on what can cause hurt. Yeah, it can fail, and I'm sure people can bring up examples, but it seems a better plan than saying that we're not even going to try.
IMO. Hurt is at an individual level and not group level. A group cannot tell an individual if something hurt them (outside logical inconsistencies). At best the group can say whether something 'should' have hurt the individual.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
With your clarification in mind, I'd say your your distinction between "real" and "imagined" harm is close enough to my statement that a "a reasonable person would be harmed". If only unreasonable people would be harmed, the harm would not seem real; and vice versa, so I think we're in good agreement.
For what it's worth I think your definition of unreasonable people being harmed is much more accurate than talking about imagined harm.
 

What is "real hurt"?
I'm going to guess "harm/hurt that is real" (as in not imagined or falsely claimed).
IMO. Hurt is at an individual level and not group level. A group cannot tell an individual if something hurt them (outside logical inconsistencies). At best the group can say whether something 'should' have hurt the individual.
For what it's worth I think your definition of unreasonable people being harmed is much more accurate than talking about imagined harm.
I don't think @GrahamWills ever suggested that harm was a group experience (though certain groups are more inclined to be offended by different things than other groups). Harm is an individual experience, but there is true harm and false harm (most often red herrings meant to distract others/draw attention). Like I said earlier in this thread, if someone was offended by the inclusion/lack of the Tortle race in anyone else's D&D campaign that they have no connection to, that would be imagined harm, and so on. It is a matter of reasonable reactions being "true harm" and unreasonable reactions being "false/imagined harm".
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I'm going to guess "harm/hurt that is real" (as in not imagined or falsely claimed).
Then your definitions are tautological which isn't really a meaningful response to my question IMO.

I don't think @GrahamWills ever suggested that harm was a group experience (though certain groups are more inclined to be offended by different things than other groups).
Great!

Harm is an individual experience, but there is true harm and false harm (most often red herrings meant to distract others/draw attention).
What is true harm? What is false harm? Please no tautologies.

Like I said earlier in this thread, if someone was offended by the inclusion/lack of the Tortle race in anyone else's D&D campaign that they have no connection to, that would be imagined harm, and so on.
How can you make that claim absent any other context? The Tortle race could have been included or excluded from any campaign for any reason. IMO something otherwise innocuous might be done with evil intent and if so then could proceed to cause harm. When people want to do something wrong they often look for such loopholes to create reasonable justification for their actions.

It is a matter of reasonable reactions being "true harm" and unreasonable reactions being "false/imagined harm".
That's a definition I strongly disagree with. An extreme example: PTSD. A reasonable reaction to fireworks isn't the reaction of someone with severe PTSD. That situation is harming said individual and possibly even those around them even though that harm is entirely due to innermost workings of their mind.

I think there is a real psychological aspect to harm that cannot simply be chalked up to being false or imagined even though it can cause 'unreasonable reactions'
 
Last edited:

MGibster

Legend
There are games that deal with some pretty uncomfortable subjects. In Vampire 5th edition, the PCs are predators and their prey are humans. And no matter how "nice" they are, there's always a risk that they will emotionally or physically harm the mortals that mean the most to them. One of the viable hunting methods for a PC is to put the magical whammy on someone and sleep with them while draining a bit of the blood for yourself. i.e. The character is essentially a serial rapist.

Obviously if someone at the table is uncomfortable with abusive relationships or that kind of character then you don't include it at the table. (Though abusive relationships are a core part of the mechanics so I'd suggest the group finds a different game to play.) But if such things are within the comfort zone of all players is there any real harm being done?
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
There are games that deal with some pretty uncomfortable subjects. In Vampire 5th edition, the PCs are predators and their prey are humans. And no matter how "nice" they are, there's always a risk that they will emotionally or physically harm the mortals that mean the most to them. One of the viable hunting methods for a PC is to put the magical whammy on someone and sleep with them while draining a bit of the blood for yourself. i.e. The character is essentially a serial rapist.

Obviously if someone at the table is uncomfortable with abusive relationships or that kind of character then you don't include it at the table. (Though abusive relationships are a core part of the mechanics so I'd suggest the group finds a different game to play.) But if such things are within the comfort zone of all players is there any real harm being done?

Can something we are all 'comfortable' with harm us? IMO Maybe. It's hard to say the psychological toll a thing takes on someone.
 

Whether something is offensive or not, is exactly what taste is about. Let’s be clear, talking about what WOC publishes, or what happens in a game store or convention is easy. Those are public affairs... what happens at someone’s kitchen table isn’t so easy.
You may notice, I never used the word "offensive" or "offense." Neither in the post you quoted, nor in any previous post in this thread. There's a reason for that.

And yes, I certainly agree that behavior in different spaces has different standards. That's why you use a "reasonable person" standard. Because a reasonable person knows that things you can say to your lover are not completely the same as things you can say to your boss, neither of which is completely the same as what you can say to your grandmother, all three of which are not the same as what you can say on national television. Reasonable people understand that community standards depend on which community you look at.

There are many comedians that push boundaries along taste and decency. If you go to a three comedian billed comedy club with a MC in any given city in England, I guarantee at least one of them will tell a joke that you wouldn’t repeat. There are many jokes that I would find distasteful. Then again I recognize that I shouldn’t be the person who decides if they get told or not.
Completely agreed! That's why we use this abstracted "reasonable person," not the specific interests of specific people. Because specific people don't necessarily fit in all places. But even your own examples now work against you; did you not just say that "public affairs" pretty clearly hew to a higher standard than private ones? Isn't a comedy show at a public venue--one where the comedians intend to make money--a public affair?

The problem with the average man on the clapham omnibus being the person who decides what is acceptable taste or not is that if that were the case Queer as Folk wouldn’t have been scheduled on TV in the mid 90’s and Graham Norton wouldn’t have been allowed to present a major TV show then. Because the average man on the bus in the 90’s thought open homosexuality was distasteful.
Again you focus on "distasteful" and "offensive." I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about what a reasonable person would think causes harm. The two are different. And there's also a reason I didn't use a "man on the street" either; I completely agree that the average person might be insensitive where a reasonable person would not. You shouldn't assume the average person is reasonable. And, again, you may note that I did not use the word "average." There is a reason I chose not to.

I’m not saying there aren’t things that I would horrified to see presented in a game. I just don’t think deciding what they are is as simple as some people on here suggest. The price of free speech, is that you sometimes have to put up with some things you don’t like.

At that point we’re back to consent, and choosing who you play with.
So....I'm really not sure where we've gone with this digression, then. You agree that intentionally causing harm--which I specifically called "insulting," "belittling," "shaming," and "demeaning," with the hope that that would clearly specify the kinds of harm I'm talking about--to your players is Obviously Bad. It frankly sounds like you just want to have a fight over whether "don't say things a reasonable person would find harmful" means censorship of gaming opportunities.

Don't tell people what kinds of roleplaying are okay for them. If they're having fun, it is presumptively okay, UNLESS it's exploitative, coercive, or insulting to the participants themselves. Is that good enough? Have I cleared your hurdles yet?

Not at my table. :)
I mean, fair, but I hope you agree that "a stand-up comedian telling jokes to an audience" and "my gaming group talking just amongst ourselves" can, should, and do have different standards for good reasons. There are things you can say in one of those that you should never say in the other, assuming of course that the people involved are reasonable.

What is "real hurt"?
What's a "line"? What's a "point"?

You're asking for definitions of fundamental concepts. There won't be a non-circular definition. The best you can do is provide examples, which is what I tried to do.

Real hurt is when you say something insulting, belittling, shaming, or demeaning to the actual participants, peripheral participants (e.g. making a crack about "queers" in the presence of the DM's gay brother), or living persons

But of course, again, this is you forcing a sterile, formal, nailed-down-to-the-letter definition, which defeats the purpose of the test. "Real harm" is what we recognize real harm to be.

IMO. Hurt is at an individual level and not group level. A group cannot tell an individual if something hurt them (outside logical inconsistencies). At best the group can say whether something 'should' have hurt the individual.
And when you have hurts repeated, across an enormous variety of circumstances, with victims of a clearly definable class, such as an ethnic group, sexual orientation, or religious/philosophical affiliation?

Harm directed like a firehose at anyone who might be nearby is still harm. It's just not totally the same as personal harm. It's the difference between a bullet and a grenade; the former has a name on it, the latter is addressed "to whom it may concern." That's what "group harm" almost always cashes out as, casual attacks on whole classes of people, some of whom will (almost without fail) end up hurt. Addressing these systematic and pervasive things is extremely difficult, especially while also respecting fundamental rights, as you have well demonstrated.

Can something we are all 'comfortable' with harm us? IMO Maybe. It's hard to say the psychological toll a thing takes on someone.
This is fair, and gets to the heart of a difficult question: is there such a thing as coercion sufficiently subtle that it is not noticed, but is still coercive? If the answer is "yes," then even so-called "enthusiastic consent" may not be reliable, at which point we seem to have no ability to have confidence in interpersonal relations of any kind. If we say the answer is "no" when it is really "yes," then we are blindly ignoring a serious and insidious problem. If we say it's "yes" when it's actually "no," we have marooned ourselves for no reason.

But, at least for the time being, the most useful answer is to say "no, it's not possible for something every participant is 'comfortable' with to cause harm, as long as you confirm that status reasonably often." As with all relationships, this depends on shared trust, forthright (and frequent) communication, and mutual respect.
 

TheSword

Legend
Don't tell people what kinds of roleplaying are okay for them. If they're having fun, it is presumptively okay, UNLESS it's exploitative, coercive, or insulting to the participants themselves. Is that good enough? Have I cleared your hurdles yet?

I wasn’t trying to put hurdles. I was just commenting in the context that some posters believe there are topics that are badwrongfun irrespective of table consent.

It sounds like we agree. Though I would have thought it was obvious that exploitating, coercing or insulting your table was a bad idea.

Edit: My comments were in context from this thought from @GrahamWills

Overall, I’d just drop any qualifiers and say that you if your game was viewed by any reasonable person, and it would cause them pain, it‘s bad/wrong. I understand that “reasonable” is very much left up to debate, but there’s no way to get around that issue. Precedence and sound judgement need to be your guide.”
 
Last edited:

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Way of the wicked wasn’t 50 years ago. It was six or seven years ago.

It also wasn't critically acclaimed in nearly the same way as Gone With The Wind. Or, at all, really. Way of the WIcked was generally panned as a film when it came out, much less today.

Oh, you mean as a game product? Never even heard of it... so not nearly as acclaimed as Gone With the Wind, which is at least a household name :p
 

Nothing done at a roleplaying gaming table should be judged by any other standards or criteria than "Do all the players in that game agree to it."
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top