When I’ve heard this sort of thing, and I have many times, it is presented more subtly. One GM suggests to another that their world will feel more “realistic” if there’s more misogyny. Or they say something like, “But there weren’t any queer people ‘back then.’” Or they’ll call it “light” fantasy instead of “gritty” with a strong sense of implied hierarchy. As if mature games must include rape, racism, etc.
D&D General worst (real) advice for DMs
- Thread starter GMforPowergamers
- Start date
When I’ve heard this sort of thing, and I have many times, it is presented more subtly. One GM suggests to another that their world will feel more “realistic” if there’s more misogyny. Or they say something like, “But there weren’t any queer people ‘back then.’” Or they’ll call it “light” fantasy instead of “gritty” with a strong sense of implied hierarchy. As if mature games must include rape, racism, etc.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I'd also be shocked if some "old hand" GM somewhere when breaking in a new GM didn't outright say "If you want any authenticity at all" (note how hard that's hit "you need to remember that..." and then dribble out that sort of suggestion. They might even be honestly thinking they're doing a good turn.
I mean, let's be serious, any particular take on how a game can be run can be viewed as, if not a law of nature, "self evidently" the proper way to do things by someone.
Scott Christian
Hero
How about creating a poll and seeing if any of the DMs on here have given advice that says: You need to include rape at your table. I have yet to see a DM propose this, let alone tell another DM. I have yet to see a DM on here give advice to another DM making sure queer people don't exist. I have yet to see any DM on here insist on making sure misogyny exists in other people's games.
Again, it is so full of hyperbole, that it rings untrue. And this one, not a little, but a lot.
Thunderfoot
Hero
One thing to remember, extremists are rarely standing on a pulpit screaming at the top of their lungs their hate. Oh, sure the most infamous ones do, but the majority are more....sly. A little comment here, a remark there. Of course once a person has their mind set, the Mandela Effect can be used to induce thought or situations that haven't really existed.
I have never seen a public declaration of 'homosexuality should never be included because it's historically inaccurate'...but I have 'heard' it said surreptitiously. And that lack of evidence is the point, then its just 'hearsay' versus 'evidence'. Smart in a smarmy, icky, supervillain kind of way.
And at cons... open ears will make your soul sick at times.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I have to point that while its not as--vigorous--in its reaction as Big Purple that I doubt the attitudes going with that would survive long on here. So you're looking at some counterselection. There are any number of things I've seen said in other places that you'd be unlikely to see on here.
jmartkdr2
Hero
And yet it happened. Whether you believe me or not doesn't alter that fact.
Scott Christian
Hero
I have been to enough GenCons, Gamexes, OrcCons, GaryCons, SoCal Smackdowns, StrategiCons, etc. to have heard things that make me ill. Again, my point, I have never heard it as advice. I have never heard another DM tell another DM they should run their game this way.
I will point out something to you and take it for what you will: Maybe it's not all the surreptitiousness and slyness that you think you see. Maybe it is you distilling someone's argument down to a sensational headline, rather than the complete depth of their claims. Just a thought.
Example 1: I have heard some people on here insist that goliaths should be stronger than halflings because of the size and weight differential. I have never seen them tell another DM they should do the same. But in the very next breath, I have heard the opponent of said DM say they obviously have a type of bigotry in their game towards smaller people. Sensational headline formed.
Example 2: I have seen many debates on here about ASIs. One DM wants to keep them. Wants to keep their smart elves and gnomes. They clearly stated others could do what they want. In the same argument, the opponent of said DM hinted at how racist it was for them to keep that rule. Sensational headline #2 formed.
Example 3: I have seen many debates about inherent evil for some races. One DM wants to keep their drow or orcs evil. They never insisted or advised others to do so. In fact, just the opposite. In the same argument, the opponent of said DM didn't hint, just stated they were racists. Sensational headline #3 formed.
These sensational headlines remove the part where the DM wasn't giving advice, but declaring how they run their table. Because that is what this whole thread is about - giving advice. And again, you can tell me all the times you have heard a racist, bigoted, misogynistic blowhard that has their head up you know what saying something while you were eavesdropping, but that doesn't make it advice. Never mind the rarity of it - which I am also willing to argue about. Because it is not nearly as prevalent as what some make it out to be.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I think in general there has been a narrowing across the board of how games ought to be run (at least in online discussions, where gray and nuance evaporate pretty quickly). Ideally if people want to run a game in a way that doesn't deal with things like racism, sexism, etc they can. But also, if people want to include some kind of historical realism for that stuff, they can as well. I think we have wandered into this territory where we have held up 'authenticity' and 'accuracy' (again I think on both divides of the hobby) and too often attribute the worst possible motives for why a designer or a GM might make a particular creative choice when world building (whether that choice is 'racism doesn't exist in my world' or 'this world contains the ugliness of real history in it'). And there will always be people who bring their own terrible ideas to a setting. That can happen too, and it does, but I think most of the time, what I see, are these two sides screaming past one another (and I think I tend to see that screaming past one another because I am pretty comfortable with both approaches).
Swarmkeeper
Hero
Is it not implicit advice to run a game a certain way for people at a Con or game shop/cafe?
Rather than a verbal/written "this is how you do it", it's an actual demonstration of "this is how you do it".
Rather than a verbal/written "this is how you do it", it's an actual demonstration of "this is how you do it".
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
To answer the question seriously, the worst advice I think I came across was like stuff this: "only kill characters when they do something extremely stupid, otherwise fudge to let them survive". There were lots of variations of this over the years. I think it could actually make sense for a certain kind of game. But it seemed to be unexamined and become a default assumption within a lot of the GM advice for a period in the hobby and I found it was one of the chief sources of the game losing its excitement for me as a player.
Similar Threads
