What will you not allow?

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by ericthered

I ban common sense, but in many ways that's because I give to it all players for free: a player doing something obviously stupid is a good sign I haven't explained the situation properly.

That's fair - especially where you have player/setting dissonance (like a player who has accidentally imported a modern attitude into a historical setting and is about to get themselves killed).

Originally Posted by ericthered

The Merchant can extract an unfavorable trade from the Quartermaster, and the Quartermaster is allowed to undermine the Praetor and twist his orders, but if they end up on opposite sides of a civil war they have "Lost" the game.

... is your campaign Romanesque? Because if you happen to be using "aedile" as an alternative title for GM...

Originally Posted by ericthered

I run "fade to black" on sex scenes.

...and that resolves the previous worry. ;-). Again, sensible ... RPing that sort of thing is liable to get squicky quickly.


(for reference - as it may be thankfully obscure - the only game in which "aedile" is used to mean "GM" ... and so might have other Romanesque titles in it ... is FATAL. It's not pleasant.)

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

... is your campaign Romanesque? Because if you happen to be using "aedile" as an alternative title for GM...

(for reference - as it may be thankfully obscure - the only game in which "aedile" is used to mean "GM" ... and so might have other Romanesque titles in it ... is FATAL. It's not pleasant.)

Never touched FATAL, never will.

Yes, the current campaign is a republican era roman town bane-stormed in a fantasy world. The Praetor is literally a Praetor. and Aedile is a terrible name for a GM, unless you're playing a gladiatorial game.

[AlexanderHowl]

Yes, fading to black is something that I often do because it is boring to describe sex scenes. Contrary to popular belief, normal sex is terribly boring to watch, it is just the prevalence of erotica and pornography that makes people think that it would be interesting to watch normal sex. I would much rather spend the hour that I would have used for a sex scene to engage in something productive for the group.

[Bruno]

I've seen people use cross-playing as an excuse to be terrible. The problem in this case isn't cross-playing, it's being terrible.

Not surprisingly, I ban being terrible at my table. Doesn't matter if you do this via game mechanics, character background, character in-game actions, OOC table talk, smoking indoors, or by failing to shower before the game session.

Having a face-to-face group with a large percentage of GMs, we've all played people of mismatching genders and sexes (never mind species!). Any sort of dissonance wore off for us a long time ago, if anyone in our group suffered it to begin with.

People creating a cross-gendered PC in order to have a character under their total control to act like their porn-fantasy ideal mate in a game where it's totally not supposed to be porn-fantasy is squicky and terrible.
People creating a cross-gendered PC in order to pursue the PC of an (uninterested) player they have IRL feelings over is annoying, squicky, and terrible.
People creating a cross-gendered PC in order to just plain old make another player feel uncomfortable is terrible and involves being deliberately squicky.

It's just easier to ban being terrible.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've seen people use cross-playing as an excuse to be terrible. The problem in this case isn't cross-playing, it's being terrible.

Not surprisingly, I ban being terrible at my table. Doesn't matter if you do this via game mechanics, character background, character in-game actions, OOC table talk, smoking indoors, or by failing to shower before the game session.....

+1, totally agree

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Bruno

The problem in this case isn't cross-playing, it's being terrible.

Not surprisingly, I ban being terrible at my table. Doesn't matter if you do this via game mechanics, character background, character in-game actions, OOC table talk, smoking indoors, or by failing to shower before the game session.

Exactly. I've never noticed people playing characters of another sex or gender identity being a special problem area. The sort of person who turns that into a problem is the problem, so I ban the person. Or in theory I do . . . I've never had anybody do anything like:

Originally Posted by Bruno

[...] creating a cross-gendered PC in order to have a character under their total control to act like their porn-fantasy ideal mate in a game where it's totally not supposed to be porn-fantasy [...]
[...] creating a cross-gendered PC in order to pursue the PC of an (uninterested) player they have IRL feelings over [...]
[...] creating a cross-gendered PC in order to just plain old make another player feel uncomfortable [...]

I guess it happens, but I don't associate with creeps in my day-to-day life, so why would I invite them to my game?

I suppose this is just another reason for my "I game only with people who are also my friends outside of gaming" policy. Convincing a non-gaming friend to try gaming is far preferable to playing with an experienced gamer who isn't my friend and who may harbor an unpleasant personality. Teaching a new hobby to someone I like is a pleasure; dealing with a seasoned hobbyist I can't like is a chore. This is a social activity, not a job posting, so I don't have to choose based on experience; I can make it completely, 100% personal and feel good about it.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Yes, fading to black is something that I often do because it is boring to describe sex scenes. Contrary to popular belief, normal sex is terribly boring to watch, it is just the prevalence of erotica and pornography that makes people think that it would be interesting to watch normal sex. I would much rather spend the hour that I would have used for a sex scene to engage in something productive for the group.

Yes, but in exactly the same way, combat is boring to watch. If people are fighting just to be fighting, and the combat doesn't reveal or test character, or serve some goal, or reflect a relationship, it's just dull repetition, reflected mechanically by tedious dice rolling, over and over. And yet many players enjoy having combat scenes; I remember the old D&D convention of the "wandering monster" that existed solely to let players characters get into fights, usually entirely meaningless.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I suppose this is just another reason for my "I game only with people who are also my friends outside of gaming" policy. Convincing a non-gaming friend to try gaming is far preferable to playing with an experienced gamer who isn't my friend and who may harbor an unpleasant personality. Teaching a new hobby to someone I like is a pleasure; dealing with a seasoned hobbyist I can't like is a chore. This is a social activity, not a job posting, so I don't have to choose based on experience; I can make it completely, 100% personal and feel good about it.

That was mostly but not entirely my policy down in San Diego; I did have several people who knew of me via these discussion groups and got in touch with me when they had access to San Diego, and I usually invited them to sit in on a game and see if it looked like the style they wanted to play in.

But when I moved to Riverside, I didn't really have any friends, and I'm not socially outgoing enough to make them quickly. So being invited to a local gaming club gave me a chance to put together a player group, and try running games for them. And happily, it's working out better than I hoped, as far as quality of play is concerned. On the other hand, I find it worthwhile to go down to San Diego every couple of months and run a long session for one of my old player groups!

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Exactly. I've never noticed people playing characters of another sex or gender identity being a special problem area. The sort of person who turns that into a problem is the problem, so I ban the person. Or in theory I do . . . I've never had anybody do anything like:I guess it happens, but I don't associate with creeps in my day-to-day life, so why would I invite them to my game?

I suppose this is just another reason for my "I game only with people who are also my friends outside of gaming" policy. Convincing a non-gaming friend to try gaming is far preferable to playing with an experienced gamer who isn't my friend and who may harbor an unpleasant personality. Teaching a new hobby to someone I like is a pleasure; dealing with a seasoned hobbyist I can't like is a chore. This is a social activity, not a job posting, so I don't have to choose based on experience; I can make it completely, 100% personal and feel good about it.

Yeah given the various horror stories I've heard down the years, I am very grateful that not only do I have a long standing group, but that they are mates first and my RPG group second.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Yes, but in exactly the same way, combat is boring to watch. If people are fighting just to be fighting, and the combat doesn't reveal or test character, or serve some goal, or reflect a relationship, it's just dull repetition, reflected mechanically by tedious dice rolling, over and over. And yet many players enjoy having combat scenes; I remember the old D&D convention of the "wandering monster" that existed solely to let players characters get into fights, usually entirely meaningless.

By my information that's a total misrepresentation of the design purpose of the wandering monster. Wandering monsters put time pressure on the expedition, by throwing periodic unrewarding, resource-consuming fights at the party.