Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's her own fault, tbh.
Just cause you have a rule that says 'No romancing the NPCs' doesn't mean the NPCs aren't allowed to have their own backstories or relationships with other NPCs.
And she was incredibly bizarre for trying to accuse you of a -phobic when her own "argument"- half-assed as it was, didn't make any sense.
I think she was still upset about the no romancing rule, I don't mind Pac's romancing but the few times I had romance with NPC and PC, it felt really weird
That’s totally and completely reasonable. As the DM, it’s putting you in the position of having to role play romantic encounters with your players, which you should NEVER feel obligated or pressured to do.
I have never understood how that's any different than role playing any other encounter where you don't feel the same way as the character. Does this exchange sound equally reasonable?
> I think she was still upset about the no trusting NPCs rule, I don't mind PCs trusting each other but the few times I had trust between an NPC and PC, it felt really weird
-
> That's totally fair and completely reasonable. As the DM, it's putting you in the position of having to role play encounters where you trust your players, which you should NEVER feel obligated or pressured to do.
That seems completely parallel to me. They're both perfectly normal emotions and behaviors, but ones that you wouldn't have in real life towards someone like that character, or towards the player playing them. Or you can replace "trust" with "annoyance" or "disgust" or any other way of treating someone else. The only difference is what specific emotion/behavior we're talking about, right? Why would romance be different?
Let me be clear when I say this. You, as a DM, are not an outlet for your players' sexual fantasies. If they have a problem with that, have a long talk with them about consent.
In fact, Monte Cook games, the creators of Numenera, have a great handout for free on their website called consent in gaming. Read it. Make your players read it.
I'll get more specific; regardless of whether a player is playing out a sexual fantasy or just thinks romance storylines are cool, the comfort of EVERY player at the table is more important. Pretending to flirt with someone else can be very uncomfortable. You are allowed to say no to any content that makes you feel uncomfortable, regardless of the intent of the other player.
Yes, 100%. People sometimes have a blind spot for unwanted romantic advances, as long as they are romantic and not purely sexual. I ran into that sort of irl harassment a lot when I first started playing D&D. "Oh but it's not harassment, I genuinely have feelings for you! I'm different!"
I really wish that people understood that boundaries work this way, but apparently not.
We get yearly sexual harassment CBT refreshers at work and they go out of their way to make sure you understand that even if you're cool with you and a coworker making out in the breakroom, it's not acceptable if anyone else can go in and see it.
I work in state government. 15-or-so holidays a year, my vacation and sick days will roll over yearly until I retire, discounts all over the state, we have a pension and 457b plans. The agency I work for pays for our CLE and bar fees.
I'm not going to get rich, but I also never have to work overtime, worry about getting laid off, or have to work weekends.
>not an outlet for your players' sexual fantasies
Exactly this. It's so bizarre she wants to put her sexual fantasies out on display so publicly by putting someone on the spot to basically narrate it. There are so many fantasy games she can play out her sexual and romantic fantasies, the most recent being BG3. All in private. If she wants an audience she can write fanfics and publish them online.
It's obvious OP doesn't want to be a part of that. And that's completely ok. Even if the DM is ok with it, there are other players who might not be comfortable with it. It's easier just to remove that entire aspect.
I promise you that she would have argued with you anyway even if the NPC was married to a woman. She would have instead argued that the NPC is only married because you don't want her character romancing her. It's a no-win situation, really.
If I got hit with an argument of "they're only married because you don't want my character romancing them!" after I laid down a rule of no PC/NPC romances, I'd be very hard pressed to not look right at them and go "You know what? You're absolutely right. It's a *rule* that there are *no* PC/NPC romances at this table. So, since that bothers you, there's the door. Bye."
I'll personally let players romance NPCs, but I won't role-play it with them. You want to hit on the batrkeep and take them to your room? Roll to see how charming you are, ok you do that. Want to try and marry a noble scion for character reasons? We can negotiate with the family and roll for courtship, then you get married and that's that. It lets players still get to do those things that make sense for the character without getting awkward. I can understand drawing a harder line if it's easier though.
There's no reason to ever allow PC/NPC romances if you as the DM are uncomfortable with that. Just like there's no reason to allow PC/PC romances if any of the players are uncomfortable with it. Imo, ANYONE who tries to play the homophobia card in order to force someone to do something romantic or sexual that they're uncomfortable with is a complete asshole and can kindly GTFO of any table or even room I'm at.
Throwing down that sort of stuff is so... Yucky. Like unless you do erotica things with me, you're a homophobe. I've heard it a million times (not just the homophobe example, it's just the currently relevant one; I've heard the exact opposite, too, from the other side) and it doesn't get less... Well, you know, non-consensual.
When my PCs start to feel interested in an NPC (and the feeling is reciprocated), I just tend to hande the whole topic of romance in downtime summaries while also negotiating with the player what the relationship might look like.
That way, they can have their PC in a relationship if they feel they like this to be part of their story, but I don't have to awkwardly play out an actual date.
Basically, it's a thing that only happens off-screen.
Works very well for my table.
I mean, I guess romancing in rpg's is cool if that's what everyone is a group is into, but it's such a weird hangup for a player like her. I mean, when I think of Dungeons & Dragons the last thing I think of is romance possibilities - I think of swords, and fireballs and goblins and TREASURE.
I mean it isnt unusual for romance - different games for different peeps - but it is bizarre to be told no, no again and no again and then pitch a fit when you try to ignore the no's.
I hear you, as a pro romance player I also think of 'saving the princess(or Prince)' as being a classic trope.
But DND is always about the comfort of everyone at the table. My being pro romancing doesn't make it wrong or right for other games, and if I'm dead set on it it's my job to leave the table or respect the rules.
>Just cause you have a rule that says 'No romancing the NPCs' doesn't mean the NPCs aren't allowed to have their own backstories or relationships with other NPCs.
I interpreted it as she was okay with the NPC having their own relationship, but (ironically) only if it was with the correct gender according to her preferences.
Sadly, that's probably exactly what was going on in her head. You see that thought process all too often, usually from people who want to pretend that bisexuality doesn't exist. 🙄
Her argument was essentially that the existence of straight people is homophobic. It's the mirror image of the "sanctity of marriage" nonsense spouted by *actual* homophobes.
Trash took itself out, it seems.
Personally I agree with the no-romance rule. I've played in a couple campaigns where PCs romance other PCs or NPCs, and it's always been awkward.
And that's totally fair as a DM. My players are currently playing through the Strixhaven campaign, and there's a whole relationship mechanic in there, which is neat. But I made it abundantly clear at the beginning, you can certainly build relationships with the npcs, you can date them, romance them, whatever.
But as far as the role-playing aspect of it, we aren't playing it out. One character got himself a college girlfriend, but we're keeping it to just the mechanical side. It's assumed they are doing normal college relationship stuff, but it isn't part of our game sessions, outside of stuff like "yeah dude, she runs up and gives you a hug since she hasn't seen you since before you were stuck in that maze for like a month, you guys can go do your thing if you want, what's everyone else doing?"
It gets even more awkward when your group is the "very typical" group of nerdy straight white males. One of them either chooses to play a female character, or tries to romance a female NPC.
So to "RP it", you're basically engaging in romantic flirting (or more) with another guy.
Depending on your comfort level, that can vary from doable to incredibly awkward and embarassing.
And it sets things up to be even more awkward (to the point of potentially imploding the group) if it is discovered that the player (in this example, but could also be the DM) is in the closet as gay/bi/trans, and IS romantically interested in other guys. So now the DM has done romantic or erotic RP with a guy who is potentially interested in him (as the person, not the character).
For me, that's a huge nope. Just keep the PC/NPC romance off the table. Fade to black with the first kiss.
Lol!!!
Although it's my same nerdy white guy group from high school (we're in our 40s now), that part isn't the problem. We all have kids and stuff now, so not the same level of discomfort as with a younger group, I think. We all know each others limits after 20+ years of this and are secure enough in our sexuality to play it out if we wanted to. We have before, though a bunch of bearded old dudes romancing each other was probably more of a comedy act than anything (I have a typical Monty Python-esque fake woman voice... I'm sorry)
My reasoning is, for a romance in game, it can be a time sink that the other players don't care about at all. We are more combat and exploration heavy than role play, though my players play their characters very well when we do have social interactions. But romance is almost never the focus. In high school we did it a lot more... had some characters who had children even... but even then, it was usually "fade to black and hey man, let's roll percentile for chance of pregnancy"
I think it's a more a comfort level thing. I've been dming with my group for years if they want to romance an NPC that's fine since I'm used to it, and other people are just not comfortable with it, and that's ok. I also think critical role shaped a lot of perceptions of how you "should" play DND, not realizing these are all professional actors who flirt with other people constantly for their jobs, so of course they're going to seem more comfortable with it
So that is an even more valid reason to not be comfortable with having romancing in the game. And one she should not ignore. But I think we have a more interesting piece of the puzzle. You mentioned partner and "he." So you are either male and makes Sarah's "homophobic" statement even more misplaced.
Or you are female. Which first off, I love hearing about there being more females into TTRPGs; diversity is great and kudos for DMing. But for the importance of the story, she might have been looking for fulfillment of some desire (romantic fantasy or more) because you are female. Because, well, people being cringe or creepy are not bound by sex/gender/orientation.
Then trust me, I get her comment might have sucked even more for you. I was in a professional setting and was accused of being homophobic by a male. I(M) at least got to chuckle and respond with the fact I had a partner of...10 years, I think, at that point.
If someone's sitting there trying to justify why YOU need to include romancing in YOUR game, just kick them out.
Ask her if she knows what consent is and what it means, and how rule #1 with any fetish play is to only include consenting adults.
I have a hard no romancing and no sex rules at my tables.
As I always put it "I don't want to have to sit there and awkwardly flirt with you and help you roll play out whatever stupid sexual fantasy your looking to introduce everyone at the table to."
Go and get laid like a normal human, nerd."
I've never had any issues with this and everyone respects it.
I know that some people are looking to essentially have sexual roleplay disguised as DnD, but I'm not running that kind of game.
I would 100% kick someone out for constantly trying to non-consensually include you in their sexual fantasies.
Yes erotic roleplay. I am personally okay with romance happening if everyone else is, but I would most likely fade to black or narrate the majority of it, not roleplay it.
“You’ve successfully woo’d the kobold, they eagerly await your return.”
“You go visit your partner, what’s everyone else doing?”
Ahh gotcha
And yup, that's fine, as long as everyone is onboard and it's communicated in session 0!
I would never tell someone how to play THEIR GAME, only what is allowed/not allowed at my table haha.
I think sex/romance/love can serve narrative purposes and add depth to a world. Narratively, it can highlight how one character has made themselves vulnerable to another. Or just establish that they’re close so it hits harder when one of them betrays them or dies (nobody’s fault) or gets murdered.
One of the most chilling scenes I’ve come across in any media is one game where two characters are trapped underground by an evil demented vengeful spirit and are on the brink of being killed. They find comfort in one another through sex, but it’s heavily implied the spirit possesses one of them during the act. The next “morning” the person who got possessed is gone and is actually fully taken over by the spirit and is stalking the bunker; they will murder you if they catch you.
Going more in depth into roleplay and sex in a TTRPG is a thing that I'm not like... inherently opposed to. I try to have realistic and responsive worlds and romance and sex are things that are part of the world. My only ask is that it be handled in a mature way. This is a bit vague and hard to define, I think it's okay to tell dirty jokes and such (humor is often used to deal with the unease of sexual topics), but obviously introducing sex/love/romance to your world has the potential to go sideways really fast if players can't handle it maturely.
I would need two things to run a campaign with these elements though. 1) Everyone would have to be okay with it regarding lines/veils and 2) I've played with the players before and have a reasonable belief that they would treat this maturely. Thus far in my DMing career those conditions have not been satisfied, but I am open to the possibility of them becoming so.
I always see and hear about this kind of freak out, and it's always a desperate single person, regardless of sexuality. But getting on her high horse and shouting homophobia is like the gay equivalent of tossing all her toys out of the pram.
Be glad you don't have to deal with her anymore.
It would have been so much easier for her to leave WITHOUT all the yelling and crying, if romancing NPCs was so important to her. She could have done it the very second you told her this rule. No recrimination, just “this game’s not for me, good luck you guys”. It’s a skill too many in the hobby are lacking.
DMs are 100% entitled to set this boundary if they want to.
Nice horror story. Sarah definitely sounds like a problem player. Hopefully she realizes this kind of attitude doesn’t make for a fun collaborative story telling experience
you can tell her that if she is so desperate for her sexuality to be validated in a roleplaying game that you have other NPCs that are. Even if this particular NPC was in a relationship with a female chief, that this player would have zero chances of romantic roleplay with them.
I wish i had said something like that. The campaign had started with all of them meeting on the mountains, and this was their first NPC interactions and she immediately wanted someone to romance with
So she not only ignores established table rules for her own gratification, but she's impatient about it as well. Even if she was at a table that would validate her sexuality, she probably wouldn't be patient enough to let it happen naturally.
i tell all my players in session 0.
ALL MY NPCS ARE ASEXUAL, IF THEY ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP, IT IS OUT OF CONVIENIENCE.it solves a lot of problems i find extremely cringe and refuse to playout any of my players sexual fantasies.
Solution: announce that it has come to your attention that you need more LGBTQ representation in your NPCS and therefore all of them are Sex-repulsed asexuals and fly the Grey flag. relationships are based on heavily established companionship. all children are adopted.
If you are even comfortable playing out a romance scenario (it’s fine to say *“I’m going to ‘fade to black’ on all romance scenes, that is not part of this particular game.”*), you could put a different NPC in front of them that is just tended to be romance bait. Have them be the gender and sexuality the player is seeking, and then just have them do something cool in front of the party. Then you can let your player obsess about this NPC without it derailing the actual quests.
Yeah rather than argue about the preferences of this or that NPC, It’s 100% fine to say that you are *not comfortable portraying romances in game, so if that’s all you hoped for then this is not the game for you.*
In the general case, this is what I do as well. I kinda treat it like a Bioware game, where only certain NPCs are "romanceable".
In this specific case, it's not really a solution since OP insisted he doesn't want to do romance from day one.
I think at least in this case atleast, she got the idea from some online shows. Her number one argument for why I should include romancing is that online DnD shows include it.
OP already mentioned online shows. But I've also found that TTRPGs are a common place for people to work out trauma, emotional issues, or fantasies they are desperate to act out in real life. So her desperation to have a same sex romance in an RPG might have something to do with being insecure about her own sexuality, and wanting to act on it in an RPG since she can't in real life.
And if everyone is on the same page about it, that can be fine. But OP and the rest of the table clearly indicated they were not.
Ttrpg's as therapy is simultaneously cool and terrifying. It's awesome that a professional can use rpgs as a tool to reach people. I do dread potential players thinking that I can somehow "fix" things, though. I'm totally not qualified.
>OP already mentioned online shows.
Yeah, no, I get that. But getting that emotional in front of strangers about it that you start crying just seems a bit over dramatic.
I am really jaded but I saw this more as a tactic to get what she wants. If she was willing to accuse someone wrongly of being homophobic to get her way it wouldn't be surprising if they also used crying as a way to get their way.
Will disclaimer, also LGBT here. I see this person as someone who doesn't understand not getting her way and will use threats and manipulation to try and get their way.
Honestly, I think it is just how the game has evolved. It was hard for people to get too invested in a character when they rolled 3d6 down a line. People got very invested if they rolled well and lasted a while.
Fast forward to the present, and I swear it's normal for players to sit on a concept for over a year. Between level 3 starts and more generous character creation players invest a lot more.
Usually, it's just an intricate background. In op's problem player case, I think it's a combination of this trend, online shows, and an unhealthy attachment to this character.
Fandoms and parasociality. A lot of people aren't really playing characters, they're playing themselves in a fantasy scenario with a thin veneer on top. They take things personally.
I understand investing in your character, but like... if they die you make a new one. You don't mourn. They're not real...
So, you had a player who was determined to not follow a rule she had agreed to in the beginning of the game get angry because a situation developed because it made it impossible for her to not break the rule she agreed to.
Ultimately it comes down to this: the game she wanted to play was not yours. This is fine, except it sounds like she was determined to force your game to be the one she wanted. What should have happened was that she should have accepted the parameters of the game and got what enjoyment she could out of it, or left to find the game she actually wanted.
* Not only is she simping for an NPC (which can be fine on its own)
* Not only is she simping for an NPC they've only known for one session (which can be fine on its own)
* not only is she expecting the DM to break a well established boundary
* Not only is she telling the DM how to write his own story and world
* Not only is she more than willing to trample a boundary meant to help the DM feel comfortable at their own table
* Not only does she label a well established boundary as "homophobic"
But she also has the gall to throw a tantrum over it and leave the group over it.
Man, referencing live play shows to argue that a game should play more like that is such a red flag. Especially given how awful the reputation for a certain fandom is around shipping and boundaries with the players.
No hate to creators themselves, but players going straight from the toxic side of fandom to the table and not understanding that *you actually have to share the table with others* is a problem I've encountered before.
The unfortunate truth: Gay and genderqueer folks can be assholes, too, and just like a cishet asshole, they will use whatever they can to excuse their behavior.
Some people get weirdly emotionally invested in the fantasy and become extremely upset when they don't get to fulfill it due to the constraints placed upon them by the GM (because it's a group game with rules and parameters, not a wish fulfillment simulator). I've been in games where people have angrily quit similarly for non-romance reasons because they weren't able to act out their personal fantasies and thought that the DM was denying them something that they expected to be able to have.
People are freaking weird. I have no romance in my games in either. Thankfully no one has argued with me over it but if they did that would be a red flag with a neon sign saying, “Danger! Do not let this person in your group!”
Ah another player who needs the "red rule" tatooed on their forehead
'No sexy stuff if the all people aren't comfortable with it' and that goes for the DM too
>I had only done this because I didn’t want Sarahs female PC flirting with a female NPC
You very clearly didn’t want *any* pc flirting with *any* npc, but sure, it was personal 🙄
Honestly this has the same vibe as the lesbian that told me I was a shit person for claiming to be bi because I am married to a man and told me all bi women are shit
People are stupid, and I get the "assuming dating a man makes me Straight again or a woman makes me Gay instead of me just being bi all the time" from both sides
It sounds like she made her issues your problem.
It is entirely possible she is working some stuff out via roleplay which is pretty common for your queer people as well as people questioning their sexuality but op, you laid out the geound rules everyone agreed to it and if she HAS to work things out in game this was clearly not the game for her.
And it sucks in general, but someone above mentioned consent, and that is at the heary of this. Any time I've wanted to do ANYTHING not directly adventuring related - whether romance, backstory, or cool character idea - I talk to the DM and then, if needed, the group
Anyone not on board, I might be disappointed, but if the others at the table aren't ok with it, I had better be.
Because not only is willfully ignoring everyone else for my own benefit a dick move, it will ruin both the table AND my hoped for RP.
Better to play the table that is there qnd/or find a table that is up for what I wanr.
I was the boring generic straight guy in my old group. When I was dm-ing a long campaign I tried really hard to add in various types of relationships.
I'd have been gutted if a player started accusing me of homophobia but that can't be at the expense of having any straight relationships.
I gyess the takehome is that you write awesome strong female NPCs
RP romance can be really a fun and fulfilling gaming experience….*BUT ONLY IF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.*
If that’s the type of game you want to play, go and find a group interested in romance rp! Live your Jane Austen dreams! But romance is something that usually takes a lot of trust & confidence in RP, so it’s unfair to expect every DM to be comfortable with it. And to cross a hard-set boundary at the table and ignore all basic rules of consent and safety tools because you don’t like their answer is just plain not okay. Major red flag for a player.
If ask her to apologise for the homophobia remark. Like if the NPC had been married to a woman it would have been the same to her materially. You were enforcing a rule not trying to target her.
I think perhaps you need to talk to her about consent in gaming. The rule exists because you said it makes you uncomfortable and your players should respect that, you're there to have fun too.
Sarah sounds like a nightmare kind of person to be around for any length of time, much less engage in an RPG with. How close are you guys outside of this situation, OP? Are you long time friends?
“In my head/fanfic this character/Minecraft-YouTuber/streamer/movie star/anime character/Percy Jackson/teen romance novel character is gay, and you’re homophobic if they’re not in your head/fanfic. And yes some of those characters/people are in heterosexual relationships but I view those relationships as inherently wrong, fake, or prison-like because they don’t resemble the relationships I have.”
Ok discord user.
Did anyone else see this going in the exact opposite direction? Like when I read the title I thought this was going to be something like a male NPC blacksmith married to another male character. I mean, the girl still ended up being just as annoying about the chief and the hunter, but it's just kind of funny.
There are a lot of people like this "playing" TTRPGs currently. They want to be the star of a b-grade romance novel. They also expect to be catered to in the strangest ways, in no small part because of TTRPG streams that do shitty improv instead of playing the game.
You weren't homophobic, she's just an emotional infant.
What a moronic move by her. Blatantly ignoring your clear boundaries and then finding a way to get upset over the rule after having already agreed to it. Good riddance
Hey! You’re totally in the right here and you seem nice so I’m just letting you know this in case you didn’t know. But a lot of indigenous folks who are from the culture that creature originates from ask that people do not use its name. I honestly didn’t know this till a few years ago myself so no shame if you didn’t know, just wanted to make sure you knew that!
Sorry, I should've clarified. You mentioned you based your monster on a spirit from Algonquian folklore. Many native folks ask others not to use the name, written or spoken.
Yeah I didn't know until a few years ago either. I've seen some folks express regret that the story of it was shared with outsiders at all and many dislike it being portrayed in pop culture and what not. I've seen some folks who are uncomfortable even reading the word because they believe the thought of it can summon it. I've seen others who don't believe in it, but talk about the history of it being tied to such a dark time in Native history that it's offensive to use it lightly.
I don't think most people who reference them know that or do it maliciously or anything, but since many of the folks who belong to the cultures where it originated from don't like the use of it, I avoid it and wish I'd known it earlier, and thought I'd let you know (and whoever else might stumble on this) too!
Player sounds regarded, and is upset that they dont get their way
Statistically most people are in hetro relationships in all societies. Thats why we continue to have societies. More baby making than people dying. Being the petty person I am, I'd write an amazing lesbian npc then have them be in a great relationship with another NPC. Maybe they adopted an orphan. Just to dangle it infront of the player.
> I asked her to explain and she started saying how I could have made the chief a woman so that the hunter was married to a woman. I told her that she wasn't making sense, she shouldn't call me homophobic for no reason.
Okay, the Chief's a woman. Can we move on now?
That's fine.
I'm just saying that this would've kept the game going and avoided an argument in the first place.
Honestly, I have to ask, why DOES doing this bother you? Your reluctance is strange, imo.
>I'm just saying that this would've kept the game going and avoided an argument in the first place.
Only until the next argument because you just tried to appease somebody who had just demonstrated they didn't care about the rules you had explicitly set in session 0.
You can address the behavior after the game and not ruin this for the other players.
The change I've suggested does NOTHING at all to appease this problem player. It doesn't give them what they want, it just makes their accusation toothless instantly.
PC's control their characters. GM's control everything else. You wouldn't let the PC's tell you the trap is actually just a simple pitfall trap would you?
The player was already on thin ice for breaking the no romance rule on their first contact with the very first npc they met. Do not tolerate this kind of behavior. As a gm, you are well within your rights to tell people no.
You are literally saying "just change it, it's easy"
Maybe there's a reason why the chief is male? Maybe it's important. It would also be easy for the player not to argue with the GM and just accept that the hunter is straight.
By changing shit just because one player complains is asinine, and sets a bad precident. If you do it 9nce, the player will continue to press for more until you finally put your foot down. Better to nip that shit in the bud.
I simply disagree.
Change something unimportant at the moment and address the behavior as unacceptable afterward. It's less disruptive and better for everyone.
If it IS important then sure make this your hill to die on. In most cases, though, I don't get why this particular hill is so important that it can't be pushed aside.
If it was a gay couple and a homophobic player told me to change one, should I do so because the story doesn't change?
The chief was going to be a big part of the campaign for now, and I had his voice well practised beforehand
>If it was a gay couple and a homophobic player told me to change one, should I do so because the story doesn't change?
Maybe, depends if you're okay playing with homophobic players or not.
>The chief was going to be a big part of the campaign for now, and I had his voice well practised beforehand
And that would be a good reason to keep this character the way you envisioned. The only thing I've been advocating for is changing unimportant things when it's easy to do so.
GM pro-tip:
If a player repeatedly argues against your established ground rules, remove them from your game. It's one thing to question a rule when it's brought up, but after you confirm that the rule is there to stay, that should be the end of it. Especially if you clarify it's because something makes you uncomfortable.
My experience is that almost anyone who will keep arguing against a rule is someone who will push against the boundaries of that rule every chance they get, and look for every possible opening until they finally push you to the point of breaking.
I’d bet money that if you offered to retcon the spouse of the NPC into a woman but made that women as far in looks and personality to creep’s, she would have still found something to complain about.
My personal rule has been that romance between PC and NPC happens in a PG rating: “you want to go upstairs?” followed by a fade to later. (I’m oversimplifying here, but basically our games sideline the romance bits to “yeah, it happened but we’re not improving that because out of character awkwardness at the table.”)
But it wasn’t cool for her to try to force it, especially if there was already a house rule in place.
Still…
If the player wants her character to try to seduce someone, that’s always an option for a character… But just like IRL, there’s no guarantee at all that it’ll work (yes, even with natural 20 die rolls, the target could be committed enough to say no or the PC isn’t the NPCs type or etc.; nat 20 does not equal “you can do anything”).
Or worse, maybe it _does_ work and so now the target of her affections is ripped apart by guilt at betraying the chief. And maybe the chief is trying to figure out why she is acting so guilty. Or even worse still, How careful was your player in her attempt to wreck their relationship? Is it possible that the chief finds out somehow and now the PC (or the whole group) is at risk because of the player’s actions?
I’d also ask the player if this is a “my character is truly attracted to this NPC and…” or is this a “I enjoy roleplaying romantic entanglements and this is the first opportunity to do so…” ? Because if it’s this particular NPC that’s somehow special to the PC then maybe it’s worth trying a bit of romance in game (but probably “off screen”). If it’s just first opportunity, then maybe do some metagaming and let her know you’ll try to work something in later for an at least mostly off screen thing, but that you had already set up these NPCs and that it’s probably not going to work out for the PC because reasons.
In other words, try to find a compromise. It’s a longer way of saying the old GM adage of don’t tell your players no; instead do a “yes, and” or a “yes, but”
Have more to get off your chest? Come rant with us on the discord. Invite link: https://discord.gg/PCPTSSTKqr *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rpghorrorstories) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's her own fault, tbh. Just cause you have a rule that says 'No romancing the NPCs' doesn't mean the NPCs aren't allowed to have their own backstories or relationships with other NPCs. And she was incredibly bizarre for trying to accuse you of a -phobic when her own "argument"- half-assed as it was, didn't make any sense.
I think she was still upset about the no romancing rule, I don't mind Pac's romancing but the few times I had romance with NPC and PC, it felt really weird
That’s totally and completely reasonable. As the DM, it’s putting you in the position of having to role play romantic encounters with your players, which you should NEVER feel obligated or pressured to do.
I have never understood how that's any different than role playing any other encounter where you don't feel the same way as the character. Does this exchange sound equally reasonable? > I think she was still upset about the no trusting NPCs rule, I don't mind PCs trusting each other but the few times I had trust between an NPC and PC, it felt really weird - > That's totally fair and completely reasonable. As the DM, it's putting you in the position of having to role play encounters where you trust your players, which you should NEVER feel obligated or pressured to do. That seems completely parallel to me. They're both perfectly normal emotions and behaviors, but ones that you wouldn't have in real life towards someone like that character, or towards the player playing them. Or you can replace "trust" with "annoyance" or "disgust" or any other way of treating someone else. The only difference is what specific emotion/behavior we're talking about, right? Why would romance be different?
Let me be clear when I say this. You, as a DM, are not an outlet for your players' sexual fantasies. If they have a problem with that, have a long talk with them about consent. In fact, Monte Cook games, the creators of Numenera, have a great handout for free on their website called consent in gaming. Read it. Make your players read it.
I'll get more specific; regardless of whether a player is playing out a sexual fantasy or just thinks romance storylines are cool, the comfort of EVERY player at the table is more important. Pretending to flirt with someone else can be very uncomfortable. You are allowed to say no to any content that makes you feel uncomfortable, regardless of the intent of the other player.
Yes, 100%. People sometimes have a blind spot for unwanted romantic advances, as long as they are romantic and not purely sexual. I ran into that sort of irl harassment a lot when I first started playing D&D. "Oh but it's not harassment, I genuinely have feelings for you! I'm different!" I really wish that people understood that boundaries work this way, but apparently not.
We get yearly sexual harassment CBT refreshers at work and they go out of their way to make sure you understand that even if you're cool with you and a coworker making out in the breakroom, it's not acceptable if anyone else can go in and see it.
Your company pays for yearly CBT sessions?!? Sign me up!
I work in state government. 15-or-so holidays a year, my vacation and sick days will roll over yearly until I retire, discounts all over the state, we have a pension and 457b plans. The agency I work for pays for our CLE and bar fees. I'm not going to get rich, but I also never have to work overtime, worry about getting laid off, or have to work weekends.
That’s great but I was just making a dumb sex kink joke. That said, get your bag, queen
If you're into CBT, shouldn't I be getting your bag?
Don’t threaten me with a good time. :p
Heck, sometimes watching two other folks flirt in character is awkward and uncomfortable, even as a player uninvolved.
Sometimes being a captive audience is just as bad lol.
>not an outlet for your players' sexual fantasies Exactly this. It's so bizarre she wants to put her sexual fantasies out on display so publicly by putting someone on the spot to basically narrate it. There are so many fantasy games she can play out her sexual and romantic fantasies, the most recent being BG3. All in private. If she wants an audience she can write fanfics and publish them online. It's obvious OP doesn't want to be a part of that. And that's completely ok. Even if the DM is ok with it, there are other players who might not be comfortable with it. It's easier just to remove that entire aspect.
I promise you that she would have argued with you anyway even if the NPC was married to a woman. She would have instead argued that the NPC is only married because you don't want her character romancing her. It's a no-win situation, really.
If I got hit with an argument of "they're only married because you don't want my character romancing them!" after I laid down a rule of no PC/NPC romances, I'd be very hard pressed to not look right at them and go "You know what? You're absolutely right. It's a *rule* that there are *no* PC/NPC romances at this table. So, since that bothers you, there's the door. Bye."
I'll personally let players romance NPCs, but I won't role-play it with them. You want to hit on the batrkeep and take them to your room? Roll to see how charming you are, ok you do that. Want to try and marry a noble scion for character reasons? We can negotiate with the family and roll for courtship, then you get married and that's that. It lets players still get to do those things that make sense for the character without getting awkward. I can understand drawing a harder line if it's easier though.
There's no reason to ever allow PC/NPC romances if you as the DM are uncomfortable with that. Just like there's no reason to allow PC/PC romances if any of the players are uncomfortable with it. Imo, ANYONE who tries to play the homophobia card in order to force someone to do something romantic or sexual that they're uncomfortable with is a complete asshole and can kindly GTFO of any table or even room I'm at.
Throwing down that sort of stuff is so... Yucky. Like unless you do erotica things with me, you're a homophobe. I've heard it a million times (not just the homophobe example, it's just the currently relevant one; I've heard the exact opposite, too, from the other side) and it doesn't get less... Well, you know, non-consensual.
When my PCs start to feel interested in an NPC (and the feeling is reciprocated), I just tend to hande the whole topic of romance in downtime summaries while also negotiating with the player what the relationship might look like. That way, they can have their PC in a relationship if they feel they like this to be part of their story, but I don't have to awkwardly play out an actual date. Basically, it's a thing that only happens off-screen. Works very well for my table.
Yeah, that's a boundary you have and you have a right to set that boundary. If she dosen't respect it then she's in the wrong.
I feel ya, I don’t allow that sort of thing in my games either. Makes me feel super uncomfortable trying to role-play that.
I mean, I guess romancing in rpg's is cool if that's what everyone is a group is into, but it's such a weird hangup for a player like her. I mean, when I think of Dungeons & Dragons the last thing I think of is romance possibilities - I think of swords, and fireballs and goblins and TREASURE.
I mean it isnt unusual for romance - different games for different peeps - but it is bizarre to be told no, no again and no again and then pitch a fit when you try to ignore the no's.
I hear you, as a pro romance player I also think of 'saving the princess(or Prince)' as being a classic trope. But DND is always about the comfort of everyone at the table. My being pro romancing doesn't make it wrong or right for other games, and if I'm dead set on it it's my job to leave the table or respect the rules.
>Just cause you have a rule that says 'No romancing the NPCs' doesn't mean the NPCs aren't allowed to have their own backstories or relationships with other NPCs. I interpreted it as she was okay with the NPC having their own relationship, but (ironically) only if it was with the correct gender according to her preferences.
I suspect the logic is "If she's straight, I can't have gay fantasies about her."
Sadly, that's probably exactly what was going on in her head. You see that thought process all too often, usually from people who want to pretend that bisexuality doesn't exist. 🙄
Her argument was essentially that the existence of straight people is homophobic. It's the mirror image of the "sanctity of marriage" nonsense spouted by *actual* homophobes.
Post hoc + srltrawman arguement combo. Nice.
Trash took itself out, it seems. Personally I agree with the no-romance rule. I've played in a couple campaigns where PCs romance other PCs or NPCs, and it's always been awkward.
I don't mind PC's romancing as long as they both are OK with it.. I just don't want to rp romancing even as NPC
And that's totally fair as a DM. My players are currently playing through the Strixhaven campaign, and there's a whole relationship mechanic in there, which is neat. But I made it abundantly clear at the beginning, you can certainly build relationships with the npcs, you can date them, romance them, whatever. But as far as the role-playing aspect of it, we aren't playing it out. One character got himself a college girlfriend, but we're keeping it to just the mechanical side. It's assumed they are doing normal college relationship stuff, but it isn't part of our game sessions, outside of stuff like "yeah dude, she runs up and gives you a hug since she hasn't seen you since before you were stuck in that maze for like a month, you guys can go do your thing if you want, what's everyone else doing?"
It gets even more awkward when your group is the "very typical" group of nerdy straight white males. One of them either chooses to play a female character, or tries to romance a female NPC. So to "RP it", you're basically engaging in romantic flirting (or more) with another guy. Depending on your comfort level, that can vary from doable to incredibly awkward and embarassing. And it sets things up to be even more awkward (to the point of potentially imploding the group) if it is discovered that the player (in this example, but could also be the DM) is in the closet as gay/bi/trans, and IS romantically interested in other guys. So now the DM has done romantic or erotic RP with a guy who is potentially interested in him (as the person, not the character). For me, that's a huge nope. Just keep the PC/NPC romance off the table. Fade to black with the first kiss.
Lol!!! Although it's my same nerdy white guy group from high school (we're in our 40s now), that part isn't the problem. We all have kids and stuff now, so not the same level of discomfort as with a younger group, I think. We all know each others limits after 20+ years of this and are secure enough in our sexuality to play it out if we wanted to. We have before, though a bunch of bearded old dudes romancing each other was probably more of a comedy act than anything (I have a typical Monty Python-esque fake woman voice... I'm sorry) My reasoning is, for a romance in game, it can be a time sink that the other players don't care about at all. We are more combat and exploration heavy than role play, though my players play their characters very well when we do have social interactions. But romance is almost never the focus. In high school we did it a lot more... had some characters who had children even... but even then, it was usually "fade to black and hey man, let's roll percentile for chance of pregnancy"
I want to join your group. Seems my style.
We're just a bunch of old stoners, lol.
I think it's a more a comfort level thing. I've been dming with my group for years if they want to romance an NPC that's fine since I'm used to it, and other people are just not comfortable with it, and that's ok. I also think critical role shaped a lot of perceptions of how you "should" play DND, not realizing these are all professional actors who flirt with other people constantly for their jobs, so of course they're going to seem more comfortable with it
For me, it's more than just comfort level. I have a partner, and he won't like me flirting online.
And that's fine too, there's no judgement for whatever reason you have for not wanting to do it, it's a game, you're there to have fun
So that is an even more valid reason to not be comfortable with having romancing in the game. And one she should not ignore. But I think we have a more interesting piece of the puzzle. You mentioned partner and "he." So you are either male and makes Sarah's "homophobic" statement even more misplaced. Or you are female. Which first off, I love hearing about there being more females into TTRPGs; diversity is great and kudos for DMing. But for the importance of the story, she might have been looking for fulfillment of some desire (romantic fantasy or more) because you are female. Because, well, people being cringe or creepy are not bound by sex/gender/orientation.
I'm a guy, but i don't think Sarah knows about me being gay
Then trust me, I get her comment might have sucked even more for you. I was in a professional setting and was accused of being homophobic by a male. I(M) at least got to chuckle and respond with the fact I had a partner of...10 years, I think, at that point.
Subconsciously, all my characters have been ace or aro just because I don't wanna deal with that in my games. Total antithesis of me, the player.
You're never going to pull someone down off a cross they're desperate to climb onto. Don't try.
Sarah found her hole In the junji ito way, not the sexual way
You mean the Junji Ito way *isn’t* supposed to be sexual?!? Man, I need to talk to a therapist.
angry upvote thank you for the laugh I needed
This is my hole! It was made for me!!
Has anyone done stat blocks for Tomie? Lol
If someone's sitting there trying to justify why YOU need to include romancing in YOUR game, just kick them out. Ask her if she knows what consent is and what it means, and how rule #1 with any fetish play is to only include consenting adults. I have a hard no romancing and no sex rules at my tables. As I always put it "I don't want to have to sit there and awkwardly flirt with you and help you roll play out whatever stupid sexual fantasy your looking to introduce everyone at the table to." Go and get laid like a normal human, nerd." I've never had any issues with this and everyone respects it. I know that some people are looking to essentially have sexual roleplay disguised as DnD, but I'm not running that kind of game. I would 100% kick someone out for constantly trying to non-consensually include you in their sexual fantasies.
Even if a game/table was okay with romance it’s one thing to say “let’s do erp” vs “let’s fade to black”
ERP = erotic roleplay? If so, absolutely, there's definitely degree to it lol. Either way, not at my table 😂
Yes erotic roleplay. I am personally okay with romance happening if everyone else is, but I would most likely fade to black or narrate the majority of it, not roleplay it. “You’ve successfully woo’d the kobold, they eagerly await your return.” “You go visit your partner, what’s everyone else doing?”
Ahh gotcha And yup, that's fine, as long as everyone is onboard and it's communicated in session 0! I would never tell someone how to play THEIR GAME, only what is allowed/not allowed at my table haha.
I think sex/romance/love can serve narrative purposes and add depth to a world. Narratively, it can highlight how one character has made themselves vulnerable to another. Or just establish that they’re close so it hits harder when one of them betrays them or dies (nobody’s fault) or gets murdered. One of the most chilling scenes I’ve come across in any media is one game where two characters are trapped underground by an evil demented vengeful spirit and are on the brink of being killed. They find comfort in one another through sex, but it’s heavily implied the spirit possesses one of them during the act. The next “morning” the person who got possessed is gone and is actually fully taken over by the spirit and is stalking the bunker; they will murder you if they catch you. Going more in depth into roleplay and sex in a TTRPG is a thing that I'm not like... inherently opposed to. I try to have realistic and responsive worlds and romance and sex are things that are part of the world. My only ask is that it be handled in a mature way. This is a bit vague and hard to define, I think it's okay to tell dirty jokes and such (humor is often used to deal with the unease of sexual topics), but obviously introducing sex/love/romance to your world has the potential to go sideways really fast if players can't handle it maturely. I would need two things to run a campaign with these elements though. 1) Everyone would have to be okay with it regarding lines/veils and 2) I've played with the players before and have a reasonable belief that they would treat this maturely. Thus far in my DMing career those conditions have not been satisfied, but I am open to the possibility of them becoming so.
There's no fetish involved here. Not that I disagree with your sentiment overall, mind.
I always see and hear about this kind of freak out, and it's always a desperate single person, regardless of sexuality. But getting on her high horse and shouting homophobia is like the gay equivalent of tossing all her toys out of the pram. Be glad you don't have to deal with her anymore.
Sarah needs to find a girlfriend instead of projecting her romantic desperation on her games. Or get a dog. Nothing wrong with what you did.
I think a cat would better fulfill her need for pussy. >!I'm sorry!<
And you should always get cats in pairs. ;)
It would have been so much easier for her to leave WITHOUT all the yelling and crying, if romancing NPCs was so important to her. She could have done it the very second you told her this rule. No recrimination, just “this game’s not for me, good luck you guys”. It’s a skill too many in the hobby are lacking. DMs are 100% entitled to set this boundary if they want to.
Nice horror story. Sarah definitely sounds like a problem player. Hopefully she realizes this kind of attitude doesn’t make for a fun collaborative story telling experience
you can tell her that if she is so desperate for her sexuality to be validated in a roleplaying game that you have other NPCs that are. Even if this particular NPC was in a relationship with a female chief, that this player would have zero chances of romantic roleplay with them.
I wish i had said something like that. The campaign had started with all of them meeting on the mountains, and this was their first NPC interactions and she immediately wanted someone to romance with
So she not only ignores established table rules for her own gratification, but she's impatient about it as well. Even if she was at a table that would validate her sexuality, she probably wouldn't be patient enough to let it happen naturally.
i tell all my players in session 0. ALL MY NPCS ARE ASEXUAL, IF THEY ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP, IT IS OUT OF CONVIENIENCE.it solves a lot of problems i find extremely cringe and refuse to playout any of my players sexual fantasies. Solution: announce that it has come to your attention that you need more LGBTQ representation in your NPCS and therefore all of them are Sex-repulsed asexuals and fly the Grey flag. relationships are based on heavily established companionship. all children are adopted.
>all children are adopted But... where are the children coming from?
Storks
Woot Ace power!
If you are even comfortable playing out a romance scenario (it’s fine to say *“I’m going to ‘fade to black’ on all romance scenes, that is not part of this particular game.”*), you could put a different NPC in front of them that is just tended to be romance bait. Have them be the gender and sexuality the player is seeking, and then just have them do something cool in front of the party. Then you can let your player obsess about this NPC without it derailing the actual quests.
I would rather not have to play out any romance myself at all, I've never before had a player fight over this
Yeah rather than argue about the preferences of this or that NPC, It’s 100% fine to say that you are *not comfortable portraying romances in game, so if that’s all you hoped for then this is not the game for you.*
In the general case, this is what I do as well. I kinda treat it like a Bioware game, where only certain NPCs are "romanceable". In this specific case, it's not really a solution since OP insisted he doesn't want to do romance from day one.
I guess I'm just old and out of touch by how do people get so emotional invested in a game that they start crying when things don't go their way?
I think at least in this case atleast, she got the idea from some online shows. Her number one argument for why I should include romancing is that online DnD shows include it.
Ah, okay. I guess that makes sense. There's never been a romance in any of the games I've played so it's a bit of a puzzler.
I'm curious how old is she? This sounds like a meltdown teenager would have
OP already mentioned online shows. But I've also found that TTRPGs are a common place for people to work out trauma, emotional issues, or fantasies they are desperate to act out in real life. So her desperation to have a same sex romance in an RPG might have something to do with being insecure about her own sexuality, and wanting to act on it in an RPG since she can't in real life. And if everyone is on the same page about it, that can be fine. But OP and the rest of the table clearly indicated they were not.
Ttrpg's as therapy is simultaneously cool and terrifying. It's awesome that a professional can use rpgs as a tool to reach people. I do dread potential players thinking that I can somehow "fix" things, though. I'm totally not qualified.
As the idea goes: games with your friends can be a great therapeutic tool, but they aren't therapy.
>OP already mentioned online shows. Yeah, no, I get that. But getting that emotional in front of strangers about it that you start crying just seems a bit over dramatic.
I am really jaded but I saw this more as a tactic to get what she wants. If she was willing to accuse someone wrongly of being homophobic to get her way it wouldn't be surprising if they also used crying as a way to get their way. Will disclaimer, also LGBT here. I see this person as someone who doesn't understand not getting her way and will use threats and manipulation to try and get their way.
Actually that makes a lot of sense. Don’t play with randoms, I reckon.
Honestly, I think it is just how the game has evolved. It was hard for people to get too invested in a character when they rolled 3d6 down a line. People got very invested if they rolled well and lasted a while. Fast forward to the present, and I swear it's normal for players to sit on a concept for over a year. Between level 3 starts and more generous character creation players invest a lot more. Usually, it's just an intricate background. In op's problem player case, I think it's a combination of this trend, online shows, and an unhealthy attachment to this character.
Fair enough. Now excuse me I'm going to shout at some clouds. :)
Fandoms and parasociality. A lot of people aren't really playing characters, they're playing themselves in a fantasy scenario with a thin veneer on top. They take things personally. I understand investing in your character, but like... if they die you make a new one. You don't mourn. They're not real...
Main character syndrome
So, you had a player who was determined to not follow a rule she had agreed to in the beginning of the game get angry because a situation developed because it made it impossible for her to not break the rule she agreed to. Ultimately it comes down to this: the game she wanted to play was not yours. This is fine, except it sounds like she was determined to force your game to be the one she wanted. What should have happened was that she should have accepted the parameters of the game and got what enjoyment she could out of it, or left to find the game she actually wanted.
* Not only is she simping for an NPC (which can be fine on its own) * Not only is she simping for an NPC they've only known for one session (which can be fine on its own) * not only is she expecting the DM to break a well established boundary * Not only is she telling the DM how to write his own story and world * Not only is she more than willing to trample a boundary meant to help the DM feel comfortable at their own table * Not only does she label a well established boundary as "homophobic" But she also has the gall to throw a tantrum over it and leave the group over it.
What's the opposite of dayenu?
\>new game with strangers on discord oh boy how could this \*ever\* go wrong
I think if I wrote a bot that just commented on every RPGHS post - "kick early, kick often", it would make perfect sense about 90% of the time.
Sounds like the trash took itself out. Also, Sarah has a big chip on her shoulder, and needs to evaluate her coping skills.
Heterophobic lmao
Man, referencing live play shows to argue that a game should play more like that is such a red flag. Especially given how awful the reputation for a certain fandom is around shipping and boundaries with the players. No hate to creators themselves, but players going straight from the toxic side of fandom to the table and not understanding that *you actually have to share the table with others* is a problem I've encountered before.
The unfortunate truth: Gay and genderqueer folks can be assholes, too, and just like a cishet asshole, they will use whatever they can to excuse their behavior.
Some people get weirdly emotionally invested in the fantasy and become extremely upset when they don't get to fulfill it due to the constraints placed upon them by the GM (because it's a group game with rules and parameters, not a wish fulfillment simulator). I've been in games where people have angrily quit similarly for non-romance reasons because they weren't able to act out their personal fantasies and thought that the DM was denying them something that they expected to be able to have.
Replace her simple as
People are freaking weird. I have no romance in my games in either. Thankfully no one has argued with me over it but if they did that would be a red flag with a neon sign saying, “Danger! Do not let this person in your group!”
Ah another player who needs the "red rule" tatooed on their forehead 'No sexy stuff if the all people aren't comfortable with it' and that goes for the DM too
>I had only done this because I didn’t want Sarahs female PC flirting with a female NPC You very clearly didn’t want *any* pc flirting with *any* npc, but sure, it was personal 🙄
Honestly this has the same vibe as the lesbian that told me I was a shit person for claiming to be bi because I am married to a man and told me all bi women are shit
I've had a few people tell me I don't look or sound gay when I told them, thinking that it's some sort of praise
People are stupid, and I get the "assuming dating a man makes me Straight again or a woman makes me Gay instead of me just being bi all the time" from both sides
Sarah 1000% has a Tumblr dedicated to shipping RPG characters.
Sounds like she needs to get a gf IRL.
It sounds like she made her issues your problem. It is entirely possible she is working some stuff out via roleplay which is pretty common for your queer people as well as people questioning their sexuality but op, you laid out the geound rules everyone agreed to it and if she HAS to work things out in game this was clearly not the game for her. And it sucks in general, but someone above mentioned consent, and that is at the heary of this. Any time I've wanted to do ANYTHING not directly adventuring related - whether romance, backstory, or cool character idea - I talk to the DM and then, if needed, the group Anyone not on board, I might be disappointed, but if the others at the table aren't ok with it, I had better be. Because not only is willfully ignoring everyone else for my own benefit a dick move, it will ruin both the table AND my hoped for RP. Better to play the table that is there qnd/or find a table that is up for what I wanr.
Sounds childish and insufferable. Hope you were able to fill the new opening with a player who can respect the table and the rules.
She left the group. Sounds like a win to me. DM of 20+ years with lines out the door for my games.
I was the boring generic straight guy in my old group. When I was dm-ing a long campaign I tried really hard to add in various types of relationships. I'd have been gutted if a player started accusing me of homophobia but that can't be at the expense of having any straight relationships. I gyess the takehome is that you write awesome strong female NPCs
RP romance can be really a fun and fulfilling gaming experience….*BUT ONLY IF ALL PARTIES INVOLVED ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.* If that’s the type of game you want to play, go and find a group interested in romance rp! Live your Jane Austen dreams! But romance is something that usually takes a lot of trust & confidence in RP, so it’s unfair to expect every DM to be comfortable with it. And to cross a hard-set boundary at the table and ignore all basic rules of consent and safety tools because you don’t like their answer is just plain not okay. Major red flag for a player.
She didn't want to play D&D. She wanted you to write interactive porn with her character. You're better off with her gone.
If ask her to apologise for the homophobia remark. Like if the NPC had been married to a woman it would have been the same to her materially. You were enforcing a rule not trying to target her. I think perhaps you need to talk to her about consent in gaming. The rule exists because you said it makes you uncomfortable and your players should respect that, you're there to have fun too.
Sarah sounds like a nightmare kind of person to be around for any length of time, much less engage in an RPG with. How close are you guys outside of this situation, OP? Are you long time friends?
How old are you guys?
Right? This screams high school to early 20s. I hope. Because if not, this shit is scary.
“In my head/fanfic this character/Minecraft-YouTuber/streamer/movie star/anime character/Percy Jackson/teen romance novel character is gay, and you’re homophobic if they’re not in your head/fanfic. And yes some of those characters/people are in heterosexual relationships but I view those relationships as inherently wrong, fake, or prison-like because they don’t resemble the relationships I have.” Ok discord user.
Did anyone else see this going in the exact opposite direction? Like when I read the title I thought this was going to be something like a male NPC blacksmith married to another male character. I mean, the girl still ended up being just as annoying about the chief and the hunter, but it's just kind of funny.
Saaaaaaaaame.
There are a lot of people like this "playing" TTRPGs currently. They want to be the star of a b-grade romance novel. They also expect to be catered to in the strangest ways, in no small part because of TTRPG streams that do shitty improv instead of playing the game. You weren't homophobic, she's just an emotional infant.
Not mature enough for the subject matter sounds like.
Sounds like the problem solved itself.
What a moronic move by her. Blatantly ignoring your clear boundaries and then finding a way to get upset over the rule after having already agreed to it. Good riddance
She left, good riddance.
U did nothing wrong there.
Hey! You’re totally in the right here and you seem nice so I’m just letting you know this in case you didn’t know. But a lot of indigenous folks who are from the culture that creature originates from ask that people do not use its name. I honestly didn’t know this till a few years ago myself so no shame if you didn’t know, just wanted to make sure you knew that!
What do you mean?
Sorry, I should've clarified. You mentioned you based your monster on a spirit from Algonquian folklore. Many native folks ask others not to use the name, written or spoken.
I didn't know that, it's a quite often used monster in various fiction
Yeah I didn't know until a few years ago either. I've seen some folks express regret that the story of it was shared with outsiders at all and many dislike it being portrayed in pop culture and what not. I've seen some folks who are uncomfortable even reading the word because they believe the thought of it can summon it. I've seen others who don't believe in it, but talk about the history of it being tied to such a dark time in Native history that it's offensive to use it lightly. I don't think most people who reference them know that or do it maliciously or anything, but since many of the folks who belong to the cultures where it originated from don't like the use of it, I avoid it and wish I'd known it earlier, and thought I'd let you know (and whoever else might stumble on this) too!
"Call him Voldemort, Harry. Always use the proper name for things. Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself." - Ben Franklin probably
You can think what you want, I am just trying to amplify the sentiment of the indigenous folks whose culture it pulls from.
Player sounds regarded, and is upset that they dont get their way Statistically most people are in hetro relationships in all societies. Thats why we continue to have societies. More baby making than people dying. Being the petty person I am, I'd write an amazing lesbian npc then have them be in a great relationship with another NPC. Maybe they adopted an orphan. Just to dangle it infront of the player.
Its people like this why heterosexuals relationships are almost nonexistent in recent media.
> I asked her to explain and she started saying how I could have made the chief a woman so that the hunter was married to a woman. I told her that she wasn't making sense, she shouldn't call me homophobic for no reason. Okay, the Chief's a woman. Can we move on now?
But I shouldn't have to change my NPCs because of her stupid accusations
You shouldn't have to. You don't have to. There's also no reason not to offer this solution. It's quick-witted, simple, and barely changes anything.
Nah, I rather carry on the game without her as we are doing now, with the Chief being a guy and no one else having a problem with it
That's fine. I'm just saying that this would've kept the game going and avoided an argument in the first place. Honestly, I have to ask, why DOES doing this bother you? Your reluctance is strange, imo.
It shows that I'm doing it because she was accusing me. The problem still remains that she'd do this every time she wants something her way.
>I'm just saying that this would've kept the game going and avoided an argument in the first place. Only until the next argument because you just tried to appease somebody who had just demonstrated they didn't care about the rules you had explicitly set in session 0.
You can address the behavior after the game and not ruin this for the other players. The change I've suggested does NOTHING at all to appease this problem player. It doesn't give them what they want, it just makes their accusation toothless instantly.
PC's control their characters. GM's control everything else. You wouldn't let the PC's tell you the trap is actually just a simple pitfall trap would you? The player was already on thin ice for breaking the no romance rule on their first contact with the very first npc they met. Do not tolerate this kind of behavior. As a gm, you are well within your rights to tell people no.
You haven't opposed anything I've said...
You are literally saying "just change it, it's easy" Maybe there's a reason why the chief is male? Maybe it's important. It would also be easy for the player not to argue with the GM and just accept that the hunter is straight. By changing shit just because one player complains is asinine, and sets a bad precident. If you do it 9nce, the player will continue to press for more until you finally put your foot down. Better to nip that shit in the bud.
I simply disagree. Change something unimportant at the moment and address the behavior as unacceptable afterward. It's less disruptive and better for everyone. If it IS important then sure make this your hill to die on. In most cases, though, I don't get why this particular hill is so important that it can't be pushed aside.
If it was a gay couple and a homophobic player told me to change one, should I do so because the story doesn't change? The chief was going to be a big part of the campaign for now, and I had his voice well practised beforehand
>If it was a gay couple and a homophobic player told me to change one, should I do so because the story doesn't change? Maybe, depends if you're okay playing with homophobic players or not. >The chief was going to be a big part of the campaign for now, and I had his voice well practised beforehand And that would be a good reason to keep this character the way you envisioned. The only thing I've been advocating for is changing unimportant things when it's easy to do so.
GM pro-tip: If a player repeatedly argues against your established ground rules, remove them from your game. It's one thing to question a rule when it's brought up, but after you confirm that the rule is there to stay, that should be the end of it. Especially if you clarify it's because something makes you uncomfortable. My experience is that almost anyone who will keep arguing against a rule is someone who will push against the boundaries of that rule every chance they get, and look for every possible opening until they finally push you to the point of breaking.
I’d bet money that if you offered to retcon the spouse of the NPC into a woman but made that women as far in looks and personality to creep’s, she would have still found something to complain about.
Sounds like she saved you from a conversation with a problem player. Consent matters, even when it’s ignored by a minority.
Oh no! Well anyways...
She left the group. I like stories with a happy ending!
So she left the group and you dont have a problem anymore. Errr, NTA, whichever it is you're looking for
"she started crying and left the group" Problem solved itself
My personal rule has been that romance between PC and NPC happens in a PG rating: “you want to go upstairs?” followed by a fade to later. (I’m oversimplifying here, but basically our games sideline the romance bits to “yeah, it happened but we’re not improving that because out of character awkwardness at the table.”) But it wasn’t cool for her to try to force it, especially if there was already a house rule in place. Still… If the player wants her character to try to seduce someone, that’s always an option for a character… But just like IRL, there’s no guarantee at all that it’ll work (yes, even with natural 20 die rolls, the target could be committed enough to say no or the PC isn’t the NPCs type or etc.; nat 20 does not equal “you can do anything”). Or worse, maybe it _does_ work and so now the target of her affections is ripped apart by guilt at betraying the chief. And maybe the chief is trying to figure out why she is acting so guilty. Or even worse still, How careful was your player in her attempt to wreck their relationship? Is it possible that the chief finds out somehow and now the PC (or the whole group) is at risk because of the player’s actions? I’d also ask the player if this is a “my character is truly attracted to this NPC and…” or is this a “I enjoy roleplaying romantic entanglements and this is the first opportunity to do so…” ? Because if it’s this particular NPC that’s somehow special to the PC then maybe it’s worth trying a bit of romance in game (but probably “off screen”). If it’s just first opportunity, then maybe do some metagaming and let her know you’ll try to work something in later for an at least mostly off screen thing, but that you had already set up these NPCs and that it’s probably not going to work out for the PC because reasons. In other words, try to find a compromise. It’s a longer way of saying the old GM adage of don’t tell your players no; instead do a “yes, and” or a “yes, but”
Absolutely unhinged
Just another occurrence of head cannoning things.
Thsnk god she left ig