Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
I always find the argument of "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" interesting because it implies some very odd things about any game to which that statement applies. In games where "sexuality isn't an important part", do NPCs not have spouses? Or children? Or parents? Because all those things relate to sexuality in some way. If you have a masc character with a wife or a femme character with a husband, that's sexuality right there. It just happens to be hetrosexuality. If a character has a child and that child isn't adopted, that's one again sexuality playing a role in the game, it just so happens to be hetrosexuality.
I can't help but read "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" as subtextually saying "non-hetrosexuality isn't an important part of the game". This may not be the intent, but it does seem to be there, reading between the lines.
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
I always find the argument of "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" interesting because it implies some very odd things about any game to which that statement applies. In games where "sexuality isn't an important part", do NPCs not have spouses? Or children? Or parents? Because all those things relate to sexuality in some way. If you have a masc character with a wife or a femme character with a husband, that's sexuality right there. It just happens to be hetrosexuality. If a character has a child and that child isn't adopted, that's one again sexuality playing a role in the game, it just so happens to be hetrosexuality.
I can't help but read "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" as subtextually saying "non-hetrosexuality isn't an important part of the game". This may not be the intent, but it does seem to be there, reading between the lines.
Because sexual content isn't really a comfortable subject in any game, regardless of its normative status.
Sexual content does not have a place in a game shop or other public venue. Sexuality is the basis for many uncomfortable situations as your players may be trying to force eroticism into the game nonconsensually. And I'm not saying they are role playing nonconsensual sex, but that they are trying to role play it despite people's comfort level.
It's also generally not acceptable when playing a game with minors
People also tend to have trouble disconnecting the game from real relationships, which means a role playing game that has sexual content can cause out.of game tension amongst players.
If George the barbarian has two mommies, who cares? Personally, I'm not going to be bent out of shape over it. My former bosses and customers were the first ones to get married when NY allowed gay marriage, and I was witness for a coworker when he married his husband 9years ago.
But if George the barbarian wants to kiss the barmaid he's going to be staring at a VERY wary DM that's going to need some VERY good explanation as to why or else he's going to get a very stern talking to about what is and is not acceptable role play.
It's not about one's sexuality, it's about sexual content and ensuring the game stays comfortable and enjoyable for everyone.
Edit: and to that effect, all babies in my games are hatched in stork eggs hand delivered to parents... the tiefling eggs are a robins egg blue. (I'm joking, but seriously, I just try to keep the games as absolutely free of sex as I can)
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
I always find the argument of "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" interesting because it implies some very odd things about any game to which that statement applies. In games where "sexuality isn't an important part", do NPCs not have spouses? Or children? Or parents? Because all those things relate to sexuality in some way. If you have a masc character with a wife or a femme character with a husband, that's sexuality right there. It just happens to be hetrosexuality. If a character has a child and that child isn't adopted, that's one again sexuality playing a role in the game, it just so happens to be hetrosexuality.
I can't help but read "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" as subtextually saying "non-hetrosexuality isn't an important part of the game". This may not be the intent, but it does seem to be there, reading between the lines.
And, that, in a nutshell, is the reason I don't have this type of thing in my game. Game time is precious. Discussing the sexuality of NPC's is a total waste of that precious time. NO ONE at ANY table I play at or DM cares if an NPC is adopted, or if that NPC's parents are gay or straight. It is utterly irrelevant. And as a moderator, I certainly hope you don't go after posters based on you "reading between the lines".
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
I always find the argument of "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" interesting because it implies some very odd things about any game to which that statement applies. In games where "sexuality isn't an important part", do NPCs not have spouses? Or children? Or parents? Because all those things relate to sexuality in some way. If you have a masc character with a wife or a femme character with a husband, that's sexuality right there. It just happens to be hetrosexuality. If a character has a child and that child isn't adopted, that's one again sexuality playing a role in the game, it just so happens to be hetrosexuality.
I can't help but read "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" as subtextually saying "non-hetrosexuality isn't an important part of the game". This may not be the intent, but it does seem to be there, reading between the lines.
And, that, in a nutshell, is the reason I don't have this type of thing in my game. Game time is precious. Discussing the sexuality of NPC's is a total waste of that precious time. NO ONE at ANY table I play at or DM cares if an NPC is adopted, or if that NPC's parents are gay or straight. It is utterly irrelevant. And as a moderator, I certainly hope you don't go after posters based on you "reading between the lines".
I do feel like maybe my point was not presented clearly, so I apologise. If an NPC has a husband who has been kidnapped by bandits or a wife that died in the recent dragon attack, you are implicitly bringing sexuality into the game. However, this only seems to draw comment if it's a man who wants to rescue his husband to bandits or a woman who lost her wife to the dragon attack. Unless your game is completely bereft of any kind of social interactions with NPCs where those details come up, sexuality does play at least some role in the game. However, there are maybe some default assumptions that, because they're default assumptions, don't get treated as 'bringing sexuality into things'
And as a moderator, I certainly hope you don't go after posters based on you "reading between the lines".
I truly have no idea what you may be getting at here. As long as people are following the site rules & guidelines, the moderation team has zero reason to interact with them in their capacity as moderators.
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
I always find the argument of "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" interesting because it implies some very odd things about any game to which that statement applies. In games where "sexuality isn't an important part", do NPCs not have spouses? Or children? Or parents? Because all those things relate to sexuality in some way. If you have a masc character with a wife or a femme character with a husband, that's sexuality right there. It just happens to be hetrosexuality. If a character has a child and that child isn't adopted, that's one again sexuality playing a role in the game, it just so happens to be hetrosexuality.
I can't help but read "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" as subtextually saying "non-hetrosexuality isn't an important part of the game". This may not be the intent, but it does seem to be there, reading between the lines.
And, that, in a nutshell, is the reason I don't have this type of thing in my game. Game time is precious. Discussing the sexuality of NPC's is a total waste of that precious time. NO ONE at ANY table I play at or DM cares if an NPC is adopted, or if that NPC's parents are gay or straight. It is utterly irrelevant. And as a moderator, I certainly hope you don't go after posters based on you "reading between the lines".
I do feel like maybe my point was not presented clearly, so I apologise. If an NPC has a husband who has been kidnapped by bandits or a wife that died in the recent dragon attack, you are implicitly bringing sexuality into the game. However, this only seems to draw comment if it's a man who wants to rescue his husband to bandits or a woman who lost her wife to the dragon attack. Unless your game is completely bereft of any kind of social interactions with NPCs where those details come up, sexuality does play at least some role in the game. However, there are maybe some default assumptions that, because they're default assumptions, don't get treated as 'bringing sexuality into things'
And as a moderator, I certainly hope you don't go after posters based on you "reading between the lines".
I truly have no idea what you may be getting at here. As long as people are following the site rules & guidelines, the moderation team has zero reason to interact with them in their capacity as moderators.
To your point of "Unless your game is completely bereft of any kind of social interactions with NPCs where those details come up, sexuality does play at least some role in the game", that is precisely how my games are run. Those kind of details are never provided by myself or the other DM's , and the players never ask. NPC's provide information, or may be a meat shield, or might be a BBEG. But anything beyond that is never fleshed out, because as a DM I don't care nor have the time to flesh out that bit.
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders...
Because sexual content isn't really a comfortable subject in any game, regardless of its normative status.
Sexual content does not have a place in a game shop or other public venue. Sexuality is the basis for many uncomfortable situations as your players may be trying to force eroticism into the game nonconsensually. And I'm not saying they are role playing nonconsensual sex, but that they are trying to role play it despite people's comfort level.
It's also generally not acceptable when playing a game with minors
People also tend to have trouble disconnecting the game from real relationships, which means a role playing game that has sexual content can cause out.of game tension amongst players.
If George the barbarian has two mommies, who cares? Personally, I'm not going to be bent out of shape over it. My former bosses and customers were the first ones to get married when NY allowed gay marriage, and I was witness for a coworker when he married his husband 9years ago.
But if George the barbarian wants to kiss the barmaid he's going to be staring at a VERY wary DM that's going to need some VERY good explanation as to why or else he's going to get a very stern talking to about what is and is not acceptable role play.
It's not about one's sexuality, it's about sexual content and ensuring the game stays comfortable and enjoyable for everyone.
Edit: and to that effect, all babies in my games are hatched in stork eggs hand delivered to parents... the tiefling eggs are a robins egg blue. (I'm joking, but seriously, I just try to keep the games as absolutely free of sex as I can)
To the remaining part of the inner quote, I have to chuckle because it absolutely was. Save the princess, win a kiss was a theme, and under arneson’s (early) games, you got a bit more than that.
onward!
Sexuality is a comfortable subject in our games, always. We have bi, lesbian, gay, trans, enby, and majority cishet players ranging from 10 to 60 years old. Romance subplots, character backgrounds, and of course the inevitable banter one gets when husband and wife or parent and child are playing, and then the core group of folks playing since the early 80’s have all manner of past entanglements themselves. We’ve known each other since high school, after all.
Ain’t like pornographically detailed, mind you, but I’m not sure that some of my folks could play a game without double entendres. And I am the resident prude of the bunch. I think a lot of stuff comes from people reading into the idea of ‘sexuality in the game” and equaling some sort of eroticism charged role playing session where characters describe their make out session and I’m all “eh?”, but at the same time, hey, if pornoD&D is what some folks want, cool by me, ain’t my game.
We’ve had the children and grandchildren of characters become PCs themselves, played over time within the same campaign. We’ve built campaigns around generational shifts, and we’ve had folks die of old age. You don’t get that without sexuality. I’ve designed and run entire campaigns where the characters start out as children and grow old. And all of that ignores the assorted versions of Stephen King’s IT that we have done (and let me not tell you about one of the major ways the kids beat Pennywise in the book…)
The assertion that “it doesn’t belong in the game” is one of trying to tell other people how to have fun. Which is both rather rude and shockingly antithetical to the game itself.
This is why Zero Sessions are important for a group of folks who are newer to each other in playing. It allows for a baseline of what is and isn’t useful. By and large, most LGBTQ folks are far, far more comfortable with and knowledgeable about sexuality than most cishet folks because they have to be so.
If you aren’t comfortable with it, some advice:
Own it. Ain’t nothing wrong with being uncomfortable about sexuality or sex or gender.
Don’t throw it at others. You ain’t got neither right nor authority to be doin that, shut it.
MYODB. Don’t poke yer nose into other people’s bidness.
Move Along. Mosey on over to the kitchen, i hear there’s some snacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders...
Because sexual content isn't really a comfortable subject in any game, regardless of its normative status.
Sexual content does not have a place in a game shop or other public venue. Sexuality is the basis for many uncomfortable situations as your players may be trying to force eroticism into the game nonconsensually. And I'm not saying they are role playing nonconsensual sex, but that they are trying to role play it despite people's comfort level.
It's also generally not acceptable when playing a game with minors
People also tend to have trouble disconnecting the game from real relationships, which means a role playing game that has sexual content can cause out.of game tension amongst players.
If George the barbarian has two mommies, who cares? Personally, I'm not going to be bent out of shape over it. My former bosses and customers were the first ones to get married when NY allowed gay marriage, and I was witness for a coworker when he married his husband 9years ago.
But if George the barbarian wants to kiss the barmaid he's going to be staring at a VERY wary DM that's going to need some VERY good explanation as to why or else he's going to get a very stern talking to about what is and is not acceptable role play.
It's not about one's sexuality, it's about sexual content and ensuring the game stays comfortable and enjoyable for everyone.
Edit: and to that effect, all babies in my games are hatched in stork eggs hand delivered to parents... the tiefling eggs are a robins egg blue. (I'm joking, but seriously, I just try to keep the games as absolutely free of sex as I can)
To the remaining part of the inner quote, I have to chuckle because it absolutely was. Save the princess, win a kiss was a theme, and under arneson’s (early) games, you got a bit more than that.
onward!
Sexuality is a comfortable subject in our games, always. We have bi, lesbian, gay, trans, enby, and majority cishet players ranging from 10 to 60 years old. Romance subplots, character backgrounds, and of course the inevitable banter one gets when husband and wife or parent and child are playing, and then the core group of folks playing since the early 80’s have all manner of past entanglements themselves. We’ve known each other since high school, after all.
Ain’t like pornographically detailed, mind you, but I’m not sure that some of my folks could play a game without double entendres. And I am the resident prude of the bunch. I think a lot of stuff comes from people reading into the idea of ‘sexuality in the game” and equaling some sort of eroticism charged role playing session where characters describe their make out session and I’m all “eh?”, but at the same time, hey, if pornoD&D is what some folks want, cool by me, ain’t my game.
We’ve had the children and grandchildren of characters become PCs themselves, played over time within the same campaign. We’ve built campaigns around generational shifts, and we’ve had folks die of old age. You don’t get that without sexuality. I’ve designed and run entire campaigns where the characters start out as children and grow old. And all of that ignores the assorted versions of Stephen King’s IT that we have done (and let me not tell you about one of the major ways the kids beat Pennywise in the book…)
The assertion that “it doesn’t belong in the game” is one of trying to tell other people how to have fun. Which is both rather rude and shockingly antithetical to the game itself.
This is why Zero Sessions are important for a group of folks who are newer to each other in playing. It allows for a baseline of what is and isn’t useful. By and large, most LGBTQ folks are far, far more comfortable with and knowledgeable about sexuality than most cishet folks because they have to be so.
If you aren’t comfortable with it, some advice:
Own it. Ain’t nothing wrong with being uncomfortable about sexuality or sex or gender.
Don’t throw it at others. You ain’t got neither right nor authority to be doin that, shut it.
MYODB. Don’t poke yer nose into other people’s bidness.
Move Along. Mosey on over to the kitchen, i hear there’s some snacks.
The risks do not outweigh the rewards. Especially in a public setting.
I think you and I may also be facing some east coast vs. West coast sensibilities. On the east coast, we're far more puritanical. Even gay people.
There's just far less spoken about publicly, and there's an always on "business casual corporate setting"-ness about us East coasters.
I've spent my time on the west, and I can honestly say, we're just "built different" about certain topics.
Environmentalism is another. I had a salesman try to join a company I worked for. He was shocked that people still wanted to talk dollars and cents about going organic for themselves and the "good for you" stuff just did not fly.
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders...
Because sexual content isn't really a comfortable subject in any game, regardless of its normative status.
Sexual content does not have a place in a game shop or other public venue. Sexuality is the basis for many uncomfortable situations as your players may be trying to force eroticism into the game nonconsensually. And I'm not saying they are role playing nonconsensual sex, but that they are trying to role play it despite people's comfort level.
It's also generally not acceptable when playing a game with minors
People also tend to have trouble disconnecting the game from real relationships, which means a role playing game that has sexual content can cause out.of game tension amongst players.
If George the barbarian has two mommies, who cares? Personally, I'm not going to be bent out of shape over it. My former bosses and customers were the first ones to get married when NY allowed gay marriage, and I was witness for a coworker when he married his husband 9years ago.
But if George the barbarian wants to kiss the barmaid he's going to be staring at a VERY wary DM that's going to need some VERY good explanation as to why or else he's going to get a very stern talking to about what is and is not acceptable role play.
It's not about one's sexuality, it's about sexual content and ensuring the game stays comfortable and enjoyable for everyone.
Edit: and to that effect, all babies in my games are hatched in stork eggs hand delivered to parents... the tiefling eggs are a robins egg blue. (I'm joking, but seriously, I just try to keep the games as absolutely free of sex as I can)
To the remaining part of the inner quote, I have to chuckle because it absolutely was. Save the princess, win a kiss was a theme, and under arneson’s (early) games, you got a bit more than that.
onward!
Sexuality is a comfortable subject in our games, always. We have bi, lesbian, gay, trans, enby, and majority cishet players ranging from 10 to 60 years old. Romance subplots, character backgrounds, and of course the inevitable banter one gets when husband and wife or parent and child are playing, and then the core group of folks playing since the early 80’s have all manner of past entanglements themselves. We’ve known each other since high school, after all.
Ain’t like pornographically detailed, mind you, but I’m not sure that some of my folks could play a game without double entendres. And I am the resident prude of the bunch. I think a lot of stuff comes from people reading into the idea of ‘sexuality in the game” and equaling some sort of eroticism charged role playing session where characters describe their make out session and I’m all “eh?”, but at the same time, hey, if pornoD&D is what some folks want, cool by me, ain’t my game.
We’ve had the children and grandchildren of characters become PCs themselves, played over time within the same campaign. We’ve built campaigns around generational shifts, and we’ve had folks die of old age. You don’t get that without sexuality. I’ve designed and run entire campaigns where the characters start out as children and grow old. And all of that ignores the assorted versions of Stephen King’s IT that we have done (and let me not tell you about one of the major ways the kids beat Pennywise in the book…)
The assertion that “it doesn’t belong in the game” is one of trying to tell other people how to have fun. Which is both rather rude and shockingly antithetical to the game itself.
This is why Zero Sessions are important for a group of folks who are newer to each other in playing. It allows for a baseline of what is and isn’t useful. By and large, most LGBTQ folks are far, far more comfortable with and knowledgeable about sexuality than most cishet folks because they have to be so.
If you aren’t comfortable with it, some advice:
Own it. Ain’t nothing wrong with being uncomfortable about sexuality or sex or gender.
Don’t throw it at others. You ain’t got neither right nor authority to be doin that, shut it.
MYODB. Don’t poke yer nose into other people’s bidness.
Move Along. Mosey on over to the kitchen, i hear there’s some snacks.
The risks do not outweigh the rewards. Especially in a public setting.
I think you and I may also be facing some east coast vs. West coast sensibilities. On the east coast, we're far more puritanical. Even gay people.
There's just far less spoken about publicly, and there's an always on "business casual corporate setting"-ness about us East coasters.
I've spent my time on the west, and I can honestly say, we're just "built different" about certain topics.
Environmentalism is another. I had a salesman try to join a company I worked for. He was shocked that people still wanted to talk dollars and cents about going organic for themselves and the "good for you" stuff just did not fly.
Sex is one of those things...
Absolutely. The group is predominantly a bunch of Arizonans (including me, despite the present circumstance), so for us there is the huge “do as ya will” thing, the “MYODB” thing, and in environmental terms there is always the factor of “Unspoiled” and self reliance that kicks in for those things. “Good for ya ain’t no issue, and if’n ya got the money, fine, but growin yer own food and keepin it healthy be a lot wiser than what the grocer done got over yonder”.
That said, it isn’t just an east coast/west coast thing.
It is a table thing. Every table is different. My group is built around a half dozen folks who dated, broke up, married, divorced, remarried, came out, and all that over 40 plus years — and often to each other, lol.
I have run games for comparative strangers where sexuality never came up — even among entirely queer player groups. I have also run them where it was a major factor (and on the east coast, lol. NYC, DC, and Durham.)
The table is what counts, though. And every table is different. I don’t allow lycanthropy or vampirism into my games as a PC trait. That kills a couple of fave PC options. I build in gender and orientation options into character creation (three questions), and have things present int he background.
I don’t mind if the barbarian kisses the barmaid. Or the barboy. I don’t care if the Amazonian wizard needs to get laid and heads to a brothel in town. I don’t role play it, so fine, color, in character, here’s a point, keep going.
But I would never say to someone else that it doesn’t belong in the game, or that they should be required to have it. THough, like the mod, I might say something to effect of “you do know that if you have Siblings or parents, you have sex in your game, right?” If they claim it isn’t there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Absolutely. The group is predominantly a bunch of Arizonans (including me, despite the present circumstance), so for us there is the huge “do as ya will” thing, the “MYODB” thing, and in environmental terms there is always the factor of “Unspoiled” and self reliance that kicks in for those things. “Good for ya ain’t no issue, and if’n ya got the money, fine, but growin yer own food and keepin it healthy be a lot wiser than what the grocer done got over yonder”.
That said, it isn’t just an east coast/west coast thing.
It is a table thing. Every table is different. My group is built around a half dozen folks who dated, broke up, married, divorced, remarried, came out, and all that over 40 plus years — and often to each other, lol.
I have run games for comparative strangers where sexuality never came up — even among entirely queer player groups. I have also run them where it was a major factor (and on the east coast, lol. NYC, DC, and Durham.)
The table is what counts, though. And every table is different. I don’t allow lycanthropy or vampirism into my games as a PC trait. That kills a couple of fave PC options. I build in gender and orientation options into character creation (three questions), and have things present int he background.
I don’t mind if the barbarian kisses the barmaid. Or the barboy. I don’t care if the Amazonian wizard needs to get laid and heads to a brothel in town. I don’t role play it, so fine, color, in character, here’s a point, keep going.
But I would never say to someone else that it doesn’t belong in the game, or that they should be required to have it. THough, like the mod, I might say something to effect of “you do know that if you have Siblings or parents, you have sex in your game, right?” If they claim it isn’t there.
That's all well and good if your specific table allows it but the general rule is to keep sex out, just like public forums like this one.
You're sitting in a private home with friends you know and have known for a while, go ahead, but generally it should not be a free for all and never should be.
Anyone who wants to kiss the bar person is not going to get away with it just as it's not going to happen in the real world because it's nonconsensual and makes people uncomfortable.
Just because your parents ad siblings have sex does not mean you want to hear about it or picture it happening.
This is why sex stays out of the games.
Edit: not to.mention, if your character is trying to kiss the bar person, you're forcing your DM to role play into something they themselves may or may not be comfortable with.
And despite session zeros, there's a lot of.... how to put it?
If it's listed on a questionnaire it almost implies intent that this may come up, making it uncomfortable. Or it.might be missed as just an accidental omission.
Absolutely. The group is predominantly a bunch of Arizonans (including me, despite the present circumstance), so for us there is the huge “do as ya will” thing, the “MYODB” thing, and in environmental terms there is always the factor of “Unspoiled” and self reliance that kicks in for those things. “Good for ya ain’t no issue, and if’n ya got the money, fine, but growin yer own food and keepin it healthy be a lot wiser than what the grocer done got over yonder”.
That said, it isn’t just an east coast/west coast thing.
It is a table thing. Every table is different. My group is built around a half dozen folks who dated, broke up, married, divorced, remarried, came out, and all that over 40 plus years — and often to each other, lol.
I have run games for comparative strangers where sexuality never came up — even among entirely queer player groups. I have also run them where it was a major factor (and on the east coast, lol. NYC, DC, and Durham.)
The table is what counts, though. And every table is different. I don’t allow lycanthropy or vampirism into my games as a PC trait. That kills a couple of fave PC options. I build in gender and orientation options into character creation (three questions), and have things present int he background.
I don’t mind if the barbarian kisses the barmaid. Or the barboy. I don’t care if the Amazonian wizard needs to get laid and heads to a brothel in town. I don’t role play it, so fine, color, in character, here’s a point, keep going.
But I would never say to someone else that it doesn’t belong in the game, or that they should be required to have it. THough, like the mod, I might say something to effect of “you do know that if you have Siblings or parents, you have sex in your game, right?” If they claim it isn’t there.
That's all well and good if your specific table allows it but the general rule is to keep sex out, just like public forums like this one.
You're sitting in a private home with friends you know and have known for a while, go ahead, but generally it should not be a free for all and never should be.
Anyone who wants to kiss the bar person is not going to get away with it just as it's not going to happen in the real world because it's nonconsensual and makes people uncomfortable.
Just because your parents ad siblings have sex does not mean you want to hear about it or picture it happening.
This is why sex stays out of the games.
Edit: not to.mention, if your character is trying to kiss the bar person, you're forcing your DM to role play into something they themselves may or may not be comfortable with.
And despite session zeros, there's a lot of.... how to put it?
If it's listed on a questionnaire it almost implies intent that this may come up, making it uncomfortable. Or it.might be missed as just an accidental omission.
Then there's the bear in the room for that....
I'm putting on the mod hat for this one.
Sex and sexuality are not the same thing. People can discuss being gay, straight, bi, poly, or ace without it being a discussion of sexual activity. To equate the two is an attempt to stifle the ability for non-hetrosexual people to talk about themselves and their stories.
The forums do not, and never will, have policies prohibiting people talking about sexuality as it relates to the game or their experiences with it. The moderation team does not conflate sexuality with sex/sexual activity and never has done.
If anyone wants to conflate the two and thus declare that discussing sexuality is inappropriate for the game/these forums, well they are fundamentally incorrect. The moderation team will not allow marginalised members of this community to be silenced more so than they already are under the guise of "appropriateness".
The conversation about sex in the game is irrelevant to this thread. Sexual orientation and sex are not synonymous terms. Having LGBT+ characters in your game is not bringing sex into your game—it is just fleshing out a believable world. Mentioning a barbarian likes other dudes or having NPCs refer to a bard with neutral pronouns is hardly making the game sexual—it is just acknowledging that certain types of people exist in every single point in history, and they exist in your game as well.
Frankly, the entire tangent about sex in the game is not only off topic, it is actively harmful. One tool bigots use to suppress discussion of sexual identity is trying to equate conversations about identity with conversations about the act of sex. They pretend acknowledging the existence of gay people and the the romantic side of their relationship is the same as talking about those people’s genitalia or sexual activities - while hypocritically ignoring that the same poor argument could be made about discussing the non-sexual elements of heterosexual couples.
And, foolish of an argument as it is, the bigots have been very successful. People do not like talking about the act of sex, so by defining sexual identity in terms of the act of sex, those who would repress discussions of LGBT+ individuals have made many people uncomfortable talking about identity.
Maybe, rather than indulging that particular brand of hate by discussing sex in the context of a thread on identity, folks could get back on to the actual topic of the thread.
Edit: Looks like Davyd posted the same thing while I was typing this up.
The reason I don’t mind the kissing is that I will slap that PC silly for kissing me and possibly kick them out of the bar, lol. They want that kind of thing, there’s a Circle of Lanterns hall just down the road.
or they might find out what it means when it says that most innkeeps are retired adventurers, lol.
Time and Place and Consequences. Those zero sessions can create that understanding — what you likely wanted to say was that people joke, and if someone is uncomfortable dealing with it, they may not speak up during a zero session. That includes the DM, whose responsibility it is to bring such things up. If they can’t do it, how will it get addressed?
And that’s outside the bonds of the game to determine. It is also a very, very USian (American, but from one country in the Americas) problem, overall.
I don’t disagree that for most, this kind of stuff is not common. I just want to point out that it is not entirely absent, and that there is no “all” involved, and much of this is building on an exchange that was there because of some implied subtext.
Those romance storylines? Voluntary and request only. Because while they are easy for me to do now, they were not initially, since I thought that meant more than just the basic will they/won’t they bit, lol.
Sexual relations is what everyone is dancing around, lol. The Sexual and Gender minorities stuff is horse crap because some folks are more prejudiced than society is.
This thread is about LGBTQ folks playing D&D. They do. For a large part, they generally don’t have the horse crap, and so their games are typically going to be a lot freer — and when they run into it at some tables, they will leave if they can’t express that stuff.
because it is part of them, and often part of their fantasy, to be recognized and seen in a world where people *don’t freak out and suddenly worry about kids*, and where else is better than in a game.
it is one of the reasons I don’t play as a player, only a DM. My games will always be safe for that. And if cishet folks can’t take it, they aren’t at my table.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The conversation about sex in the game is irrelevant to this thread. Sexual orientation and sex are not synonymous terms. Having LGBT+ characters in your game is not bringing sex into your game—it is just fleshing out a believable world. Mentioning a barbarian likes other dudes or having NPCs refer to a bard with neutral pronouns is hardly making the game sexual—it is just acknowledging that certain types of people exist in every single point in history, and they exist in your game as well.
Frankly, the entire tangent about sex in the game is not only off topic, it is actively harmful. One tool bigots use to suppress discussion of sexual identity is trying to equate conversations about identity with conversations about the act of sex. They pretend acknowledging the existence of gay people and the the romantic side of their relationship is the same as talking about those people’s genitalia or sexual activities - while hypocritically ignoring that the same poor argument could be made about discussing the non-sexual elements of heterosexual couples.
And, foolish of an argument as it is, the bigots have been very successful. People do not like talking about the act of sex, so by defining sexual identity in terms of the act of sex, those who would repress discussions of LGBT+ individuals have made many people uncomfortable talking about identity.
Maybe, rather than indulging that particular brand of hate by discussing sex in the context of a thread on identity, folks could get back on to the actual topic of the thread.
Edit: Looks like Davyd posted the same thing while I was typing this up.
I don't disagree.
Originally this tangent was started because people having siblings and parents meant sex which meant sexuality.
If you look back to my original stance it has been that you can express your sexuality and you can talk about it and you can have conversations, but I draw the line at having to roleplay physical contact out.
The conversation about sex in the game is irrelevant to this thread. Sexual orientation and sex are not synonymous terms. Having LGBT+ characters in your game is not bringing sex into your game—it is just fleshing out a believable world. Mentioning a barbarian likes other dudes or having NPCs refer to a bard with neutral pronouns is hardly making the game sexual—it is just acknowledging that certain types of people exist in every single point in history, and they exist in your game as well.
Frankly, the entire tangent about sex in the game is not only off topic, it is actively harmful. One tool bigots use to suppress discussion of sexual identity is trying to equate conversations about identity with conversations about the act of sex. They pretend acknowledging the existence of gay people and the the romantic side of their relationship is the same as talking about those people’s genitalia or sexual activities - while hypocritically ignoring that the same poor argument could be made about discussing the non-sexual elements of heterosexual couples.
And, foolish of an argument as it is, the bigots have been very successful. People do not like talking about the act of sex, so by defining sexual identity in terms of the act of sex, those who would repress discussions of LGBT+ individuals have made many people uncomfortable talking about identity.
Maybe, rather than indulging that particular brand of hate by discussing sex in the context of a thread on identity, folks could get back on to the actual topic of the thread.
Edit: Looks like Davyd posted the same thing while I was typing this up.
I don't disagree.
Originally this tangent was started because people having siblings and parents meant sex which meant sexuality.
If you look back to my original stance it has been that you can express your sexuality and you can talk about it and you can have conversations, but I draw the line at having to roleplay physical contact out.
The point I was making seems to have been missed. I was highlighting that sexuality is a fundamental part peoples day to day life because everyone is surrounded by non-familial/platonic relationships. Parents have such a relationship and this can sometimes result in them having children. People fall in love and get married and their spouses will be important individuals in their life. However, it only because a matter worth commenting when it's a non-heterosexual relationship.
The point of my statement wasn't sex or reproduction, but relationships.
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
I always find the argument of "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" interesting because it implies some very odd things about any game to which that statement applies. In games where "sexuality isn't an important part", do NPCs not have spouses? Or children? Or parents? Because all those things relate to sexuality in some way. If you have a masc character with a wife or a femme character with a husband, that's sexuality right there. It just happens to be hetrosexuality. If a character has a child and that child isn't adopted, that's one again sexuality playing a role in the game, it just so happens to be hetrosexuality.
I can't help but read "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" as subtextually saying "non-hetrosexuality isn't an important part of the game". This may not be the intent, but it does seem to be there, reading between the lines.
Because sexual content isn't really a comfortable subject in any game, regardless of its normative status.
Sexual content does not have a place in a game shop or other public venue. Sexuality is the basis for many uncomfortable situations as your players may be trying to force eroticism into the game nonconsensually. And I'm not saying they are role playing nonconsensual sex, but that they are trying to role play it despite people's comfort level.
It's also generally not acceptable when playing a game with minors
People also tend to have trouble disconnecting the game from real relationships, which means a role playing game that has sexual content can cause out.of game tension amongst players.
If George the barbarian has two mommies, who cares? Personally, I'm not going to be bent out of shape over it. My former bosses and customers were the first ones to get married when NY allowed gay marriage, and I was witness for a coworker when he married his husband 9years ago.
But if George the barbarian wants to kiss the barmaid he's going to be staring at a VERY wary DM that's going to need some VERY good explanation as to why or else he's going to get a very stern talking to about what is and is not acceptable role play.
It's not about one's sexuality, it's about sexual content and ensuring the game stays comfortable and enjoyable for everyone.
Edit: and to that effect, all babies in my games are hatched in stork eggs hand delivered to parents... the tiefling eggs are a robins egg blue. (I'm joking, but seriously, I just try to keep the games as absolutely free of sex as I can)
What I'm hearing from your description is that it's not so much sexuality that's a problem for you in game, it's sexually explicit content. And I get that does present a problem. I wouldn't want to allow those elements into my game, because I don't know what other people's experiences and comfort levels are at the table and I don't know what might be triggering for someone.
So if George has two mommies or a husband, it sounds like you're fine with that. If anyone is rolling dice to try and get it on - whether it's George, his moms, or the cis/het bard - that's where you have a problem. To me, that seems like an appropriate boundary. It doesn't have to be everyone's boundary, but if those elements make anyone in your group uncomfortable, including you, then I think it's appropriate to keep them out of the game.
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
I always find the argument of "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" interesting because it implies some very odd things about any game to which that statement applies. In games where "sexuality isn't an important part", do NPCs not have spouses? Or children? Or parents? Because all those things relate to sexuality in some way. If you have a masc character with a wife or a femme character with a husband, that's sexuality right there. It just happens to be hetrosexuality. If a character has a child and that child isn't adopted, that's one again sexuality playing a role in the game, it just so happens to be hetrosexuality.
I can't help but read "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" as subtextually saying "non-hetrosexuality isn't an important part of the game". This may not be the intent, but it does seem to be there, reading between the lines.
Because sexual content isn't really a comfortable subject in any game, regardless of its normative status.
Sexual content does not have a place in a game shop or other public venue. Sexuality is the basis for many uncomfortable situations as your players may be trying to force eroticism into the game nonconsensually. And I'm not saying they are role playing nonconsensual sex, but that they are trying to role play it despite people's comfort level.
It's also generally not acceptable when playing a game with minors
People also tend to have trouble disconnecting the game from real relationships, which means a role playing game that has sexual content can cause out.of game tension amongst players.
If George the barbarian has two mommies, who cares? Personally, I'm not going to be bent out of shape over it. My former bosses and customers were the first ones to get married when NY allowed gay marriage, and I was witness for a coworker when he married his husband 9years ago.
But if George the barbarian wants to kiss the barmaid he's going to be staring at a VERY wary DM that's going to need some VERY good explanation as to why or else he's going to get a very stern talking to about what is and is not acceptable role play.
It's not about one's sexuality, it's about sexual content and ensuring the game stays comfortable and enjoyable for everyone.
Edit: and to that effect, all babies in my games are hatched in stork eggs hand delivered to parents... the tiefling eggs are a robins egg blue. (I'm joking, but seriously, I just try to keep the games as absolutely free of sex as I can)
What I'm hearing from your description is that it's not so much sexuality that's a problem for you in game, it's sexually explicit content. And I get that does present a problem. I wouldn't want to allow those elements into my game, because I don't know what other people's experiences and comfort levels are at the table and I don't know what might be triggering for someone.
So if George has two mommies or a husband, it sounds like you're fine with that. If anyone is rolling dice to try and get it on - whether it's George, his moms, or the cis/het bard - that's where you have a problem. To me, that seems like an appropriate boundary. It doesn't have to be everyone's boundary, but if those elements make anyone in your group uncomfortable, including you, then I think it's appropriate to keep them out of the game.
I won't speak for Bob_the_fish12, but this is pretty much my rule (the part I bolded in DoveArrow's response).
I'd even go beyond the "rolling dice" and include graphic roleplay. Which, I have to note, happens when you have married couples in your group on some occasions. Then I sorta call a flag and we move on.
I go about as far as flirting, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
I always find the argument of "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" interesting because it implies some very odd things about any game to which that statement applies. In games where "sexuality isn't an important part", do NPCs not have spouses? Or children? Or parents? Because all those things relate to sexuality in some way. If you have a masc character with a wife or a femme character with a husband, that's sexuality right there. It just happens to be hetrosexuality. If a character has a child and that child isn't adopted, that's one again sexuality playing a role in the game, it just so happens to be hetrosexuality.
I can't help but read "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" as subtextually saying "non-hetrosexuality isn't an important part of the game". This may not be the intent, but it does seem to be there, reading between the lines.
Because sexual content isn't really a comfortable subject in any game, regardless of its normative status.
Sexual content does not have a place in a game shop or other public venue. Sexuality is the basis for many uncomfortable situations as your players may be trying to force eroticism into the game nonconsensually. And I'm not saying they are role playing nonconsensual sex, but that they are trying to role play it despite people's comfort level.
It's also generally not acceptable when playing a game with minors
People also tend to have trouble disconnecting the game from real relationships, which means a role playing game that has sexual content can cause out.of game tension amongst players.
If George the barbarian has two mommies, who cares? Personally, I'm not going to be bent out of shape over it. My former bosses and customers were the first ones to get married when NY allowed gay marriage, and I was witness for a coworker when he married his husband 9years ago.
But if George the barbarian wants to kiss the barmaid he's going to be staring at a VERY wary DM that's going to need some VERY good explanation as to why or else he's going to get a very stern talking to about what is and is not acceptable role play.
It's not about one's sexuality, it's about sexual content and ensuring the game stays comfortable and enjoyable for everyone.
Edit: and to that effect, all babies in my games are hatched in stork eggs hand delivered to parents... the tiefling eggs are a robins egg blue. (I'm joking, but seriously, I just try to keep the games as absolutely free of sex as I can)
What I'm hearing from your description is that it's not so much sexuality that's a problem for you in game, it's sexually explicit content. And I get that does present a problem. I wouldn't want to allow those elements into my game, because I don't know what other people's experiences and comfort levels are at the table and I don't know what might be triggering for someone.
So if George has two mommies or a husband, it sounds like you're fine with that. If anyone is rolling dice to try and get it on - whether it's George, his moms, or the cis/het bard - that's where you have a problem. To me, that seems like an appropriate boundary. It doesn't have to be everyone's boundary, but if those elements make anyone in your group uncomfortable, including you, then I think it's appropriate to keep them out of the game.
It does seem like LGBTQIAN+ people tend to like D&D. Many of my friends are queer and obsessed with it haha. For whatever reason, most of my queer friends love DnD, and most of my allocishet friends think it's strange. There are exceptions though; I have allocishet friends who enjoy DnD quite a lot, and queer friends who aren't interested. But yeah, it does seem like the LGBTQIAN+ community just generally likes DnD. I think it's because openly queer people might be more willing to play a game viewed as weird and nerdy, because most of us have gotten used to just liking ourselves without the approval of others. Just a theory! Or maybe it's got something to do with Stranger Things! IDK, all I really know is that I'm queer af and I love revel in this game :D
There is also the fact that it’s a game, so they can play a character — and that character can be anything they want it to be (within the rules of the game and campaign). It gives people an outlet that they might not have in their day-to-day life, and let’s them explore aspects and parts of themselves that they may struggle to bring to the fore while away from the table.
That said, so haven’t personally noticed any specific trend towards LGBTQ+ people enjoying D&D more than others. It might be because gender and sexual orientation doesn’t matter to me. I care more about the connections that I make with people, not how that person identifies. When I run a game, I don’t even ask, I just state in the game ad that it’s an LGBTQ+ friendly game.
So having never counted who identifies as whom/what/which, it seems strange to me that other people who actually have noticed.
@TWForgeCleric I'm honestly not sure what you mean by it seems strange to you; I have a difficult time with understanding tone and such.
But also, I'm going to add that most of my friends are very open about their LGBTQIA+ identity, and I simply noticed that many of my openly queer friends are also the same friends who love DnD. I do agree with you though, that it shouldn't matter what someone's gender or sexuality is, it's more about the connection with the person. I don't go out of my way to ask or find out their sexual or gender identities, my friends are just very open. My queer friends often enjoying DnD is simply something I've noticed within my friend group.
My second thought: "Probably half the D&D club is LGBTQIA+, my campaign I am 28 sessions into DMing has 3/5 players who are LGBTQIA+... Huh."
But my main takeaway here is that I didn't notice (I knew, because they're my friends) because the game is about roleplaying another character, so the character of the players doesn't actually matter. Yes, some of the characters are gay in the game, but that manifests more as flirting and jokes than anything else because they have dragons to slay, the game's about bigger things than romantic interests!
It's also worth noting that I would say D&D attracts a high proportion of people who are ADHD and Autistic as well. I think a massive part of it is that your own personality and such matters less in D&D because you are playing a character, who might have an entirely different personality, which is used for 4-5 hours of the game time vs an hour or so of before & after chat!
In other words, it's inclusive - anyone can make a compelling and fun character to play D&D with. And they do.
Given that sexuality was never ever envisioned as an integral part of the game by the founders (except for encounters like Harpies, which torment and eat their prey) , it has no place in my game, and simply does not come up. I tried it once, where we created the typical Dear John situation for one of the chars that was in the King's Guard. That ended horribly. Never again.
I always find the argument of "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" interesting because it implies some very odd things about any game to which that statement applies. In games where "sexuality isn't an important part", do NPCs not have spouses? Or children? Or parents? Because all those things relate to sexuality in some way. If you have a masc character with a wife or a femme character with a husband, that's sexuality right there. It just happens to be hetrosexuality. If a character has a child and that child isn't adopted, that's one again sexuality playing a role in the game, it just so happens to be hetrosexuality.
I can't help but read "sexuality isn't an important part of the game" as subtextually saying "non-hetrosexuality isn't an important part of the game". This may not be the intent, but it does seem to be there, reading between the lines.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Because sexual content isn't really a comfortable subject in any game, regardless of its normative status.
Sexual content does not have a place in a game shop or other public venue. Sexuality is the basis for many uncomfortable situations as your players may be trying to force eroticism into the game nonconsensually. And I'm not saying they are role playing nonconsensual sex, but that they are trying to role play it despite people's comfort level.
It's also generally not acceptable when playing a game with minors
People also tend to have trouble disconnecting the game from real relationships, which means a role playing game that has sexual content can cause out.of game tension amongst players.
If George the barbarian has two mommies, who cares? Personally, I'm not going to be bent out of shape over it. My former bosses and customers were the first ones to get married when NY allowed gay marriage, and I was witness for a coworker when he married his husband 9years ago.
But if George the barbarian wants to kiss the barmaid he's going to be staring at a VERY wary DM that's going to need some VERY good explanation as to why or else he's going to get a very stern talking to about what is and is not acceptable role play.
It's not about one's sexuality, it's about sexual content and ensuring the game stays comfortable and enjoyable for everyone.
Edit: and to that effect, all babies in my games are hatched in stork eggs hand delivered to parents... the tiefling eggs are a robins egg blue. (I'm joking, but seriously, I just try to keep the games as absolutely free of sex as I can)
And, that, in a nutshell, is the reason I don't have this type of thing in my game. Game time is precious. Discussing the sexuality of NPC's is a total waste of that precious time. NO ONE at ANY table I play at or DM cares if an NPC is adopted, or if that NPC's parents are gay or straight. It is utterly irrelevant. And as a moderator, I certainly hope you don't go after posters based on you "reading between the lines".
I do feel like maybe my point was not presented clearly, so I apologise. If an NPC has a husband who has been kidnapped by bandits or a wife that died in the recent dragon attack, you are implicitly bringing sexuality into the game. However, this only seems to draw comment if it's a man who wants to rescue his husband to bandits or a woman who lost her wife to the dragon attack. Unless your game is completely bereft of any kind of social interactions with NPCs where those details come up, sexuality does play at least some role in the game. However, there are maybe some default assumptions that, because they're default assumptions, don't get treated as 'bringing sexuality into things'
I truly have no idea what you may be getting at here. As long as people are following the site rules & guidelines, the moderation team has zero reason to interact with them in their capacity as moderators.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
To your point of "Unless your game is completely bereft of any kind of social interactions with NPCs where those details come up, sexuality does play at least some role in the game", that is precisely how my games are run. Those kind of details are never provided by myself or the other DM's , and the players never ask. NPC's provide information, or may be a meat shield, or might be a BBEG. But anything beyond that is never fleshed out, because as a DM I don't care nor have the time to flesh out that bit.
To the remaining part of the inner quote, I have to chuckle because it absolutely was. Save the princess, win a kiss was a theme, and under arneson’s (early) games, you got a bit more than that.
onward!
Sexuality is a comfortable subject in our games, always. We have bi, lesbian, gay, trans, enby, and majority cishet players ranging from 10 to 60 years old. Romance subplots, character backgrounds, and of course the inevitable banter one gets when husband and wife or parent and child are playing, and then the core group of folks playing since the early 80’s have all manner of past entanglements themselves. We’ve known each other since high school, after all.
Ain’t like pornographically detailed, mind you, but I’m not sure that some of my folks could play a game without double entendres. And I am the resident prude of the bunch. I think a lot of stuff comes from people reading into the idea of ‘sexuality in the game” and equaling some sort of eroticism charged role playing session where characters describe their make out session and I’m all “eh?”, but at the same time, hey, if pornoD&D is what some folks want, cool by me, ain’t my game.
We’ve had the children and grandchildren of characters become PCs themselves, played over time within the same campaign. We’ve built campaigns around generational shifts, and we’ve had folks die of old age. You don’t get that without sexuality. I’ve designed and run entire campaigns where the characters start out as children and grow old. And all of that ignores the assorted versions of Stephen King’s IT that we have done (and let me not tell you about one of the major ways the kids beat Pennywise in the book…)
The assertion that “it doesn’t belong in the game” is one of trying to tell other people how to have fun. Which is both rather rude and shockingly antithetical to the game itself.
This is why Zero Sessions are important for a group of folks who are newer to each other in playing. It allows for a baseline of what is and isn’t useful. By and large, most LGBTQ folks are far, far more comfortable with and knowledgeable about sexuality than most cishet folks because they have to be so.
If you aren’t comfortable with it, some advice:
Own it. Ain’t nothing wrong with being uncomfortable about sexuality or sex or gender.
Don’t throw it at others. You ain’t got neither right nor authority to be doin that, shut it.
MYODB. Don’t poke yer nose into other people’s bidness.
Move Along. Mosey on over to the kitchen, i hear there’s some snacks.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The risks do not outweigh the rewards. Especially in a public setting.
I think you and I may also be facing some east coast vs. West coast sensibilities. On the east coast, we're far more puritanical. Even gay people.
There's just far less spoken about publicly, and there's an always on "business casual corporate setting"-ness about us East coasters.
I've spent my time on the west, and I can honestly say, we're just "built different" about certain topics.
Environmentalism is another. I had a salesman try to join a company I worked for. He was shocked that people still wanted to talk dollars and cents about going organic for themselves and the "good for you" stuff just did not fly.
Sex is one of those things...
Absolutely. The group is predominantly a bunch of Arizonans (including me, despite the present circumstance), so for us there is the huge “do as ya will” thing, the “MYODB” thing, and in environmental terms there is always the factor of “Unspoiled” and self reliance that kicks in for those things. “Good for ya ain’t no issue, and if’n ya got the money, fine, but growin yer own food and keepin it healthy be a lot wiser than what the grocer done got over yonder”.
That said, it isn’t just an east coast/west coast thing.
It is a table thing. Every table is different. My group is built around a half dozen folks who dated, broke up, married, divorced, remarried, came out, and all that over 40 plus years — and often to each other, lol.
I have run games for comparative strangers where sexuality never came up — even among entirely queer player groups. I have also run them where it was a major factor (and on the east coast, lol. NYC, DC, and Durham.)
The table is what counts, though. And every table is different. I don’t allow lycanthropy or vampirism into my games as a PC trait. That kills a couple of fave PC options. I build in gender and orientation options into character creation (three questions), and have things present int he background.
I don’t mind if the barbarian kisses the barmaid. Or the barboy. I don’t care if the Amazonian wizard needs to get laid and heads to a brothel in town. I don’t role play it, so fine, color, in character, here’s a point, keep going.
But I would never say to someone else that it doesn’t belong in the game, or that they should be required to have it. THough, like the mod, I might say something to effect of “you do know that if you have Siblings or parents, you have sex in your game, right?” If they claim it isn’t there.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
That's all well and good if your specific table allows it but the general rule is to keep sex out, just like public forums like this one.
You're sitting in a private home with friends you know and have known for a while, go ahead, but generally it should not be a free for all and never should be.
Anyone who wants to kiss the bar person is not going to get away with it just as it's not going to happen in the real world because it's nonconsensual and makes people uncomfortable.
Just because your parents ad siblings have sex does not mean you want to hear about it or picture it happening.
This is why sex stays out of the games.
Edit: not to.mention, if your character is trying to kiss the bar person, you're forcing your DM to role play into something they themselves may or may not be comfortable with.
And despite session zeros, there's a lot of.... how to put it?
If it's listed on a questionnaire it almost implies intent that this may come up, making it uncomfortable. Or it.might be missed as just an accidental omission.
Then there's the bear in the room for that....
I'm putting on the mod hat for this one.
Sex and sexuality are not the same thing. People can discuss being gay, straight, bi, poly, or ace without it being a discussion of sexual activity. To equate the two is an attempt to stifle the ability for non-hetrosexual people to talk about themselves and their stories.
The forums do not, and never will, have policies prohibiting people talking about sexuality as it relates to the game or their experiences with it. The moderation team does not conflate sexuality with sex/sexual activity and never has done.
If anyone wants to conflate the two and thus declare that discussing sexuality is inappropriate for the game/these forums, well they are fundamentally incorrect. The moderation team will not allow marginalised members of this community to be silenced more so than they already are under the guise of "appropriateness".
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The conversation about sex in the game is irrelevant to this thread. Sexual orientation and sex are not synonymous terms. Having LGBT+ characters in your game is not bringing sex into your game—it is just fleshing out a believable world. Mentioning a barbarian likes other dudes or having NPCs refer to a bard with neutral pronouns is hardly making the game sexual—it is just acknowledging that certain types of people exist in every single point in history, and they exist in your game as well.
Frankly, the entire tangent about sex in the game is not only off topic, it is actively harmful. One tool bigots use to suppress discussion of sexual identity is trying to equate conversations about identity with conversations about the act of sex. They pretend acknowledging the existence of gay people and the the romantic side of their relationship is the same as talking about those people’s genitalia or sexual activities - while hypocritically ignoring that the same poor argument could be made about discussing the non-sexual elements of heterosexual couples.
And, foolish of an argument as it is, the bigots have been very successful. People do not like talking about the act of sex, so by defining sexual identity in terms of the act of sex, those who would repress discussions of LGBT+ individuals have made many people uncomfortable talking about identity.
Maybe, rather than indulging that particular brand of hate by discussing sex in the context of a thread on identity, folks could get back on to the actual topic of the thread.
Edit: Looks like Davyd posted the same thing while I was typing this up.
And those bears never fail to mention stuff…
The reason I don’t mind the kissing is that I will slap that PC silly for kissing me and possibly kick them out of the bar, lol. They want that kind of thing, there’s a Circle of Lanterns hall just down the road.
or they might find out what it means when it says that most innkeeps are retired adventurers, lol.
Time and Place and Consequences. Those zero sessions can create that understanding — what you likely wanted to say was that people joke, and if someone is uncomfortable dealing with it, they may not speak up during a zero session. That includes the DM, whose responsibility it is to bring such things up. If they can’t do it, how will it get addressed?
And that’s outside the bonds of the game to determine. It is also a very, very USian (American, but from one country in the Americas) problem, overall.
I don’t disagree that for most, this kind of stuff is not common. I just want to point out that it is not entirely absent, and that there is no “all” involved, and much of this is building on an exchange that was there because of some implied subtext.
Those romance storylines? Voluntary and request only. Because while they are easy for me to do now, they were not initially, since I thought that meant more than just the basic will they/won’t they bit, lol.
Sexual relations is what everyone is dancing around, lol. The Sexual and Gender minorities stuff is horse crap because some folks are more prejudiced than society is.
This thread is about LGBTQ folks playing D&D. They do. For a large part, they generally don’t have the horse crap, and so their games are typically going to be a lot freer — and when they run into it at some tables, they will leave if they can’t express that stuff.
because it is part of them, and often part of their fantasy, to be recognized and seen in a world where people *don’t freak out and suddenly worry about kids*, and where else is better than in a game.
it is one of the reasons I don’t play as a player, only a DM. My games will always be safe for that. And if cishet folks can’t take it, they aren’t at my table.
Edit: and damn, I ain’t the only one.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I don't disagree.
Originally this tangent was started because people having siblings and parents meant sex which meant sexuality.
If you look back to my original stance it has been that you can express your sexuality and you can talk about it and you can have conversations, but I draw the line at having to roleplay physical contact out.
The point I was making seems to have been missed. I was highlighting that sexuality is a fundamental part peoples day to day life because everyone is surrounded by non-familial/platonic relationships. Parents have such a relationship and this can sometimes result in them having children. People fall in love and get married and their spouses will be important individuals in their life. However, it only because a matter worth commenting when it's a non-heterosexual relationship.
The point of my statement wasn't sex or reproduction, but relationships.
Consider my point clarified.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
What I'm hearing from your description is that it's not so much sexuality that's a problem for you in game, it's sexually explicit content. And I get that does present a problem. I wouldn't want to allow those elements into my game, because I don't know what other people's experiences and comfort levels are at the table and I don't know what might be triggering for someone.
So if George has two mommies or a husband, it sounds like you're fine with that. If anyone is rolling dice to try and get it on - whether it's George, his moms, or the cis/het bard - that's where you have a problem. To me, that seems like an appropriate boundary. It doesn't have to be everyone's boundary, but if those elements make anyone in your group uncomfortable, including you, then I think it's appropriate to keep them out of the game.
I won't speak for Bob_the_fish12, but this is pretty much my rule (the part I bolded in DoveArrow's response).
I'd even go beyond the "rolling dice" and include graphic roleplay. Which, I have to note, happens when you have married couples in your group on some occasions. Then I sorta call a flag and we move on.
I go about as far as flirting, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
THANK YOU!!!!
@TWForgeCleric I'm honestly not sure what you mean by it seems strange to you; I have a difficult time with understanding tone and such.
But also, I'm going to add that most of my friends are very open about their LGBTQIA+ identity, and I simply noticed that many of my openly queer friends are also the same friends who love DnD. I do agree with you though, that it shouldn't matter what someone's gender or sexuality is, it's more about the connection with the person. I don't go out of my way to ask or find out their sexual or gender identities, my friends are just very open. My queer friends often enjoying DnD is simply something I've noticed within my friend group.
Thanks for your thought on this, have a nice day!
My first thought: "I've not noticed this..."
My second thought: "Probably half the D&D club is LGBTQIA+, my campaign I am 28 sessions into DMing has 3/5 players who are LGBTQIA+... Huh."
But my main takeaway here is that I didn't notice (I knew, because they're my friends) because the game is about roleplaying another character, so the character of the players doesn't actually matter. Yes, some of the characters are gay in the game, but that manifests more as flirting and jokes than anything else because they have dragons to slay, the game's about bigger things than romantic interests!
It's also worth noting that I would say D&D attracts a high proportion of people who are ADHD and Autistic as well. I think a massive part of it is that your own personality and such matters less in D&D because you are playing a character, who might have an entirely different personality, which is used for 4-5 hours of the game time vs an hour or so of before & after chat!
In other words, it's inclusive - anyone can make a compelling and fun character to play D&D with. And they do.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!