One of the Dungeons and Dragons forums of which I am a member recently contained a (now-deleted) thread about how many game masters should immediately ban any players who sought to act out sexual assault. By convention, consensual scenes are usually done in the "fade to black" scenario; anything other than that has no place at a game table.
For the most part the comments were supportive but of course there were a few dissenters, predictably male players.
"All right, so if I'm ever stuck in one of your boring games, I know how to get out of it."
"Fifty percent of the players I know, including myself, have or are raping in Dungeons and Dragons. It's cool and it's fun, okay, but the really funny part when we usually cry from laughing is when we torture with raw supreme fantasy. Those are some of my best moments, when everyone finds out a new kind of sick torture."
"It's a fantasy role playing game. Why is killing okay but raping isn't?"
Most role-playing games are built on the trope of Good Versus Evil. If the character you play is a good person, it's expected that you perform good acts. Wipe out the squad of goblins that's terrorizing a village. Hunt down the Black Knight who is trying to take over the kingdom. That sort of thing. In rare games where the players and the Game Master have agreed that their characters will be evil, the tone will change accordingly, but there are still rules that should be followed.
One person was quick to point out that people who fantasize about such things often end up doing so in reality. "One guy I knew was known for playing characters who would go out of their way to assault NPCs. Five years later he was picked up by the police for, guess what."
I've heard the excuse many times about how men who role-play sexual assault in games are merely channeling their fantasies in a productive manner. Wrong. Like real-life bedroom role-play, such a thing requires the consent of all involved, from the Game Master on down. Otherwise it makes players uncomfortable and might even dissuade them from further play in the future.
I'm no stranger to this myself. In my very first role-playing game experience, my character was captured and assaulted. To add insult to injury, the child she bore as a result of that assault turned evil despite her efforts to raise it properly, and became a recurring villain of the piece. Eventually the game fell apart; the Game Master had too many work commitments at the time, and I was tired of having my character taken advantage of. It was a relief.
A good Game Master builds drama within the campaign by having consequences for all of the characters' actions. Wiping out the goblin squad might attract the attention of a larger force of goblins that is nearby. Bringing down the Black Knight might cause an even worse evil to fill that void. But there should be consequences to negative actions too. The rules state that certain types of characters lose their powers if they commit acts that are against their code, for example.
Therefore there should also be rules that if a character commits an act beyond what is considered acceptable in game, that character is punished accordingly. The player should be talked to, or even removed from the game entirely if applicable. No exceptions. Only then will players realize that they can't get away with it.
The following was suggested by a player who had attended a recent convention.
"The X/O Method. Each player gets a blank index card with an X on one side and an O on the other. If someone gets really into character and gets upset they can flash the "O" to let everyone know that they are okay and it's all part of the character. It a player gets uncomfortable for any reason at any time they can throw the "X" card. If they do, everything stops and gets retconned [reversed and replayed] immediately. Anyone who doesn't abide by this is not welcome at our table."
Good call.
No comments:
Post a Comment