>ordinarily, I would have said that your character is chosen by the war-chief to be his concubine. However, Rogue Githyanki has enlightened me as to how truly awful rape is ('cause before I didn't realise), so I'm pleased to say that instead they kill your character, boil them and eat them, bones and all. Not necessarily in that order. You can post on Gamegrene to say thanks

I mean, if your story REAAALLLY calls for it, then okay. Anything else is just immature, gratuitous schlock. Ask yourself, how is my story enhanced by adding a subplot involving rape. If it can make the game more interesting in some way, perhaps a layer of drama, crisis and intrigue, than fine. But if it just leads to an argument at the table, what's the point?

File 148799159981.jpg - (78.32KB , 680x949 , welcometothefunzone.jpg )

A key point to keep in mind here is player expectations and understanding. You don't, I think, need to ask a player for explicit consent to have their character be violated in any way, sexually or otherwise, because a well-composed group is one where the players know precisely what they're getting into. If you're running a violent, hentai-horror-esque ERP, then it's already understood that the PCs are at the risk of getting raped; just like how if you're running a gritty, pulpy adventure fantasy campaign it's already understood that characters are at risk of getting killed; or like how if you're running Call of Cthulhu the understanding is that characters are at risk of losing their sanity, etc.

If anything unpleasant and wildly outside of player expectation and understanding occurs in-game, that's a bad move on the GM's part. I'm not talking about surprising your players, or about taking the campaign suddenly in a drastically different direction than it's been going; I'm talking about something way out of left field, for instance, rape in a standard D&D adventure fantasy campaign. It's A) something many players would consider unpleasant and B) not part of the expectations of the group, and thus should not be included.

There are exceptions to this, but as a general rule, if you have to ask for a player's permission to do something to their character, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

I was going to put a long post but honestly, others have already made my point for me. If something is unpleasant and the event adds nothing to the game, then leave it out.

definitely, your job as a GM is to make sure everyone is enjoying the game, that also means not upsetting the players, there is a big difference between loosing a sword or a character dieing, those are challenges to be overcome, by retrieving the sword or makeing a better character/reviving the old one, they are upsetting becaus they mean you failed, but that threat of failure is what makes games fun, Rape on the otherhand doesent really have a mechanical downside to the characters, while in real life it comes with trauma a player can just say "eh nah she will be fine once she sleeps it off" but to the players it can be a deeply upsetting and ruin the game while if they are not comfortable with the topic they certainly wont be able to roleplay the scenario properly and so a rape scene adds literally nothing to the game but makes everyone involved upset
tl:dr ones a problem to the character the other is a problem to the people, you should want your players consent on such things for the simple reason of not upsetting them, because if your players come out of the game feeling worse then when they started your a shitty gm

I would say yes. Rape is a serious real world trauma, and it's not expected to happen in the normal course of a campaign. It is the normal course of a campaign that characters die, that their gear may be stolen.
Rape does not have any place at my table for this reason, and before it has one at yours, I think you should confer with *ALL* of the players, not just the one whose character you are considering having raped.

Yeah, probably the kind of thing that's just going to make half the table really uncomfortable.

RPGs are for fun. A lot of people would not find this fun. In general I find narrating anything sexual in my game weird, so the closest I'll get is a "door closes behind you two" and the cut to another scene.

Enough people have been raped in reality, or know someone who has been raped in reality, that they don't want to deal with that shit during pretendy fun time games.

At the very least, it's extremely poor GMing (also applies to the sword thing, btw)

All the (valid) real-world issues aside for the moment, there's only one question that any gamemaster needs to ask themselves when it comes down to questions about narrative control: "Does this enhance the game?"

For at least half the table it won't. At best, it'll make things awkward and uncomfortable. At worst, alienating. If you're an even moderately decent GM that should be your cue to nix it.

>>118543
This. People don't really the implications of rape; you might think its okay and the players might forget about it after a session, but in reality people carry this stuff around with them for years and it affects them in all different ways. People who joke about it, do it to characters and the like really do not understand what rape is, and - (unfortunately - it's one of those areas where unless it happens to you, you never will understand. So morality aside, I would say don't do it because you and your players will never roleplay the consequences correctly and for years to come. Sure, the character might kill the rapist, but that's not where the trauma ends in reality; sometimes it never ends. Are your players prepared to roleplay that for the rest of their characters lives?

Morality hat on, if this isn't an ERP and you're talking about rape, then you have no idea what you're talking about, the consequences, how it impacts lives and the like and it has no part of the game. And before you say "I have a friend who was raped and they're fine", no they're not and if this was true and if you really did have such a friend and knew what they were going through, you would never bring this up.

I guarantee you, if you think that you, as GM, are capable of managing a rape storyline that is not gratuitous, you are in fact NOT capable of managing a rape storyline that is not gratuitous.

Do not engage and enjoy in the Sins of the Flesh for judgement comes and the offenders will be punished by the Lord Jesus Christ.

Roleplaying games has been the bastion of evil that already led to death and mental dellusion of many Americans. Pray for the end is near. Trust in the Lord Jesus Christ your personal savior who died in the cross for our redemption. Read the bible and do good to your neighbor.

May this message remain here to save more souls. Thank you Admins and Mods, by not deleting this Word of God, you will all be blessed seven folds.

God loves you. Alleluia.

Players should all know the nature of the game before entering, if their character gets raped then that should've been a known possibility from the start.

>>121826

All things are possible in freeform roleplaying. It should not be GM burden to come up with every possible thing that could happen and prewarn "this could happen".

Instead, players should explain what is too much for them ahead of time and to avoid it. Like "please no rapes" or "please no killing" or "please no combat with cutting weapons" or "please no demons".

The thing with raping of PC is that you get a player into a situation where he is completely helpless, ad this is always very unpleasant experience. So in my games I do this only (and very rarely) when player let's me know that he agrees to have such an episode as something that shapes his/hers PC story. And so he retains a sense of agency and choice. Even then I would never be graphic about this. In other case a hint/threat of rape is enough to make a scene menacing and dark. Also I would say you should never do this if you play with people you do not know well.

Isn’t the point of rape though that it isn’t consensual? I feel like asking would ruin the weight of the situation.

While the idea of rapes are non-consensual, that idea applies to the "situation of a rape" itself.

In a typical roleplaying game session, the situation at hand is "the situation of a gaming session" where the topic of rape came up.

The difference of situation itself, means that YES, you DO need CONSENT to do so.
(Unless you are talking about performing real actual raping in a gaming session... But that's when cops get involved and that's off topic.)

Any excuse of "it's just a game" or "its fun", implies that the other side will also get enjoyment from such attempts; In that case in order to confirm that, you'll still have to ASK the player involved, essentially getting consent with that action. Otherwise you're just forcing your own opinions upon them, and that is also rapey in a sense, and not in a good way too.

>>131081

There is absolutely nothing preventing a GM saying "your character is being raped, I am the GM and I control everything, there is no stopping this"

This kind of railroading helplessness would indeed frustrate most players. A lot of players dislike this kind of GMing regarding ANY kind of event.

A player might similarly hate "NOPE, you cannot rape the barmaid, she fights you off, no matter how skilled you are" bullshit.

What I'm talking about is allowing the player to RP a fighting chance in counter-rape (or pro-rape, depending on the character) combat so that dice decide conflict like usual.

>>131090

You are also 'forcing' opinions on a player if you deny them other things they want. Like for example if a player wants their char to steal a robot and you prevent them from stealing that robot. Or if the player doesn't want their char's horse to get eaten by a dragon and you sic the dragon on the horse anyway.

Either a GM is willing to do things which could potentially upset characters, or they're not. In the latter case they can pussyfoot around walking on eggshells, but I think that could become boring.

>consent for rape

that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and I've been alive for a fucking while

now it wouldnt be rape if you had permission would it?

>>121742
So is murder and other acts of obscene cruelty that RPG characters perform constantly. This strikes me as typical SJW cancer.

File 152143253379.jpg - (10.56KB , 300x200 , rapeDie.jpg )

Isn't it fair to allow victims of attempted rape a chance to defend themself? They should be allowed defenses

>>118181
Here's the deal. The absolute deal.
You need to understand what your players want from a game, and your players need to understand what you want from a game.
If you're good friends this might come naturally, but usually it is best 'figured out' by tallking with each other. We're playing an evil campaign in a medieval setting. How would you guys feel about execution or torture in detail? How about rape? Yes? Cool. No? Okay we wont dive that far into the abyss - yet.

Asking for consent sounds retarded. Especially if it's something you do right before the deed happens. Fuck it, what is supposed to happen instead? The bandits kill a few soldiers and look to you, young paladin. Do you consent to their fuckings or will you accept death?

generally, that sort of content isn't good for the health of a game. the "fade to black" for anything significantly traumatic (i.e. describing torture, etc) is of use in which such content is in use. most groups would lean towards no on certain types of content. if one person at the table is uncomfortable with it even if others are, it is best practice to avoid rape content, detailed torture, etc.

>>131403
the "fade to black" for anything significantly traumatic (i.e. describing torture, etc) is of use in which such content is in use.

That is situational. GURPS has a second-by-second approach to resolving strangulation for example.

I'm sure anyone who has been stranged (whether adjacent to a rape or not) considers that traumatic and could be upset by roleplaying it.

On the other hand, breaking it down into pure numerical mechanics probably provides a way of processing it in a less traumatic way than the actual describing of the results of those numbers (his fingers dig into your flesh, your face turns blue) would be.

Strangulation by a mugger can be just as traumatic as being raped in an alley. While I agree that GMs should be tolerant of potentially triggering things, and ask new players if there is any potentially triggering content they should be wary of, I believe it is the player's responsibility to volunteer those guidelines or modify them as play goes forth.

With that in mind, you can resolve ANYTHING with stats. If you can roll dice instead of fade-to-black for defending against strangulation, you can roll dice instead of FTB to defend against rape.

>>121742
Wow. You're a human shaped pile of steaming pig shit aren't you? (or effective bait. If so, 8/10- high quality bait).

>they're fine", no they're not
That right there? You're literally worse than the rapist. No seriously. Not trolling. Not hyperbole. Getting shit shoved up you that you don't like is pretty standard medical protocol. It's the loss of status that accompanies rape- the idea that "you're broken forever and can never be ok again no matter what" that fucks with you. Either you lie and say it never happened (and this is the main reason people don't prosecute their rapist) or you're honest and everyone treats you like you're made of glass forevermore. And guys you're dating end up thinking "whelp, you're damaged goods". They think that because of what guys like you (or whiney little white girls who want attention) keep telling them.

Morality hat my fucking ass. You're a condescending piece of shit who thinks they know better than the people you're speaking for. Get fucked with the broad end of a rake.

I'd say that the players should have to unanimously agree for rape to be a theme/possiblity in the game before your first session. If everyone agrees raping or being raped should be part of the world, then all is fair game. If not write it out.

Personally, I'm not a fan of sexual themes in my TTRPGs. That might be all the sweaty fat dudes I play with though.

File 156291063476.jpg - (72.65KB , 343x446 , BeHonest.jpg )

>>131503
I'd say that the players should have to unanimously agree for death to be a theme/possiblity in the game before your first session. If everyone agrees killing or being killed should be part of the world, then all is fair game. If not write it out.

>>131519
I pretty much agree with this.

Before actually attempting it in an DM session, you should probably discuss it with the players beforehand. Like hey, sexual themes / death / etc could be possible, including that it could be forced on your character without their knowledge or consent.

If agreed upon, in most cases the victim should still be allowed at least one or several chance(s) to either resist the attacker, or call for some form of help (Whether that be from other PCs or NPCs). It is dependent on the situation at hand, obviously - but don't just drop it on a random player without at least giving them a heads up that it could happen during the course of a game.